The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

The UK is more closely tracked and monitored than almost anywhere else on the planet. They are busy installing number plate recognition speed cameras across pretty much the entirety of the motorway network (as well as raising money through fines if anyone makes a mistake, they also consistently give them detailed tracking info on where people are going, wonder what that will get used for?). We already have more CCTV cameras per head than anywhere else. The censorship of the internet is just the latest thing, and yet no one really questions it... of course all this censorship is cleverly framed with emotive moral arguments which make it very difficult to argue against. It's either 'protection against terrorists', or to 'protect the children'. The fact the UK has given itself the right to hold people without charge (an 'anti terror' measure)... well I could go on for a long time on this subject.

Trump recently paid off a company to keep somewhere under 1000 jobs in Indiana. Discussing a deal. Tax cuts /for them woo! People are writing it off as a victory...

Now all a company needs to do is suggest they'll move jobs or factories etc to other countries (with or without actual intention) and know the Government will give them tax breaks. Worse yet? This company is pretty open about their plan with the future profit to automize their lines more.

Obviously pushing censorship laws to deal with fake news isn't a good idea, and whenever somebody declares a "war on X", then that's sort of a red flag by itself, but you do acknowledge that fake news are a real problem, do you?

When huge amounts of people are given lies as facts, often by somebody with a hidden agenda, then that is a problem.
Censorship obviously isn't the way to go, but something has to be done? Somehow lies have to be marked as what they are?
Facebook, Youtube, etc, absolutely do have a moral obligation, and may need a legal obligation pushed onto them, to somehow prevent people from ending up in a filter bubble of lies.

I've signed the petition against it. Parliament refused to debate it. I'm not a happy panda.

Nooooooooooooooo. No moral obligation to censor what you think is a lie. We've been told lies since the beginning of the language (check the bible) .The good thing about this time is the democratisation of lies it is much better now than when you were only told the lies of the kings.

There is no subjective opinion involved here. I don't "think" that 1+1=3 is a lie. There is no discussion involved. It's a clear fact.
Same when I tell you that I am writing this post from the hidden moon village that your government is hiding from you.
Or when somebody publishes news how the pope endorsed Trump.
Or how a 13 year old russian german girl was raped by arabic men in Germany in January.
Or how the German politican Renate Künast recently made a statement how she is supportive of a refugee who is likely responsible for an a real rape/murder that recently happend.

I am not on the moon (I wish), the pope actually warned people of Trump, the 13 year old girl is fine and Renate Künast has taken legal actions against the people claiming she said something she never said.
There are many more examples of this in the recent past.

An objectively false fact that is packaged as a real looking news, aimed to have a propaganda effect is a bad thing.
It doesn't need censorship, but it needs correction asap and when you are running an internet platform like Facebook and you see how your users are lied to then you absolutely need to consider that a problem.

If somebody were to post a thread in this forums stating that Uber has stolen most of the KS money and are scammers then the moderation of this forums would be obligated to correct that as well, because it simply isn't true.

I don't need anybody to tell me that you're lying when you say 1+1=3. I know no newspaper that tell the clear truth without bias towards their political interest.

Newspapers actually have at least some obligation to tell you the real facts.
Sure authors may be influenced by their political views and chose formulations and presentations of the facts that suite their views, but it's one thing to focus on the parts of the facts that support your own agenda and an entirely different thing to just make up facts that fit with your worldview.

You are basically saying that anybody should be free to spread whatever crazy propaganda they want, no matter how obviously wrong?

*drops in unexpectedly*
But that implies all newspapers are the same with regards to quality, whereas it's clear that Fox news, or Facebook are far worse than, say, CNN.

-

See, here's the reason this 'fake news' stuff is completely ridiculous: I think CNN is the worst of those three, with Facebook a close second for "completely useless garbage that I occasionally browse for the lols". Fox News is by no means perfect, but they aren't the level of sold out that CNN is, or the inane stupidity that is Facebook. That's my opinion, supported by the set of facts I started with and my worldview. You start banning/censoring distributors over specific publications, and I guarantee it will be biased for one side or the other. This is politics, after all. These morons have the rights to rezone districts and it makes for absolute madness each cycle. Let's trust them with less stuff and get the government off the backs of the regular peeps.

I don't think the fake news problematic is about Fox News or CNN, or about any other "real" news outlet that actually has journalists working for them that are doing actual journalistic work.

It's about "news" sources that make up stuff entirely, without any regard to journalistic practices, with the goal of:
- Create viral shitstorms that yield lots of clicks to make money via ads
- Have an active propaganda effect of some sort

In both cases the authors know they are telling people lies. Neither Fox News nor CNN or any other actual journalistic news source should behave like that and when do they should get into trouble.

"Obama is bringing ruin with these policies" is a headline affected by bias but assuming said policy exists is rooted in fact.

"Obama is a demon-monkey sent by the High Council of Krypton to undermine human society on Earth" is a headline both affected by bias but also not rooted in this reality (or any that I'm aware of).

Let's not twist "fake news" into "news I think is biased and can call fake to discredit it on that ground alone".

Let's not twist "fake news" into "fake news" then. What about sources they'll say are fake, but it isn't calling Obama a space alien, but rather questioning his documentation? They can question that it's "made up" when it can be "argued" and on that grounds alone censor it. Any "Bill Clinton rape allegations" aren't "proven" so censor all, but "Trump rape allegations" are permitted. Or even vice-versa. It'd be great if everyone were forced to include clearly in introducing the topic that they were allegations, biased, source with chance of error, ect, but the mainstream media have been ignoring that **** for decades now so it'd have to start with them if anyone.

Nope.

The problem with fake news is that established journalism is losing ground: fewer people buy newspapers and ad revenue is steadily decreasing. People get their news online, but that barely pays (also: adblock).

The result is that more has to be done with fewer resources, against a competing medium with a far greater response time (read: social media). Printing a newspaper? Takes several hours. Factchecking and writing an article? A few hours. Angry tweet? a minute or two.

And so, is it that weird that main stream media takes over facebook news without extensive factchecks? It's not like facts give them extra market value, or Fox would've been out of business by now. Especially if you consider that a site like The Onion can pump out "news" faster than any sane journalist can factcheck. And the occasional North Korea outrage does give clicks, and if it's fake nobody really cares. Donald Trump only took it to the next level, employing troll tactics to dominate the regular media and the social media.

And guess what? it worked. Because that's the worst part of fake news: it works.

"the sources they'll say" is a nice catch-all to deride sources you don't feel have a valid backing. Who are "they". It's a matter of perspective.

My examples were concrete.

That said, questioning the birthplace of a man who's held office in a country where it's law to be a national of that country is clickbait at best, and yes, arguably fake news considering the complete lack of evidence behind it.

Rape allegations are another matter, and should be treated with the severity they deserve, instead of being tossed into a forum thread to invoke tension (and create a fake hypocritical stance in which people apparently don't condemn two men for potential sexual assaults). Bad form.

not to metion, @thetrophysystem you're evoking censorship already having taken place mandated by hillary/obama. this is exactly what we mean when we say fake news. you gotta stop believing this crap. trust me if stuff really were being cencored : you wouldn't know about it

that's kinda the whole point.

if half of a population knows something the other doesn't that's not what you call censorship

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that. I was hypothetically saying what it would be like. It isn't happening now, because it isn't allowed. If it were, you WOULDN'T be hearing about it.

They aren't. Hillary Clinton told a court a victim was fantasizing about it. Bill Clinton has allegations, and nobody is taking them seriously. If they aren't being taken severely already, nothing I'm going to do will **** the victim any harder than they have already been, including talking about it. If it sounds like bad form, then your priorities are ridiculous, how dare I say rude things, but not how dare they drag out the court date of an alleged rapist?

You're taking a discussion about fake news and twisting it into getting some kind of support for rape allegations. Nobody in this thread was discussing them (at that time), and claims that people aren't taking them seriously are either completely irrelevant or offensive to people in this thread that you're stereotyping.

Take a step back, man.