Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 29 posts

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#11

Post by MrZongle2 »

Kurimo wrote: post #10
kls wrote: post #2

Personally, I am concerned around this new mantra to eliminate fake news. Who are the gatekeepers of said truthfulness. Now I am not arguing that fake news does not abound on the Internet but a call to arms for companies to eliminate "Fake" news sounds too close to censorship for my fancy.

Governments censor. Private institutions editorialize. If the NYT chooses not to print an op-ed you send them, it is NOT censorship. If the United States government forces the NYT not to print your op-ed, it IS censorship. See the difference?

So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed?

In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass?

That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#13

Post by [deleted] »

bbctol wrote: post #7
apollo_ wrote: post #3

My very unscientific feeling: The constant influx of pieces like this since the election feels like the mainstream media redirecting calls of "echo chamber" elsewhere.

Yeah, I don't think it's invalid to say that fake news is a serious problem (or even that it probably helped elect Trump), but I think there's a much deeper crisis of news, bias, and the nature of truth in the Internet age that needs to be addressed head-on.

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#14

Post by mvid »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #11
Kurimo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments censor. Private institutions editorialize. If the NYT chooses not to print an op-ed you send them, it is NOT censorship. If the United States government forces the NYT not to print your op-ed, it IS censorship. See the difference?

So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed? In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass? That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.

Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits. It is in their best interest not to publish falsehoods.

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#15

Post by petre »

MrZongle2 wrote: post #11
Kurimo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments censor. Private institutions editorialize. If the NYT chooses not to print an op-ed you send them, it is NOT censorship. If the United States government forces the NYT not to print your op-ed, it IS censorship. See the difference?

So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed? In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass? That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.

It probably became fake news when we stopped buying the NYT in print. Now it's mostly fake news because they give out 10 fake news items per month and expect me and you and everyone else to pay for the "real" news so they can run their news outlet. But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#16

Post by MrZongle2 »

mvid wrote: post #14
MrZongle2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed? In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass? That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.

Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits. It is in their best interest not to publish falsehoods.

"Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits."

How, exactly? (I realize that you are not personally responsible for implementation, but I think this is an important question)

If "filtering" merely means blacklisting/whitelisting domains or organizations, this won't work.

And in regard to organizations not publishing falsehoods because it is in their best interest: let's consider Walter Duranty's reporting for the NYT in the 1930s. He won a Pulitzer for that, and that honor was enjoyed by the publication...it further cemented their reputation as the "newspaper of record".

It took 30 years before reports of his falsifications started getting traction, and almost 70 before serious calls were made to strip Duranty of the prize. It has yet to be revoked.

What lesson did the Times learn from that? Did they suffer any kind of financial penalty? What lesson would they learn from a smack on the hand from Facebook?

Would Facebook really ban news from the NYT if the latter had another Duranty, or even another Jayson Blair? What about the Washington Post? The LA Times?

Filtering out "fake news" will cut a lot of the obvious crap out: pointless lists, clickbait, "breakthrough diets", secrets "they" don't want you to know about, and celebrity gossip nonsense. I am not convinced that it will stop political propaganda, which is supposedly the whole point of this exercise.

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#18

Post by dethswatch »

shas3 wrote: post #6

We can't know whether fake news tilted the election towards Trump. There is no experiment or analysis that can conclusively dis/prove that hypothesis. NYT and others should be humble here. Sure, fake news is stupid, but so is claiming that it "helped elect Trump"

Here's the narrative- "This outcome is so out of whack that either you guys are just the stupidest, most gullible people, or you are normal people, who would have voted for us, had you not been fooled by malevolent and manipulative forces."

It's an easy way to console your butthurt when you lost- just claiming that had everyone been better informed, they'd have done the 'right' thing.

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#19

Post by pg314 »

petre wrote: post #15
MrZongle2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what happens when the NYT prints a story that ends up being fabricated, or uses false (or fake) data to support an op-ed? In this brave, new world where "fake news" is filtered out, will the "truthy" organizations be given a free pass? That's my biggest concern. As it stands now, publications often do their best to bury retractions and corrections.

It probably became fake news when we stopped buying the NYT in print. Now it's mostly fake news because they give out 10 fake news items per month and expect me and you and everyone else to pay for the "real" news so they can run their news outlet. But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.

> But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.

That is an extraordinary claim to make. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Re: Silicon Valley Helped Create Trump, and That’s Bad for It

#20

Post by pg314 »

dethswatch wrote: post #17

"... the anger and misinformation of the voters who helped propel him to the presidency." And we start off with insults and dismissal-- the reason she didn't win and that the Times is reviled for its reporting by various groups.

This is an opinion piece. There is a difference between opinion pieces and reporting, a distinction that lots of people seem to be missing recently. You shouldn't revile a newspaper's reporting based on its opinion pieces.
Post reply on HN