61–70 of 151 posts
1. how is this not a slippery slope? 2. have we completely given up on critical thinking and education? 3. free speech vs not so free speech. i guess we're choosing "not so free"?
There are obvious cases of deceptive media, where things are simply made up, but the most invidious ones are just "differential spin" and very hard to pin down. The recent Harry/Megan fiasco has provided a great set of examples on how the same action can be reported as a positive or negative depending on the paper's preferred spin: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markl...
There's a whole subreddit for this with the American media https://www.reddit.com/r/newscontradictions/top/?sort=top&t=...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems reasonable, but I'm a bit worried you're being sarcastic. Are you worried about this for some reason? Maybe scared of something you read in a fiction book once? Is this a good idea in reality?
He is paraphrasing parts of 1984 by George Orwell. Your comment must be sarcastic as well. Please tell me that you don't actually believe that the government should hold a monopoly on truth...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Goodness! The avocado one was two stories fewer than eighteen months apart. It almost looks like they were intending to get caught.
More that they don't care if they get caught. You could run diametrically opposing articles a week apart and not expect the readership to care enough to stop buying the paper. Several papers run opposite stories locally: DMG Media (owners of the Mail) notoriously did this with the HPV vaccine. Irish Mail were in favour, UK Daily Mail were against, on the same day . The Sun vs Scottish Sun is another repeat offender.
I can't recall which paper (in the UK), but there was one that run both stories (whichever consumable it was both caused and prevented whichever disease it was) on the same day, same publication!
Because it's not even about spin, it's just 'content' getting written and published and read. I'm not sure what the (actual) newspaper equivalent phrase is for 'generating clicks', but that's all it is.
Out of curiosity, I browsed throw tons of (political) clips posted by BBC and did not see a similar warning (regarding UK goverment) or anything close to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More that they don't care if they get caught. You could run diametrically opposing articles a week apart and not expect the readership to care enough to stop buying the paper. Several papers run opposite stories locally: DMG Media (owners of the Mail) notoriously did this with the HPV vaccine. Irish Mail were in favour, UK Daily Mail were against, on the same day . The Sun vs Scottish Sun is another repeat offender.
Sounds a bit like A/B testing with public opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 3. free speech vs not so free speech. i guess we're choosing "not so free"? Well, to be fair, it's all free speech. The guy who uploaded the deep fake exercised his right to free expression to do so, and the private company that labeled it a deep fake also exercised their right to free expression. Technically speaking, this is an example of the radically open and unregulated nature of free speech in the private sec…
The private company argument holds no water when they selectively apply their standards to promote their ideologies. At that point they're not an unbiased content platform but a biased publisher and need to be regulated as such. So the government needs to force these companies to decide are they 8kun or CNN?
It's unsurprising that your argument isn't swaying any of the various corporate counsels. I mean, it's an argument that's purely theoretical in a world where the government has said they will hold you accountable for fake news and government agents siphon the communication feeds from your servers full time anyway.
Think of it this way, a threat to chop off someone's arms, is only effective if you have not already chopped off their arms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More that they don't care if they get caught. You could run diametrically opposing articles a week apart and not expect the readership to care enough to stop buying the paper. Several papers run opposite stories locally: DMG Media (owners of the Mail) notoriously did this with the HPV vaccine. Irish Mail were in favour, UK Daily Mail were against, on the same day . The Sun vs Scottish Sun is another repeat offender.
Sounds a bit like A/B testing with public opinion.