391–400 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But again, this is just the status quo. Why is lying to someone to take their money a crime, but lying to someone to influence an election not? What makes money worth special protections, but voting not?
It is because politicians lie. Filtering one side but no the other by the media and social media is censoring. They are interfering with election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But who will fact-check the fact-checkers? Also, who will ensure that fact-checking rules are consistently applied to everyone?
The people they fact checked. As long as no one is censored dissenting opinions are free to dispute the facts presented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole media is skewing left is completely fabricated. If anything most media has traditionally been moderate conservative. It is simply that part of the republican part has moved so far to the right that Reagan would likely be kicked out today. And this to a large degree has been driven by Fox News. It is also important to point out that they are different to most other news media in that they categorize most of…
We’re not talking about 1971. CNN started in 1980. Fox News didn’t become popular until the early 2000s. My theory is that it arose in response to a distinct leftward swing in the media, where they were obviously rooting for Gore: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/ju... . In 2002, Democrats outnumbered Republicans 2:1 among journalists. By 2013 it was 4:1. Today, self-identified liberals outnu…
And Fox News is propaganda ... it's not a good thing for any news organization to be like that - regardless of the media environment as a whole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. It should be attaching a fact-based reply. This is not too hard, because the number of different bogus memes seen in bulk is not that large.
But who will fact-check the fact-checkers? Also, who will ensure that fact-checking rules are consistently applied to everyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But who will fact-check the fact-checkers? Also, who will ensure that fact-checking rules are consistently applied to everyone?
Agreed. Who snopes the snopes? Did you know Snopes has been shown to be biased since it is ran by people who lean one direction, who stops them from misinforming the public. What about when politicians are exposed and the media shields them are we just going to blindly trust a biased media source? We need to allow the people to review all evidence and form conclusions from said evidence. I cant tell you how many time…
Well, go ahead and show us, don't just hand wave this one by.
I come from a country where a free speech was never really a thing, and I tell you, americans, this: you don't value it enough. Restrictions on free speech inevitably lead to some form of censorship, and any form of censorship inevitably leads to the population being subjected to some 'official' version of 'truth'. This 'truth', however, is carefully curated to coerce the population to act in a certain way. So when T…
I came into the article expecting to hate it, but the author eventually kind of won me over. She doesn't think Americans should abandon free speech, but she does think we should approach it more like Germany and France. > Germany and France have laws that are designed to prevent the widespread dissemination of hate speech and election-related disinformation. “Much of the recent authoritarian experience in Europe aros…
...just kidding, I am a free speech absolutist. I feel like the leftist sudden dislike on free speech is similar to that of trumpist dislike of the media in 2015. They know that they are extremist, and they know they are wrong.
Society is misdiagnosing the issue here. It's not unchecked free speech. Instead, it's unchecked curation by media and social media companies with the goal of engagement. As long as media companies get the most benefit from people engaging with content, they will continue to promote information that is damaging to society. It may even be true information but when the goal is engagement, it's purpose will be to enrage…
IMO any platform whose owners have enough editorial control for these engagment-hacking techniques to be useful (the ability to decide what gets seen, what doesn't, and who sees what) should be treated as a publisher, not a platform.
This doesn't have to kill online communities generally. As long as we can distinguish between editorial control and freedom of association (i.e. the ability to ban rule-breakers and people we don't like) I don't see why effective moderation wouldn't be possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about no one should eat the same food group all the time? I get news from here (leftist), reddit (averaged to moderate when all my subs are taken into consideration), Google News (more leftist than not), and 9GAG/Imgur when they post political social stuff. Fairly well rounded.
You're only eating junk food
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess this is why it's called capitalism. Jokes aside, I think that democracies which are split up into executives, legislatives and judicatives are not well designed from an architectural standpoint. What's missing is a society of technologically specialized gremiums that evaluate knowledge and truthfulness, and are able to either control the press or to control the legislative process. So many laws have been crea…
Was this written by an AI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If country's own citizens do the voting, I'm personally fine with anyone influencing them. If we postulate that people are responsible and reasonable enough to have a say in the elections, it is an insult to assume that they are some weak-minded fools who can be easily swayed by a hostile foreign government.
It's not an insult, the other way around, it's naive to think that the general population acts intelligently with respect to information available to them on an ad-hoc basis. All nations media outlets are absolutely protected and controlled industries for this very reason. Information can be wrong, totally misrepresented, hyperbolic, it can reach large numbers of individuals wherein contrasting information cannot. Th…
Why not? It's like watching a romantic movie, when a good guy crashes a wedding of a loved one in a last minute, and instead of "speak now or forever hold your peace" tell him "but not in 10 days before the wedding!"