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

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

#121

Post by ropeadopepope » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:01 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…

> democratic minded people know how dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is.

Have we? Take a look at the state of the press in Sweden. It's not much different from China these days. Without freedom of speech, there is no freedom of the press. America is the only country that guarantees either. Although, I will concede that our press isn't much better these days. There's a very real problem when every media outlet in the country is owned by just five companies.

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

#122

Post by thankthunk » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:04 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…

> that they've been indoctrinated to accept without questioning.

Which is made easier when governments define and outlaw "fake" news. What separated us from totalitarian governments in the 20th century was we protected speech while hitler/stalin/mao/etc outlawed "fake news".

Do you really want Trump or Obama or Hillary or George Bush to have the power to limit speech? Do you really want either the republican or democratic party to define and outlaw "fake news"? Do you want corporate interests to ban "fake news"? Oil companies bribing politicians to label climate change as fake news? Drug companies bribing politicians to label the drug epidemic as fake news? I certainly don't.

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

#123

Post by zeth___ » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:04 PM UTC

nickodell wrote: post #54

jadedhacker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, she is criticizing someone advocating this policy if you read the article. EDIT: I should mention I do not necessarily endorse her views with respect to 9/11.

1) She's criticizing the creation of a government-run media organization, not the creation of an org that punishes media organizations for false news. These things have different costs and benefits. Also, believe it or not, government-funded media already exists. For example, there's Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, the various spokespeople of government agencies like the Department of Agriculture, the Department…

Bad example. When the Roman empire fell the average life expectancy increased in all regions [0] and [1].

Turns out complex societies are used to funnel wealth to the richest at the expense of the poorest. Who would have thought, apart from anyone who has studied them.

[0] The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Economy, chapters 15 and 16

[1] Britain After Rome: The Fall and Rise, 400 to 1070

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

#124

Post by ropeadopepope » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:04 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?

Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I'll have my wife's brother arrested.

Seriously though, libel and slander cases in the US are ridiculously hard to prove because you have to prove intent.

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

#125

Post by jadedhacker » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:05 PM UTC

nickodell wrote: post #54

jadedhacker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, she is criticizing someone advocating this policy if you read the article. EDIT: I should mention I do not necessarily endorse her views with respect to 9/11.

1) She's criticizing the creation of a government-run media organization, not the creation of an org that punishes media organizations for false news. These things have different costs and benefits. Also, believe it or not, government-funded media already exists. For example, there's Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, the various spokespeople of government agencies like the Department of Agriculture, the Department…

The reason you think these points are unsupported is because there is a large context that people on the left are familiar with but the rest of us opinion is not because it is not regularly discussed in corporate media.

For instance, the work by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, Manufacturing Consent documents how mainstream news consistently reinforces government narratives, even when they are based on lies (Iraq, Vietnam, etc). These organizations you mention are in fact propaganda outlets intended for foreign audiences or literally government agencies, they don't regularly directly criticize US foreign policy on other than a tactical basis.

The Jeff Bezos story is an example of the larger story of media consolidation where the majority of US media is owned by a handful of corporations. How often will such news organizations report conflicts of interest or report critically on their bosses?

The establishment position is bloodthirsty. That's a big point of contention.

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

#126

Post by ralusek » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:14 PM UTC

craftyguy wrote: post #27

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.

> I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is just outright incorrect Go look at donald trump's twitter feed. It's full of outright incorrect statements being presented as fact.

Donald Trump is not a news source, he's a moron.

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

#127

Post by geggam » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #116

geggam wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is your choice. To force it on society is to remove freedom from society. That is not a choice. That is a consequence and it has consequences.

You're not going to be jailed for being disrespectful (or "un-pc" if you like); but other people might not want to spend time around you anymore...

I find more people are sick of PC than are a fan of it. You might have different peers though.

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

#128

Post by dragonwriter » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

wilsonnb wrote: post #68

zenhack wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard answer under US law is the jury; the concern you raise is deeply embedded in our legal system.

I don't think that juries decide what's true and what's not. They decide whether the evidence presented to them is sufficient to show that an event or events happened. My understanding is that even in defamation suits they are mostly trying to prove that person A said thing X about person C and then prove that person C was harmed because of it. However, I am honestly not sure if it's just American first amendment ind…

> I don't think that juries decide what's true and what's not

That's literally what determining facts means.

> They decide whether the evidence presented to them is sufficient to show that an event or events happened

Yes, they determine the facts—what is true and not—by weighing the evidence.

> My understanding is that even in defamation suits they are mostly trying to prove that person A said thing X about person C and then prove that person C was harmed because of it.

They also decide whether X is true, and, if so, whether Person A claimed it with knoweldge of it's falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. But the other determinations are also decisions about what is true.

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

#129

Post by hedvig » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:18 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…

I'm sure you also agree that corporate defined truth is equally as dangerous, right?

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

#130

Post by frabbit » Tue, May 08, 2018, 10:27 PM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #25

I wonder where the government of Massachusetts stance on witches and their accusers fits into the "Fake news was illegal" narrative.

That was the first thing that popped into my mind. Now you could subsitute "The Russians" or "Paedophiles" or "Terrorists" for that part in the narrative.