Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts • Hacker News Board

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#101

Post by wilsonnb » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:06 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #90

wilsonnb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? I fully agree that the amendment process has to be used. I would be in favor of a 28th amendment placing well thought out limitations on the 1st or the 2nd amendments. Assuming I thought that the limitations it was placing on them were good limitations.

> What's the difference here between modifying and violating? The difference is between broad consensus and divided opinion. A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote of Congress to propose, and ratification by 3/4 of states (which means any Constitutional amendment would require support from both red and blue states). Ordinary legislation only requires a 50% + 1 majority.

Technically Congress is not needed to propose an amendment but I see your distinction and agree that I would only support changes ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#102

Post by deadmetheny » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:08 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #86

deadmetheny wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have no valid credentials other than having been on the Internet a long time and having an interest in researching urban legends as laymen. One of the founders, David Mikkelson, couldn't answer questions about fact-checking due to legal issues[1]. If you really want to play the "HN says the names of logical fallacies" game, then I'll do you one better and say that challenging me to refute every single line item…

Again, you're doing everything but addressing the claims. Again, if I was to link to WashPo or NYTimes, you'd dismiss them as well. Again, you're just covering for the liars of the world.

I have made no claims other that Snopes itself is not a reliable source, and I have given my reasoning behind why I am of that mind. Kindly piss off with your assumptions of anything beyond that claim.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#103

Post by avs733 » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:11 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #53

rsync wrote: post #5

"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts" Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is. There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced…

It's intriguing that this is exactly the reverse of the argument (complete with "we've learned a few things since then") that people make when discussing ICOs. The requirements for IPOs are important, they argue. Investor accreditation is important to prevent the naive masses from wasting their live-savings on snake-oil, they argue. "Please grow up and resist the urge" for unregulated securities, they argue. I think…

>I think both arguments generalize,

I cringe at my own pedantry here but I think it's important to the larger conversation.

All arguments generalize. That isn't just the point of the argument, it is what an argument is - a synthesis and generalization of evidence. That an argument generalizes isn't the problem, how and to what extent the argument does and the implications and chain of evidence for the generalizations is what matters.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#104

Post by avs733 » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:13 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #12

rsync wrote: post #5

"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts" Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is. There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced…

i think something akin to libel laws might be interesting - if you knowingly publish untruths about me that's libel - about society in general that's ... fake news and you can be civility liable?

That's assuming that economic sanction or a retraction published on page C19 are effective resolutions.

If you are going to address this, it seems to me to almost require a pre-emptive rather than a reactive approach.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#105

Post by soundwave106 » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:14 PM UTC

ralusek wrote: post #4

This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.

The definition of "fake news" when I first heard the term more or less dealt with sites parroting outright falsehoods. It didn't necessarily have to be explicitly political. False gossip sites, outrage-inducing headlines to the wild side of the tabloids, fake business news (http://fortune.com/2017/05/30/fake-news-sites-local-business...), troll-ish article sites (ala the National Report), homeopathy woo (ala Natural News), and other conspiracy oriented venues (eg GlobalResearch, Infowars) were among the many types of "fake news" out there.

The political angle it has taken is unfortunate -- due to the prominence of "fake news" in the last US election; the net effect has been a devolution of the word into a snarl word for "I don't like your particular political point of view". IMHO what you are describing -- a news organization has a bias or opinion (strong or not), but still tries to maintain some degree of connection with factual data -- is not fake news.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#106

Post by avs733 » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:15 PM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #36

ralusek wrote: post #4

This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out handily.

Its a concerted effort to discredit expert opinion which the shorter term goal of allowing people to equate their own laymen's understanding with that of someone versed in a subject.

Hence the sovereign citizen movement...

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#107

Post by paulddraper » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:18 PM UTC

da_chicken wrote: post #13

rsync wrote: post #5

"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts" Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is. There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced…

Citizenry will do what they always have: accept the narrative that benefits them the most or that they've been indoctrinated to accept without questioning. The Internet isn't going to magically change human nature. That doesn't mean that we need a Ministry of Truth a la Brazil or 1984, but this isn't an either-or issue. The Fairness Doctrine[0] was a fairly nice compromise. We have long required advertisers to be tru…

> Citizenry will do what they always have: accept the narrative ...that they've been indoctrinated to accept without questioning.

And as the most established institution in society, that's precisely why the government should not indoctrinate narratives, directly or indirectly.

The right solution to bad free speech is more speech, not less.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#108

Post by moorhosj » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:25 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #5

"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts" Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is. There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced…

Should we get rid of places like CBC, BBC, NPR? Those are “government defined truth”, they are also highly respected journalists.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#109

Post by icebraining » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:26 PM UTC

derefr wrote: post #96

icebraining wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, your sources would need to be “made available” in the same way witnesses are made available during a trial: there to be interrogated by interested parties who want to dispute their story, even if also safe from harm (by e.g. witness protection.) Which is quite unrealistic unless you're talking about blowing a story about the local bakery or something like that. If any journalist can access the witness, the…

You're being pretty uncharitable in assuming that there would need to be exactly one protection mechanism and that every source would necessarily have that same protection applied to it. There are a spectrum of solutions to creating anonymity. If your source is just a faceless worker who happened to overhear something about their boss, then all they need from you is a burner phone, an email address on a public server…

If your source is just a faceless worker who happened to overhear something about their boss, then all they need from you is a burner phone, an email address on a public server, and GPG keys—all of which you can give out the public halves of.

But then how does that prove anything? I can give you an email address and phone number of someone who will tell you anything I want.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#110

Post by SubiculumCode » Tue, May 08, 2018, 9:28 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #5

"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts" Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is. There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced…

There may need to be some sort of compromise however if only this regard: We should not let hostile alien actors have free access to manipulate the political discourse.

Edit: this compromise, to my mind, would not involve the government approving stories, but perhaps restricting internet connectivity to and from those hostile nations.