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

Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

blog.mass.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 216 posts

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

#51

Post by notMick »

lopmotr wrote: post #17

The term only became popular after Trump's win [1], not while it was happening, which is forever (I once read in a real paper newspaper about an amputee who had donkey's legs attached in place of his own). This suggests people don't like it because they went looking for something to blame for his winning. It's entirely a partisan political concern, not a fundamental one. [1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?d…

I was in another country, and still seeing the political bias (CNN+) in the reporting. Call me old school, but 'news' and 'journalism' is meant to be impartial. It wasn't. Opinion piece after propaganda opinion piece.

I think maybe, we have just woken up to what is going on.

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

#52

Post by kristianc »

wilsonnb wrote: post #46
CodeCube wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And places like China are now seeing the same kind of untrammeled progress, as their economy completely explodes under political conditions that 'the west' would consider counter to what they would consider correct/right/whatever. Now to be clear, I'm obviously not advocating human rights violations, and strict governmental control ... I'm only pointing out that things like 'freedom of speech', while awesome and righ…

Indeed. The next 10 to 15 years in China will either further set an example that you don't need American/European democratic ideals in order for economic prosperity and a good life for your citizens, or it will go a long way to disproving the idea that those can be separated. With several eastern European countries trending in an authoritarian direction (and Turkey pretty far along that path already) I am worried abo…

Legatum rates China's prosperity at 90th in the world, alongside El Salvador and Nepal, precisely because the lack of personal freedom and environmental degradation act as a counterbalance against China's robust economy.

You can question the methodology, but then you have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the US and other mature social democracies which routinely top these rankings are not good places to live. Very few citizens of those countries would choose to live in Xi's China instead.

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

#53

Post by derefr »

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 both arguments generalize, which makes the contrast interesting. Is the SEC, in its role in preventing equity sales to unaccredited investors, a "ministry of truth", censoring some companies from speaking to people who would want to transact with them?

I would argue they're not, because they're not actually deciding who gets to sell equity. Anyone can sell equity—provided that party also discloses a whole bunch of information about itself. If it refuses to do that, then that party is restricted to only sell equity to people who are rich enough to not be risking much in an individual investment.

I think this could be a workable model for regulating the news media (including Joe random blogger.) If you're publishing to the world, then you have to disclose all the research that went into your piece. If you're unwilling to do that, then the state could have a right to in turn restrict where you can publish.

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

#54

Post by nickodell »

jadedhacker wrote: post #15
kristianc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caitlyn Johnstone is a 9/11 truther, and not representative of any 'foreign policy establishment', imagined or otherwise.

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 of Health and Human Services, etc etc.

With that in mind: why should one more new media agency be uniquely offensive?

2) Many of these arguments seem vague and conspiratorial. For example, it asserts that plutocrats really control all of our media. For this, it cites another article by the same author, which talks about Jeff Bezos acquiring Washington Post.

That seems like a pretty big jump to me.

3) Many of these arguments argue things that do not support her point. For example, it claims that the media is pro-establishment. Okay, so what? The establishment has some good qualities.

Imagine the skit from Life of Brian, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" but s/romans/establishment/.

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

#55

Post by icebraining »

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 this could be a workable model for regulating the news media: you can publish whatever you like, as long as you disclose your entire fact-gathering process (i.e. "cite your sources") in a way where another journalist could do the same research and reach the same conclusions about what happened (i.e. "replicate your study".)

Whelp, there goes whistleblowing. Or generally any source that prefers not to be named. I think your proposal destroys some of the most important journalism.

Also, conclusions in journalism are not mathematical equations; they don't derive linearly from the facts. Who gets to decide whether that particular conclusion is or not supported by the facts?

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

#56

Post by wilsonnb »

kristianc wrote: post #52
wilsonnb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The next 10 to 15 years in China will either further set an example that you don't need American/European democratic ideals in order for economic prosperity and a good life for your citizens, or it will go a long way to disproving the idea that those can be separated. With several eastern European countries trending in an authoritarian direction (and Turkey pretty far along that path already) I am worried abo…

Legatum rates China's prosperity at 90th in the world, alongside El Salvador and Nepal, precisely because the lack of personal freedom and environmental degradation act as a counterbalance against China's robust economy. You can question the methodology, but then you have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the US and other mature social democracies wh…

I don't have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and the US are not good places to live. They are good places to live. That has nothing to do with whether or not China is a good place to live.

I only have to make the argument that personal freedom is not as important as economic prosperity. Since the end of the Cold War the general thinking was "democratic ideals -> economic prosperity -> good life". China's economic success without embracing democratic ideals to the extent that successful Western countries is making people and governments once again question whether or not the democratic ideals are actually needed.

I would rather live in the US or Europe than China at the moment, but how long will that remain true for most people if China surpasses the US as the world's reigning superpower?

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

#57

Post by lifeisstillgood »

wilsonnb wrote: post #43
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The problem always ends up being "who decides what is not true?". Many people think that such a thing is not possible, or that the giving the Government such a power would be too much. I personally think I could be persuaded to give such a power to the judiciary branch. I'd have to think about it a lot more before coming to a final decision, though.

We already have what is not true in Libel laws. And indeed in every branch of the law. (it's true he did rob the bank / breach the contract) for me the issue is not truth but laziness. No one decides if it is fake news or a breach of contract until the expensive court process is kicked off - someone wants to force the function to return. The cost is implying there is a sufficient loss (pace Peter Theiel) - and so it's worth deciding if this thing is true.

Truth is a slippery concept - and i would far rather - like you- we did not have a department deciding upfront what is or is not truth.

plus this idea might have the pleasing side effect of ministerial pronouncements being testable in court - although this is politics. Johnson's "350 million a week" bus was denounced as untrue from many quarters - but it was still a winning slogan - so perhaps the problem is still not fake news, but what people want to believe and why.

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

#58

Post by geggam »

ixtli wrote: post #32
geggam wrote: post #20

People also used to do duels over insults and this was considered OK. We should bring that back. Get triggered demand a duel :) Enough PC

I find that the phrase "political correctness" can almost always be replaced with "treating people with respect."

Respect is earned, not given. Giving something away demeans it and makes it worthless.

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

#59

Post by wilsonnb »

wutbrodo wrote: post #50
wilsonnb wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you are looking to defend it, you will probably need something more compelling than a correlation between prosperity and free speech. Anyways, I'm not seeking to overturn it. I said specifically in my comment "I'm not saying we should get rid of it". I just think we should be open to modifying any part of the Constitution. Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The fir…

> Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot…

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.

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

#60

Post by smhost »

kristianc wrote: post #52
wilsonnb wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. The next 10 to 15 years in China will either further set an example that you don't need American/European democratic ideals in order for economic prosperity and a good life for your citizens, or it will go a long way to disproving the idea that those can be separated. With several eastern European countries trending in an authoritarian direction (and Turkey pretty far along that path already) I am worried abo…

Legatum rates China's prosperity at 90th in the world, alongside El Salvador and Nepal, precisely because the lack of personal freedom and environmental degradation act as a counterbalance against China's robust economy. You can question the methodology, but then you have to make an argument as to why Norway, New Zealand, Finland, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Denmark, the US and other mature social democracies wh…

> Very few citizens of those countries would choose to live in Xi's China instead.

But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is whether the businesses of those countries would choose to do business from within Xi's China.

Post reply on HN