Implementing the Ministry of Truth: the "fake news" scare

[Ausmumof3]

Alas I do think there's an uncomfortable amount of truth in that sticking like a nasty thorn in media's backside.

 

I'm curious how people think they can regain trust.

 

For example, if you have any news source you mostly sorta trust - why is that? What have they done to make you think them worthy of it?

I don't fully trust anyone but I mostly trust ABC (not the dot com one the Australian one) and BBC to only publish stuff that actually happened. They might still have bias or spin on the stories but they aren't in the habit of rushing to get a story out about what never happened. Part of what makes me trust them more is that if they do have an error they will publish a retraction.

 

Overall what works best for me is going to multiple sources even some with obvious bias. Generally by reading from the different perspectives you can find the common information of core facts that you can assume are somewhat true.

[Ausmumof3]

The bolded was a political lie. It didn't emerge out of the media. And I've read plenty of journalism over the years digging into and exposing this lie.

 

News outlets which give inaccurate info - as in the Ohio attacker - but then make a correction as more accurate info comes to light - are not engaged in 'fake news'.

Yes! At first I was thinking yes weapons of mass destruction but actually the news reports only ever said "such and such stated this is what exists" not that it did exist. If that makes sense.

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

Overall what works best for me is going to multiple sources even some with obvious bias. Generally by reading from the different perspectives you can find the common information of core facts that you can assume are somewhat true.

 

I do this too, but a lot of news agencies get their news from the same source. Read about the Associated Press.  Doing a quick search (wikipedia for full disclosure) they say this: As of 2007, news collected by the AP was published and republished by more than 1,700 newspapers, in addition to more than 5,000 television and radio broadcasters.  So who is not using their news?  KWIM?

[Ausmumof3]

I do this too, but a lot of news agencies get their news from the same source. Read about the Associated Press. Doing a quick search (wikipedia for full disclosure) they say this: As of 2007, news collected by the AP was published and republished by more than 1,700 newspapers, in addition to more than 5,000 television and radio broadcasters. So who is not using their news? KWIM?

Yep I do. If possible I will look for a paper close to the source. It's not perfect for sure but I think it's a big call to move from that to saying that most of the news is made up and totally untrustworthy.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yep I do. If possible I will look for a paper close to the source. It's not perfect for sure but I think it's a big call to move from that to saying that most of the news is made up and totally untrustworthy.

 

But what I'm asking is which newspapers don't use AP?  With that many....

[Ausmumof3]

But what I'm asking is which newspapers don't use AP? With that many....

They probably all use it. What I'm guessing though is that where there is a local event they are going to do some local fact checking as well. You know when we had a bushfire they were all over the place. Sure they made mistakes but the reporting was closer to accurate than the newspapers from around the world that were regurgitating.

 

Kind of like how you read history source documents and you assume that where the authors are talking about stuff close to where they are and in their own lifetime they are more trustworthy than when they are talking about something that happened in a country they've never been in.

 

So if I want to know more about something I will try to search for a news source from that country. Sometimes you just can't find something of course or the government of the country controls the news then it's going to be harder to read between the lines about what's really happening.

[Pawz4me]

But what I'm asking is which newspapers don't use AP?  With that many....

 

First, there's a reason so many papers use AP. They are, as far as I'm aware, a widely trusted source. At least by reasonable people standards.

 

Secondly, I believe what Ausmomof3 is saying is to look at local sources. So, for example, if you're reading about something that happened in Columbus, Ohio you bring up their local newspaper(s) and TV stations and see what the locals are reporting. They aren't using AP (although AP very well may be using them). If it's something from another part of the world look to see if you can find an English language version of their local news outlets, etc. See if what's being reported locally lines up with what AP and other national/international news services are reporting.

 

It's not rocket science to suss this stuff out. It's really not.

[lauraw4321]

I think there needs to be a distinction in this thread between fake news and sloppy/too fast/inaccurate reporting. Fake news is simply making up facts, or picking a few facts and making up a story that has no basis in reality. "Bad" news or journalism is when information is our forward without fact-checking, researching, challenging, and digging.

 

There was recently a tornado near where I live. There were adults and children who died in tornado. Initial reports, which were picked up nationally, stated that children died in an all-night childcare center. In fact, the people who died in the childcare center had fled their mobile homes and were seeking shelter in the building, which was thought to be safer than a mobile home. 

 

While the story was eventually corrected, most people I've spoken with only heard the initial (incorrect) version. That is bad journalism. Not fake news. 

 

The examples given of the Ohio campus shooter and Weapons of Mass Destruction were bad journalism. Not fake news.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I think once bad or sloppy journalism happens too often, people become more skeptical of all journalists, especially because we fewer people hear about the retractions than the original story. They need to slow down and focus more on accuracy than on ratings by being first.

[JumpyTheFrog]

I know when reading the newspaper I have often wondered whether the reporter had any curiousity. So often there will be obvious questions that they didn't appear to ask that would put the story in much better context. Let me give a made up example: a story about kids being left home alone that die in a house fire, but leaving out whether the kids were little or teens.

[SKL]

Another category of fake news IMO is where the journalists cut and paste to make it look like someone said A when, in context, they were obviously saying B.  This happens too much and is published on all the major media sources.  And yes, it influences people in problematic ways.  Also, just deciding not to report something that is important, giving the impression that the outlets that do report it are lying.

 

We need to be able to look at multiple sources including sources with different biases, so we can weigh and decide what is most credible.

[SKL]

I hope very much this isn't an allusion to Soros conspiracy theories, which sail dangerously close to anti-Semitic waters...

 

Um, no.  What he does with his money has nothing to do with his religion, it has to do with his political persuasion, which is not unique to one religious persuasion.

 

If you are trying to say nobody is allowed to question the actions or motives of a Jewish person because that would be anti-Semitic, that smacks of censorship or perhaps bullying.

[JumpyTheFrog]

 

Are you referencing 1984? Because from memory they were destroying and rewriting books, erasing every reference.

I once read an article by a skip tracer (their job is to track down people in hiding). He stated that most people in hiding think they need to go completely off the grid. He said a bettr approach is to leave a big trail of false information: have addresses and phones in multiple states, etc. Wading through the false info slows people like him down.

 

Similarly, I think the 1984 approach of book burning is much too obvious. If I were an evil villian, it might work better for me to flood the media enough fake and poorly done stories that nobody believes the real stories anymore. In other words, rather than have an official propaganda media source nobody believes, discredit the existing sources.

 

On top of that, finding a way to manipulate search engines would be useful.

 

I guess my point is that while technically censorship is news suppression by the government, various other actions by the government could have a similar effect. Likewise, Big Corporations could use the same approach if they wanted to. Hence my beliefe that we need to be skeptical of anyone with that much money, influence, and power, whether they are government or corporate. I don't understand the idea that we can trust the government but not the corporations and vice versa.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I disagree with these statements. Do you have proof?

 

Zero Hedge: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-29/unmasking-the-men-behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog

 

http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=8947

 

Project Veritas:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/14/congress.acorn/index.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/james-okeefe-agrees-to-pay-100000-settlement-088620

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2009/12/acorn_workers_cleared_of_illeg.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/#4815f1683a78

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134525412/Segments-Of-NPR-Gotcha-Video-Taken-Out-Of-Context

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2011/03/the_inevitable_backlash_agains.html

[Serenade]

I think they make mistakes sometimes or I get annoyed about how they cover something but that is simple disagreement and not actually thinking they are "lying."

While many times main stream media don't exactly lie, their stories are biased because they often leave out critical information. It's like when you ask a kid if he had candy before dinner, and he answers, "I had cookies." Doesn't mean he didn't have candy, too.

[Carol in Cal.]

While many times main stream media don't exactly lie, their stories are biased because they often leave out critical information. It's like when you ask a kid if he had candy before dinner, and he answers, "I had cookies." Doesn't mean he didn't have candy, too.

It's really instructive to read the WSJ and NYT versions of the same story, for instance.  

[Barb_]

Another category of fake news IMO is where the journalists cut and paste to make it look like someone said A when, in context, they were obviously saying B.  This happens too much and is published on all the major media sources.  And yes, it influences people in problematic ways.  Also, just deciding not to report something that is important, giving the impression that the outlets that do report it are lying.

 

We need to be able to look at multiple sources including sources with different biases, so we can weigh and decide what is most credible.

 

I agree with your last sentence and I also agree that obvious twisting of sources is a problem.  Local news sources seem to be more likely to do this.  They are desperate for readership and a lot of news has morphed into infotainment to everyone's chagrin. I'd like to state though, that FAKE news, made up out of whole cloth is a completely different animal.  News infotainment was the gateway drug which primed readerships to accept completely false statements and stories.  I'm pissed that we find ourselves here.  But SKL, we do ourselves no favors when we dilute the term FAKE by scooping up all prior infotainment articles and lumping them in with Infowars and their ilk.  It's not just a matter of degree; real, actual FAKE news is an overt attempt at revolution and control.  There's a place for both discussions, but let's keep them separate.

[Ravin]

Thank you for stating this.

 

Look closely at those who are accusing others of "fake news." They are the ones guilty of propaganda.

 

In other words, "He who smelt it, dealt it."

 

Unless, of course, the real malefactors are the ones who set the fake news machines rolling, knowing eventually that the mainstream media would call them on it, giving them fodder in future for closing the fist on legitimate information because at that point everyone knows fake news is a thing.

 

Plans within plans.

[Happy2BaMom]

First Amendment of the Constitution: 

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

 

Freedom of speech means the U.S. government cannot make laws or hand out punishments designed to restrict the rights of individuals to say what they want.

 

That's it. 

 

The fact that some corporations do not want to give money to support a web page does equate to restriction of free speech / censorship. 

 

The fact that a search engine changes its policies to produce different results in a search does not equate to restriction of free speech / censorship. 
 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Happy2BaMom

[Ravin]

I'm just curious how the logic works where it's OK for a private business that is an open discussion platform to censor, but it is not OK for a bakery to decline to decorate a same-sex wedding cake.

 

Sigh. Because it's okay for a bakery to not sell wedding cakes if they don't want to. It's not okay for them to pick and choose who they sell the wedding cakes to. 

[gardenmom5]

Sigh. Because it's okay for a bakery to not sell wedding cakes if they don't want to. It's not okay for them to pick and choose who they sell the wedding cakes to. 

 

explain to me how this works with the designers currently going on about how they wont' dress melania trump.  they are choosing to whom they will sell dresses.  including tom ford - who was asked to make her a dress several years ago - and he refused.

[redsquirrel]

I don't know if anyone actually cares, but some local reporters, as in local to the community where it happened, did a deep dive on the 'pizzagate' story. It's pretty interesting to trace it. 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pizzagate-from-rumor-to-hashtag-to-gunfire-in-dc/2016/12/06/4c7def50-bbd4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_comet-reconstruct-852pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.81fb3c5b7ed1

 

 

[Butter]

But what I'm asking is which newspapers don't use AP?  With that many....

 

Most of them use AP (and Reuters) at least some of the time.  Where you'll find articles not from those sources, it'll generally be a local sort of thing.  Generally there will be an attribution that the source was AP or Reuters.

 

Interestingly, I have noticed that even when the source material is AP and Reuters and the general content will be the same across media examples, various words will be changed here and there.  Only when comparing examples is it obvious.  The bias and tone is clear (either direction) from those little changes.

 

Fake news isn't a mistake that needs to be corrected or an error from a source that was believed.  Fake news is outright made up stuff.  During the course of the election, I fact checked a LOT of articles.  I could generally find the source of fake news (they are often just copy and pastes of each other with misspellings and grammar errors intact).  I could also generally find what was totally made up.  For example, fake news not related to the election, there is an article that has been copied and pasted many times about how the creator of Pokemon did it because he hates his parents for raising him Christian and he created the creatures for devil worshipping purposes.  The article claims he said this in a TimeAsia 1999 interview.  I actually know a woman IRL who will not allow her son to play Pokemon Go because of that article.  She believes it is true.  The problem?  He never said that.  The transcript of the interview is available on-line and in fact he created Pokemon from his obsession as a child with bugs.  No religion involved.  In fact, he didn't discuss religion in the interview at all.

 

One problem I've noted with the proliferation of fake news is the number of satire "news" sites and mixed satire and real news sites.  Most do explain they are at least partially satire on their about page.  But those satire articles get spread around as if they are real.  Most people know The Onion is satire (and even so there are occasional people who insist JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter to make all kids witches and they know this is true because they read an article about it... which was in The Onion), but there are so many other sites out there now, too.

[redsquirrel]

explain to me how this works with the designers currently going on about how they wont' dress melania trump.  they are choosing to whom they will sell dresses.  including tom ford - who was asked to make her a dress several years ago - and he refused.

 

designers at that level are not public businesses. They pick and chose clients all the time. They are privately contracted to make individual items for people. They get to decide what they will and will not work with. If they have a store that is open to the public, anyone is allowed to walk in and buy a dress. So, if Melania Trump wants a Tom Ford dress, she is free to buy one off the rack like anyone else. He can't stop her.

 

 

I looked it up and he actually did this years ago. He was asked to dress her a long time ago and declined because she's 'not his image', so it wasn't anything at the time to do with politics.

Edited December 7, 2016 by redsquirrel

[Ravin]

I'm not too worried about private companies making their own rules.  There will always be another private company to take over where the others leave off.  I'm more concerned about the vibes I'm getting about Big Brother needing to come in and fix stuff.  No thank you.  And that includes Big Moneybags running things behind the scenes.

 

Government must be restrained from interfering in our lives. But government also needs to restrain Corporations, something they do a shitty job of currently. 

 

What we need is a Constitutional amendment to clarify that the Bill of Rights are human rights reserved for the people, and limiting how corporations can exercise those rights to the detriment of individual freedoms. 

[SKL]

I agree with your last sentence and I also agree that obvious twisting of sources is a problem.  Local news sources seem to be more likely to do this.  They are desperate for readership and a lot of news has morphed into infotainment to everyone's chagrin. I'd like to state though, that FAKE news, made up out of whole cloth is a completely different animal.  News infotainment was the gateway drug which primed readerships to accept completely false statements and stories.  I'm pissed that we find ourselves here.  But SKL, we do ourselves no favors when we dilute the term FAKE by scooping up all prior infotainment articles and lumping them in with Infowars and their ilk.  It's not just a matter of degree; real, actual FAKE news is an overt attempt at revolution and control.  There's a place for both discussions, but let's keep them separate.

 

The distinction is rather new, and I'm not sure I agree that the word "fake" in this context has a decided definition.

 

That said, I think it is actually more dangerous to have dishonest journalism on the accepted media outlets, because people are more likely to believe untruths in that context.

 

By "keeping them separate," the effect will be to downplay the importance or even pretend away the dishonesty and sloppy reporting of the mainstream media.  (FTR when I say mainstream, I am including both liberal and conservative leaning outlets that have a high number of consumers, because both are guilty of this.)

 

Stuff that is completely made up out of ether is more obvious to most people.  The old, if it seems to good or too weird to be true, it probably is; at least people will get curious about who is saying this and is this being reported anywhere else.  Sure, there will always be some people who believe "aliens impregnate 5-year-old," but people with that little skepticism are not the people we need to worry about IMO.

 

Let's use Pizzagate as an example.  How many people IRL believe for sure that pizzagate is happening as described on youtube?  I mean, there are probably people who have become curious about it, but nearly everyone will remain skeptical until they hear from a more credible source.  We do know that child sex trafficking exists, most of us don't know exactly how that works, so some people will be curious to hear if there is more.  Some people may want to be informed if there has been an investigation.  Normal people will not go further than that.  Regarding the business establishments that may be harmed, they can sue for libel, make the stories disappear, and shut the publishers down.  Similar to Melania Trump threatening to sue people for publishing the "Barron Trump is autistic" stories.

 

[FTR I did not hear anything about pizza until after the election.  Before that, I saw something about one of the candidates being involved in a sex ring, and I rolled my eyes and moved on, because given the source, the extremeness of the story, and the political context, it did not merit any of my brain cells.  I believe the vast majority of Americans who saw the headline reacted similarly.]

 

So yes, bring people's attention to the fact that "fake news sites" exist and here are some ways to identify them.  But while doing this, let's not give the mainstream media a free pass or even a boost.

Edited December 7, 2016 by SKL

[Ravin]

I think this post gets at the heart of the matter.

 

But when lists of "fake news" sites include websites simply because they are from "the other side of the aisle" there is real reason for concern with the response.

 

The only people I have heard talk in terms of what political agenda a site has being relevant to whether or not to believe them are conservatives like my father who have bought hook line and sinker that there is a "liberal media agenda" trying to brainwash them.

 

Those that check facts rather than opinions find fewer false facts on the liberal than the conservative side of things. It's perfectly reasonable to disagree in opinion; one can come to different conclusions from the same set of facts based upon different worldview and values. But when your starting point is person A standing on top of a pile of well-researched, verified facts, and person B standing on top of a bunch of stuff some guy made up in his basement and confusing conjecture with fact, then all person B has is appeals to emotion and authority, etc. He can still win that way, but all that will do is persuade more people to believe the pile of lies.

[Slartibartfast]

While many times main stream media don't exactly lie, their stories are biased because they often leave out critical information. It's like when you ask a kid if he had candy before dinner, and he answers, "I had cookies." Doesn't mean he didn't have candy, too.

That's why I read more than one. I have a degree in journalism.

[Slartibartfast]

explain to me how this works with the designers currently going on about how they wont' dress melania trump.  they are choosing to whom they will sell dresses.  including tom ford - who was asked to make her a dress several years ago - and he refused.

Not "dressing" someone is not the same as not selling someone a dress. She can go in a store and buy a dress but the designer won't give them their individual attention.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

explain to me how this works with the designers currently going on about how they wont' dress melania trump.  they are choosing to whom they will sell dresses.  including tom ford - who was asked to make her a dress several years ago - and he refused.

 

It is fairly simple.  Melania Trump is not a protected class and refusing service to an individual is not the same as refusing service to a class of people. 

 

Seriously, a couple of minutes on Google (or a search engine of your choice) will give you enough information to understand discrimination laws and how they work.

[SKL]

It is also worth noting that "fake news" would never have gotten any footing were it not for the fact that so many people stopped trusting mainstream media.  So in that sense, MSM nurtured fake news from obscurity into a "newsworthy" topic.

[Slartibartfast]

But what I'm asking is which newspapers don't use AP?  With that many....

There is nothing wrong with AP.

 

AP and Reuters are for newspapers that do not have the budget to employ correspondents in foreign countries or other states. They will run a story and other papers will pick it up.

 

EVERYONE uses AP and Reuters at one point or another because they sometimes have a reporter where no one else does.

 

There are similar things for broadcast journalism such as http://newsource.cnn.com/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f

 

There was recently something on Conan O'Brian about local anchors all saying the same thing, that is because they all were using the same service.

[Ravin]

I never agreed to that.

 

Lying is not illegal.

 

Slander is.

Libel is.

Incite to riot is. (For example, we can't scream fire in a theatre or bomb in a plane without getting in deep doodoo for it.)

 

But even so, there's nothing stopping people from committing those acts. They just have to risk facing their day in court and the possible results of that day. They can't close down your business because yesterday you said or wrote something someone else thinks is slander or libel or a lie.

 

Where is the due process to this suppression? What qualifies as worthy of being suppressed out if hand without that due process? What other forms of expression shall we decide might as well be included in that proactive suppression? And who decides what and who should be suppressed?

 

When we are talking about private actors like Google, Twitter, and Facebook, they don't need to have due process, because they are private actors.

[Slartibartfast]

It is also worth noting that "fake news" would never have gotten any footing were it not for the fact that so many people stopped trusting mainstream media.  So in that sense, MSM nurtured fake news from obscurity into a "newsworthy" topic.

No, that is not true. Fake news has always been a thing, there are tabloids in the supermarket and there are urban legends that date back over a century.

 

There has been a long history of conspiracy in the US, did no one watch XFiles? It isn't a matter of the media doing something to lose people's trust, it is a matter of people wanting more than is there.

 

They aren't selling truth.

 

A Sandy Hook denier was just arrested for making death threats to parent a parent of a child killed in Sandy Hook.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/07/truther-arrested-after-death-threats-made-parent-sandy-hook-shooting-vicitm/95085868/

 

A child of one of the Sandy Hook victims was only recently denouncing Alex Jones

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/28/daughter-of-newtown-victim-to-trump-denounce-alex-jones-sandy-hook-denier/?utm_term=.e7a05fbf7a3d

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[Charlie]

There is no monolithic 'they' who are suppressing the opposing news. 

 

I had a brother in law who always imposed "Greek restaurant owners" for "they" whenever "they" came up. This way, I'm reading about the Greek restaurant owners who are suppressing information by pestering Google until they only provide things that are favorable to Greek restaurants. It's a beautifully run conspiracy and no one is the wiser! Before you know it, we'll all be eating feta cheese and American cheese will go out of favor and no one will know why. But olive sales will be sky high. Mark my words.  ;-)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It is also worth noting that "fake news" would never have gotten any footing were it not for the fact that so many people stopped trusting mainstream media.  So in that sense, MSM nurtured fake news from obscurity into a "newsworthy" topic.

 

Nope.  Fake news became more prevalent due to the internet and a combination of some people being a bit nuts and looking for sources to validate their nuttiness, while others are just a but dimwitted and/or have a case of the red ass and will believe anything about someone they don't like.  There is also a third group that will always expect zebras instead pf horses when they hear hoof beats.

 

[SKL]

My point is that MSM created a big gap by its lack of integrity and honesty.  The big gap was an opportunity for whoever wanted to vie to fill that space.  Some of those will be people with integrity, some people without integrity.  Now the consumer needs to figure out which is which.

 

So in other words, rather than fuss about how to stop some people who are vying to fill that gap, MSM would be better off fixing its own problems, which it currently seems completely unwilling or unable to do.

[ktgrok]

THANK. YOU.

 

Fake news has been a thing since forever. (National Enquirer, anyone?) I'm gobsmacked by the recent attempts to advocate censorship and curtail the First Amendment. Is this still the United States of America, or not?

 

How on earth is a private company (aka google, Facebook, etc) choosing what stories they will promote, and how they do so, censorship?

 

Censorship by the government is bad, yes. 

 

Private companies doing what they want is that free market thing conservatives are always talking about. 

[Slartibartfast]

My point is that MSM created a big gap by its lack of integrity and honesty.  The big gap was an opportunity for whoever wanted to vie to fill that space.  Some of those will be people with integrity, some people without integrity.  Now the consumer needs to figure out which is which.

 

So in other words, rather than fuss about how to stop some people who are vying to fill that gap, MSM would be better off fixing its own problems, which it currently seems completely unwilling or unable to do.

No, it didn't. People just perceived that it did because people on conspiracy radio programs told people that it was being dishonest when it wasn't.

[SKL]

I don't know if the government currently has any statements or intentions about fake news, but I do know that in the not-so-distant past, the US government has attempted to impose controls on freedom of the press.  There was some concern that had powers not shifted, that would be an issue again.

 

So like I said before, I really don't care if an individual company decides to do xyz in furtherance of its own standards, but I'm hearing vibes of something more sweeping and less democratic.  I don't think it's crazy to be on the alert for possible government intrusion.

[SKL]

No, it didn't. People just perceived that it did because people on conspiracy radio programs told people that it was being dishonest when it wasn't.

 

OK ... you are entitled to your opinion.

 

I for one would love to see them do some real self-examination and self-improvement.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't know if the government currently has any statements or intentions about fake news, but I do know that in the not-so-distant past, the US government has attempted to impose controls on freedom of the press.  There was some concern that had powers not shifted, that would be an issue again.

 

So like I said before, I really don't care if an individual company decides to do xyz in furtherance of its own standards, but I'm hearing vibes of something more sweeping and less democratic.  I don't think it's crazy to be on the alert for possible government intrusion.

 

Such as?

[bibiche]

I don't know if anyone actually cares, but some local reporters, as in local to the community where it happened, did a deep dive on the 'pizzagate' story. It's pretty interesting to trace it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/pizzagate-from-rumor-to-hashtag-to-gunfire-in-dc/2016/12/06/4c7def50-bbd4-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_comet-reconstruct-852pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.81fb3c5b7ed1

They use frozen dough?!! Now *that* is sinister.

[ktgrok]

...and that is different from the function of the Ministry of Truth exactly how? O.K, it's (possibly, perhaps likely) not tied to the government. In many ways it could be significantly worse. At some point, they could control the direction of everything, making them the de facto government.

 

So....google has always guided what search results you get. Always. Before, you were fine with it. But now, you are not fine with it, and it is a violation of free speech, and you predict Google may take over the government of the USA. 

 

Um, yeah. 

 

Got it. 

[Slartibartfast]

I don't know if the government currently has any statements or intentions about fake news, but I do know that in the not-so-distant past, the US government has attempted to impose controls on freedom of the press. There was some concern that had powers not shifted, that would be an issue again.

 

So like I said before, I really don't care if an individual company decides to do xyz in furtherance of its own standards, but I'm hearing vibes of something more sweeping and less democratic. I don't think it's crazy to be on the alert for possible government intrusion.

The current PEOTUS has talked about curtailing the press and I do think it is a concern.

[gardenmom5]

It is fairly simple.  Melania Trump is not a protected class and refusing service to an individual is not the same as refusing service to a class of people. 

 

Seriously, a couple of minutes on Google (or a search engine of your choice) will give you enough information to understand discrimination laws and how they work.

wow - was the sarcasm really necessary?

[ktgrok]

Mainstream media, as well as Google and Twitter are able to manipulate the public by the subject and manner in which they report news and search results. Twitter and Youtube have banned a number of conservatives (and in Twitter's case, shadowbanning, in which followers simply "disappear" without an outright ban, as in the case of cartoonist Scott Adams).

 

After the election, the "fake news" meme really took off, targeting many sites which happened to lean conservative. News sites such as Zero Hedge, Breitbart, and Project Veritas were targeted as well as many other smaller blogs. 

Ok, lets start with Twitter..yeah, they banned a bunch of white supremacists who were harassing other people to the point of it becoming possibly a legal matter. Not "conservatives".

 

Second, just to take one of those, Project Veritas has been shown to be fake. Rather, maliciously edited video purposely manipulated to produce false narratives.So yeah, fake news. 

[Slartibartfast]

I had a brother in law who always imposed "Greek restaurant owners" for "they" whenever "they" came up. This way, I'm reading about the Greek restaurant owners who are suppressing information by pestering Google until they only provide things that are favorable to Greek restaurants. It's a beautifully run conspiracy and no one is the wiser! Before you know it, we'll all be eating feta cheese and American cheese will go out of favor and no one will know why. But olive sales will be sky high. Mark my words. ;-)

I welcome our new Greek restaurant overlords!

Edited December 7, 2016 by Slartibartfast

[ktgrok]

I disagree with these statements. Do you have proof?

 

Withotu even bothering to google, I can tell you that Bannon, who ran Brietbard until recently, said his very own self that it was a platform for the alt right. Or do you disagree with the guy who ran it?

[SKL]

Fairness doctrine, equal time rule ....