The US Government Funds A War On Online Fake News (bangordailynews.com) 360
An anonymous reader quotes the Washington Post:
Congressional negotiators on Wednesday approved an initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that Russian efforts to spread "fake news" and disinformation threaten U.S. national security. The measure, part of the National Defense Authorization Act approved by a conference committee, calls on the State Department to lead government-wide efforts to identify propaganda and counter its effects. The authorization is for $160 million over two years...
The Senate Intelligence Committee, meanwhile, has approved language in the fiscal year 2017 intelligence authorization bill calling for new executive branch efforts to combat what it characterized as "active measures" by Russia to manipulate people and governments through front groups, covert broadcasting or "media manipulation." "There is definitely bipartisan concern about the Russian government engaging in covert influence activities of this nature," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.'"
Several senators on the intelligence committee also asked President Obama to declassify any information relating to the Russian government and the U.S. election.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, meanwhile, has approved language in the fiscal year 2017 intelligence authorization bill calling for new executive branch efforts to combat what it characterized as "active measures" by Russia to manipulate people and governments through front groups, covert broadcasting or "media manipulation." "There is definitely bipartisan concern about the Russian government engaging in covert influence activities of this nature," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "If you read section 501 of this year's intelligence authorization bill, it directs the President to set up an interagency committee to 'counter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments.'"
Several senators on the intelligence committee also asked President Obama to declassify any information relating to the Russian government and the U.S. election.
Onwards to victory. (Score:5, Informative)
Let the US government fake news win!
We called it propaganda for hundreds of years? Why change now? Is this some form of doublenextplusgoodspeak?
Re: (Score:2)
"Let the US government fake news win!"
War on drugs!
War on poverty!
Oh crap... we're hosed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I went to the supermarket today. According to the National Enquirer, Hillary Clinton has already been indicted for a whole bunch of illegal things she did. It was on the front page. I'm still a little leery of jumping on the "OMG FAKE NEWS!!"
The difference is that now people take the national enquirer seriously. Or actually (since they don't), that ludicrous made up stuf was confined to places which few people took seriously. If you earnesrlt shared National Enquirer stories on face book most people from e
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, He's the guy who said manipulating public opinion was essential to democracy. He did work "influencing public opinion" for Woodrow Wilson during WWI.
Re: Onwards to victory. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. I am not pro-Russian
2. I would describe myself as a Ron Paul (l)ibertarian
3. The government needs a new boogie man since terrorism seems to be wearing thin as a justification for crapping on the constitution.
4. Those damn Ruskie commie bastards look like a good target to fool the idiots.
Re: Onwards to victory. (Score:3)
Re: Onwards to victory. (Score:4, Insightful)
No that's just your paranoia and lack of understanding of basic English at work.
Fake means fake as in not real.
Fake does not mean "I personally don't like it", or "make my party look bad", or "challenges beliefs I hold" or any of those things.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You would think with the 100 billion a year we spend now on intelligence agencies and military intelligence that... this would already be covered.
perhaps you have misinterpreted their role. they aren't there to gather intelligence. they exist as an extended kind of sheltered workshop for people who are otherwise unemployable in the commercial sector. like unemployment, except they get paid a hell of a lot more and they have close to zero accountability.
"Okay.. did you spy on North Korea in the past fortnight? Did you TRY to spy on North Korea in the past fortnight?"
Re: (Score:2)
3. The government needs a new boogie man since terrorism seems to be wearing thin as a justification for crapping on the constitution.
I disagree. Terrorism makes good Bad Guys because they're generally threatening - like, guns in your face, blow you up threatening, not "you called me an edgelord on twitter" threatening - and anyone you don't like can be painted as a Terrorist, with the possible exception of people like the Dalai Lama, Brian Eno, Krillin, etc. Drawing astroturfers, spammers and shitposters as the new terrorists would be difficult because it's hard to track them down. If your shitposter turns out to be a python script hoste
Re: (Score:3)
And in other news satire dies as an art form.
Sorry - I sympathize with your feelings, but the death of satire has already been announced. It was about 40 years ago when Tom Lehrer (someone well qualified to comment on the subject) remarked that
"Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel peace prize."
https://www.theguardian.com/cu... [theguardian.com]
Re:worst ones (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, we know. All mainstream media are fake news. All hail the trustworthy Fox News and Breitbart. Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, as has physics, universities, Einstein (dirty Jew) and science in general. All hair our great Fuerer Trump and his new Mobocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
All hair our great Fuerer Trump and his new Mobocracy.
You're a recent college graduate and on drugs, aren't you?
Re:worst ones (Score:5, Funny)
Unlike you, he was able to pass the entrance exam.
Re: (Score:3)
OPM (Other People's Money) You've just "self-identified" yourself as a lib-leftie.
As opposed to a rightie who loves to take OPM as you put it but refuses to talk about it in a sensible way or even admit to it? Red states receive on average considerably more federal money than blue ones. That makes republican voters net beneficiaries of "other people's money" more than democrat voters.
Re: (Score:3)
That's genuinely how people think in a post-truth world. They think that all politicians are liars, all media is biased and published fake news, all experts are either idiots or biased... So they just decide to believe people who tell them what they want to hear, without bothering to figure out if it is true or not because, if you didn't get it the first time, everything is a lie anyway.
There is no truth, only that warm fuzzy feeling of having your existing views confirmed.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, okay, let's do as you suggest. The ultimate ad-hominem, reject all media because it's been found to be inaccurate. Mainstream, non-mainstream alike, because it's not like Breitbart or Reddit are any better.
Now what? How do we know anything about anything happening beyond our immediate vicinity?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, but if every source of information about the world beyond your immediate ken is unreliable and must be rejected, how can you possible be informed about the world?
That was my point really. No media outlet is perfect, but some are clearly better than others. Obviously you should still be sceptical, but just because CNN isn't perfect doesn't mean you need to run to Breitbart instead. The latter is 90% bullshit, people just like it because it happens to align with their prejudices.
Re:worst ones (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want facts about a foreign country, watch your national TV. If you want facts about your own country, watch foreign TV.
Use high quality sources (Score:5, Funny)
I use a high quality source for my news. TheOnion.com is America's finest news source (it says so in Google) and provides me with everything I need to know about news. If everyone would use high quality news sources, we would all know the truth like I do.
Re: (Score:3)
The best comedy requires a grounding in truth to be effective. A lot of the articles on the Onion are funny because we recognize and can relate to their topics [theonion.com]. Remind you of anyone you know? Yeah... me too.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite frankly if there's not a Slashdot article about it, it didn't happen. Sometime in our near future I will be sitting in a demolished building with radioactive ash raining down on me and I'll read a Slashdot article saying Trump has launched a nuclear strike, get to your bunker.
The first post will be: "This happened 4 days ago, Slashdot is slow."
My post as I'm dying on my keyboard will be: "ORLY? This is just another anti trump conspiracy."
treating the symptoms (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
American government is surprised large numbers of their citizens are gullible fools.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's the school system that created all this snowflake syndrome we have now. You think that shit starts in college? I have news for you.
Re:treating the symptoms (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:treating the symptoms (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see who the snowflakes are. In the past week or so, Trump supporters have been triggered by:
1. A Broadway play.
2. Starbucks
3. cornflakes
The main Trump, Donald even tweeted a demand for a safe space at the theater:
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
There is nobody more sensitive and thin-skinned than a Donald Trump supporter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree, pence could've handled that much better. There were plenty of escapes from the fallacies presented by the performers that would've made a solid public statement after the performance. If the performers weren't the snowflakes they were, they would've performed the show and saved the politics for a sane discussion afterward, instead of weaving passive aggression and leers throughout the performance.
Kelloggs could've said "We like people who like kellogg's cornflakes" instead of taking sides, and, ii
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
snowflakes... identity politics... cry-bullies... PC...
Aw man, if you'd just said "SJW", I'd have got bingo!
Re:treating the symptoms (Score:4, Informative)
Don't forget their demands for safe spaces on campus [boingboing.net], free from people harassing them by disagreeing with their political views.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's yet another government waste of money. Fake news is effective because all the major news outlets have lost their credibility by not even trying to hide their bias. I know that CNN usually doesn't tell outright lies though, even if sometimes they report things with a certain slant or ignore some stories. I know that 99 percent of what I see on twitter is bogus. Still, the fact that the MSM has become so obviously pro left has pretty much enabled all these crazy stories. Now, having the government ch
Re: (Score:3)
The US government already had it war on news, Ronny Raygun killed it along with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], bullshit won and it is still winning in the US at least on main stream media. Its like they can not accept that their bullshit always rots away when exposed to the truth, they just keep it going, anyhow with taxpayer dollars, targeting the majority with more propaganda. The workers are shit, the rich are gods, shut up and obey, why don't they just brand that on all poor children's foreheads
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, nowadays the right has the largest news network (Fox), the
Re:treating the symptoms (Score:5, Insightful)
It's yet another government waste of money. Fake news is effective because all the major news outlets have lost their credibility by not even trying to hide their bias. I know that CNN usually doesn't tell outright lies though, even if sometimes they report things with a certain slant or ignore some stories. I know that 99 percent of what I see on twitter is bogus. Still, the fact that the MSM has become so obviously pro left has pretty much enabled all these crazy stories. Now, having the government chime in is only going to make people double-down on the fake stuff. If there is any organization less trusted than the media it's the government.
Remember all those years where Sarah Palin was the effective leader of the GOP base? Remember the absolute gong show of the 2012 GOP Presidential Primary with the parade of ridiculous not-Romneys?
2016 isn't the first time the GOP has gone off the deep-end, if media coverage seems skewed it's because it's difficult to give an intellectually honest defence of the US right when it regularly rallies around conspiracy theories.
If anything the media helped Trump with constant coverage of Clinton's emails and controversies around her foundation, while paying no attention to the actual policies being discussed.
Re:treating the symptoms (Score:5, Insightful)
I see you're still in "denial". Wake me when you make it past "anger" and get to "bargaining". But don't rush - if the left can keep its echo chamber intact for 4 more years, Trump get re-elected. Delay introspection all you like.
I'm in denial of what?
I know Trump won the election. I knew that was a very real possibility for at least a month beforehand.
I also know that he's ridiculously unprepared and still doesn't really understand what the job entails.
I know that he's moderating some of his positions as he talks to the Obama administration during the transition.
At the same time he's filling his administration with some of the most extreme characters from the right, so that moderation may be gone by February when the extremists are back in charge.
The guy isn't even in office and he's already caused 1 potential corruption scandal (using his new position to get construction approvals) and two diplomatic incidents (phone calls with Pakistan and Taiwan).
Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the primary. He didn't.
Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the general. He didn't.
Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential once he became President-elect. He hasn't.
When is he supposed to grow up and learn the job? 2025?
When is the right going to stop being in denial and realize there's no brilliant statesman hiding under the hair extensions. The Trump you see is the Trump you get and he is not remotely suited for the position of US President.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the primary. He didn't.
Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential during the general. He didn't.
Trump was supposed to learn the job and start acting presidential once he became President-elect. He hasn't.
FYI, according to Trump's campaign manager, Kelly-Ann Conway, since Trump is now president elect whatever he does is now "presidential".
When is the right going to stop being in denial and realize there's no brilliant statesman hiding under the hair extensions.
So don't hold you breath. They'll be in denial until at least 2026.
Re: (Score:3)
"- Fox" That's a minus sign, not a hyphen or an en-dash.
Re:seek medical help, quickly (Score:5, Informative)
You claim certainty that Trump is "...ridiculously unprepared and still doesn't really understand what the job entails." but there is a bit of reality you and others like you still have not yet faced:
Barack Obama had never done a productive thing in his life when elected President.
He had a good academic career, many years of experience as a State Legislator, almost 4 years as a US Senator, and was clearly competent and obviously had a strong grasp of policy.
Still he didn't have sufficient Federal experience and paid for it in his first couple years in office.
Everybody has their opinions about whether Trump is good/evil, right/left (Lots of Republicans fear he is too liberal and Democrat-aligned), etc but the simple fact is that the man is far more qualified to be CEO of the US (The President is the top executive job in the US government, the head of the executive branch)
CEO is a very different position than President.
than Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Bush COMBINED. Trump has been successfully running a multi-billion dollar international corporation through about 40 years of economic ups and downs and shifting legal sands and even across shifting international lines. He has employed tens of thousands of people around the world and has hired and fired, promoted and overseen and monitored hundreds of managers of his many sub units of his vast holdings and has probably more experience in managing a team that manages a complex, hierarchical, distributed entity than ANY US President since Eisenhower.
He's mostly a franchise at this point, licensing his name to other groups to throw on hotels. When he manages things himself bankruptcies and unpaid bills are a typical outcome.
I suspect he's pretty good at real estate, and he may do a decent job of managing his organization, but his chaotic disorganized campaign was a common story line during the election, the most obvious evidence being the two campaign managers he fired and turfing the entire transition team several days after winning.
His managerial abilities are clearly not universally awesome.
He was also caught out many times simply not understanding fairly basic things about different policy areas, what the POTUS did, or even what the constitution said.
Re: (Score:3)
So then which policies are you happy with?
I look forward to Trump actually having a policy that he won't flip-flop on. I couldn't begin to predict what that might be, but once the senate, or someone non-Trump, says "this is the deal", well, then we'll know.
Fuck you, fuck your fascists, and fuck their awful ideas.
See, AC has moved past denial to anger. This is healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Polls are just polls. They call people and ask them questions. Just because someone likes one candidate over another doesn't mean they'll get off their ass and go vote. Lots of people that voted for Obama the last two elections didn't feel like making the effort for Hilliary. The polls probably made them feel it wasn't necessary in some cases and in other ones they just didn't like her enough to make an effort. Most of that stuff on twitter is bogus and you know it unless you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
With the large media companies unable to effectively control the election and give Hillary the presidency its time for an overhaul. These 5 or so companies should be the ones controlling the election, not these independents.
Re:treating the symptoms (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Its another thin edge of the wedge event.
1. 'Something must be done to protect the people.'
2. The something includes a framework that restricts a right we all have and want, but 'it will only be used for this 1 purpose we promise'.
3. Based on the promises of every administration ever the protection is passed/enabled.
4. 28937438 other uses for the framework are found and since someone else thinks we need more protection our rights are reduced some more.
5. We dont have that right anymore (for our own pro
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly , I do not see this going anywhere. This is just part of a wish list to control the information to the masses.
You must also be one of those lucky citizens who doesn't pay taxes. I see this as just another excuse by government to demand a larger budget, paid for by taxpayers of course.
The function or effectiveness of this new requirement will never be tracked, and no one gives a shit enough to do so. This continues to allow billions to be poured into pointless programs today. I see no difference tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is windfall of the long-term, intentional program of the right to destroy competent US primary (secular) education. An ignorant populace is an easily deluded and manipulated populace.
This priority is right up there with dog-whistling intolerance and minority voter disenfranchisement.
More about eliminating WrongThink (Score:5, Interesting)
The time is coming where any news expressing something the government doesn't want us to hear will
just have a FAKE label slapped on it, followed by a "Fake News Removal Order" (Evolution of the DMCA) sent to the hosting website.
If it were really about eliminating the fake news threat; a major goal would instead be to improve education of the people to more readily spot suspicious content, evaluate it logically and rationally, and not be fooled by snake oil.
Re:More about eliminating WrongThink (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: More about eliminating WrongThink (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Experts CAN be wrong . Look at this last election. Experts thought the knew the outcome to a 98% certainty at its highest, and on election night, is only went down to somewhere in the 80's and in the end got it totally wrong. And these were political analysts (e.g EXPERTS).
What should be done is collect as much information as possible by looking at the information from multiple angles and make the decision based on that information. You know, independent thought. Never blindly accept an an
Re: (Score:3)
Not totally wrong. The winning margin in the popular vote, which is now approaching 3 million, is almost exactly where most of the "experts" put it.
As for the Electoral College, those votes still haven't been cast and the recounts haven't taken place. Expect an interesting few weeks.
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. Experts CAN be wrong . Look at this last election. Experts thought the knew the outcome to a 98% certainty at its highest, and on election night, is only went down to somewhere in the 80's and in the end got it totally wrong. ...
You realise they gave probabilties, not hard projections, right? I can tell you you have a 78% chance of not flipping 3 heads in a row, so the most likely outcome is that you won't. It doesn't make me wrong if you happen to flip 3 heads in a row.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
think the issue is more that several consecutive generations have been fed the idea that experts aren't right and shouldn't be respected.
Fuck experts. You're not right because of a certificate or credential. If you have a cogent argument, the argument is right. If you're good at your job (whatever you're an expert in) you can explain your argument persuasively. Let's take some examples.
One group says "immigrants took our jobs, and raped our women". The experts say "no they didn't, shut up you racist". Result: Trump is president.
One group says "I don't believe in this global warming stuff - it has the same pattern as everything else the
Re: More about eliminating WrongThink (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an interesting take. I guess that means that when Obama won two elections and leaves office with a higher popularity than Ronald Reagan, during those eight years climate change was real?
Or are Trump voters kind of stupid people? I heard Ann Coulter today complaining that Donald Trump is betraying his supporters. She remarked, "It's not my fault".
Despite the fact that she wrote a book titled, "In Trump We Trust". Yes, it appears that Trump supporters make up most of the ass end of the Bell Curve. I assume you've joined their brilliant #DumpKellogs boycott in which they buy Kellogs products and then post selfies of them dumping out those products. That they just bought. Before that, they held a boycott of Starbucks in which they went to Starbucks, bought a $6 coffee and then forced the girl at the counter to write "Trump" on their cup. Not quite clear on the whole, "boycott" concept, but they sure are enthusiastic.
Here are some more enthusiastic Trump supporters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11... [nytimes.com]
So here what: Trump and his supporters will not be normalized. There will be no point over the next two years when Donald Trump is accepted as President in any normal sense. And when it comes right down to it, there are 3 million more people who voted for someone everybody hated instead of Trump. He's going to have a hard time claiming any mandate or legitimacy. He's the second Republican president in a row who got fewer people to vote for him than the losing candidate, and he has to make sure to stop any effort to actually count all the votes and audit the election process in order to hold on to power. He's already a lame duck and he hasn't been sworn in yet.
Re: (Score:3)
"I understand why you think that way, plenty of smart people would, knowing what you know. Here are some things you don't know, and why they're important".
We tried that, and it didn't work. All we got back were conspiracy theories (China invented global warming!) and outright denials from people who wanted to carry on acting the way they always had.
It's worth pointing out that most of the experts didn't actually say people were idiots and xenophobes, that was just the inescapable conclusion that even the dumbest people dimly realized.
Re: (Score:3)
Fuck experts. You're not right because of a certificate or credential.
I think you make the common mistake of equating "experts" with "credentials." Experts are people who actually KNOW stuff. Credentials are sometimes useful for determining experts, sometimes not. There are plenty of people who don't have a certificate in X which nevertheless may BE an expert in X simply due to their experience, their own independent study, etc.
So, no -- the fact that you have a credential absolutely does not mean you're right. But the fact that you KNOW more stuff does make it more lik
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Immature know-it-all detected.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, there's that pesky first amendment to consider. Since Hilliary isn't going to get to stack the court with progressive judges who can reinterpret the Constitution the way it was meant to be written you have to consider that even fake news is protected speech. If lies were against the law we'd have POTUS, all the Senators and every single Representative in the House in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
You are essentially arguing that democracy relies on a government that actively decides which media outlets are trustworthy and which ones should be censored. One of the core tenets of Western democracies was that the media was supposed to inform the people, so the people could act against government abuses of power.
See the problem here?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, fake news has always been there, this is just a new name that has been applied to it.
Some say that the brain does not fully develop on average until 25-30. Don't know about you, but I still have all my mental faculties at 55. About the only thing that has changed dramatically is the increase in apathy about quite a few things.
Sooo (Score:5, Insightful)
What part about freedom of the press and "congress shall make no law" don't they understand
Shit, they might as well name the new effort the Ministry of Truth so that it can be crystal clear what they are trying to accomplish.
Re:Sooo (Score:4, Funny)
I know right. You've got all these paranoid people who mistrust the government and then you make a propaganda/truth bureau to reinforce their paranoia.
Re:Sooo (Score:4, Interesting)
That's sort of near "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
It's a living, breathing document. So it means (or, in these cases, doesn't mean) whatever powerful people want it to mean today. Tomorrow it may mean the exact opposite. Because power. And because shut up.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, clearly there's an arms race in government censorship.
We need to compete with the Russians! Why, their government is FAR FAR AHEAD in lying to the people!
Re:Sooo (Score:5, Insightful)
"manipulating elections" like Snowden manipulated domestic warrantless surveillance policy or Manning manipulated foreign policy. If showing the truth is "manipulation" you have bigger problems than Russia.
So when do they (Score:2)
So when does the US government fund a war against fake network news, or the general bullshit spewed forth by our elected officials ?
Re: (Score:2)
Trump just funded that war himself. Seems he won. Now he's got 4 years to show us his bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
You simpleton, did it ever occur to you that maybe I was one of the tens of millions that didn't like either candidate? That I was one of the millions upon millions that held their nose against the smell as I chose my candidate? That I'm one of the millions of Trump supporters that now waits to see what he does now that he's elected and if he truly was a better choice than the awful Hilliary? I'm seriously hoping he's half what he claims to be. If you're so fucking confident of it being a rosy world you
Re: (Score:2)
this is deplorable (Score:2)
Elephant in the room (Score:5, Insightful)
What, the US mainstream media didn't work hard enough disparaging Donald Trump for the last year? Let's dredge up the Russia boogeyman again and say Russian propaganda is a threat to US propaganda. We need to install a new government branch called the Department of Propaganda to counter such danger to national security. Citizens and countrymen, it's time to double, nay triple our propaganda efforts this time, so that it doesn't fail again!
Smith-Mundt Act was repealed. (Score:5, Interesting)
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's propaganda to be directed at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years.
Even Ron Wyden Fell For It (Score:3)
Russian propaganda is an excuse and diversion to prevent people from realizing that this is a new effort of the US government to create and disseminate propaganda to the American public, fully backed by the law. The line "2017 intelligence authorization bill calling for new executive branch efforts" sounds a lot to me like "President Trump will have this new propaganda tool at his disposal to hoodwink US residents even further than they already have been by every source already."
It also smacks of a return to the Cold War anti-USSR propaganda spouted by every source. I can't help but feel a "wag the dog" situation is unfolding, with a growing Russian bogeyman to distract us from our growing domestic problems.
Trump thanks you for this new power (Score:2)
Trump will use this new government power to determine which news is legitimate and which is "fake". Perhaps he will send the IRS after his enemies in the "fake" news camp, just like the Obama Administration did with the Tea Party. I hope you're not on the donor lists the IRS will be demanding from those organizations that Trump doesn't like. If you are, you better have all your financial records in order.
The FEC may also want to talk to you if your donations funded any "Citizens United" style communicati
Covert? (Score:2)
"[C]ounter active measures by Russia to exert covert influence over peoples and governments."
Covert? Seemed rather overt to me.
Re: Covert? (Score:2)
Nothing to do with fake news. (Score:2)
depolarize (Score:5, Insightful)
The current state of affairs is too complicated for an AC analysis in a single post but I will say a few things. The two main political parties are closer to each other than we realize. If you look at Europe and elsewhere, you find greater differences and more parties. Because they are so similar, they have spent decades attempting to distinguish themselves and their supports from the each other. They have played the people against each other through sensationalist rhetoric, attack campaigns (good ol' muckraking as it used to be called), lies and incessant fear that the other party is trying to destroy your life and family. We've dug a 3 mile deep trench in a 10 foot wide field and convinced everyone that the people on the other side are monsters. Incidentally, this sort of dehumanizing psychology is what allowed so many soldiers to view the enemy as animals and treat them accordingly. When we no longer see people, we are no longer bound by any empathy.
So how is this relevant to fake news? The connection is simple imo. If you believe that the other side is a manipulative, pathological liar, then everything they say and everything that agrees with their viewpoint must be wrong. It can't be considered or even analyzed. So what do you do? You seek out views that reflect your own side and you end up in an echo chamber.
While I believe that the internet has the greatest potential we have ever seen to bring us together and unite us as a species on a path to a better future, that potential is not being realized. We may be here together on this site right now, collectively considering the consequences of fake news, the recent election, the growing surveillance across the globe, and we may share the same shock and dismay and even fear, but this is yet another echo chamber. All forms of social media seem to reinforce this and the potential of the itnernet is lost in groupthink.
We have reached a point where the American government is going to start policing media for fake news in the interest of national security. This is the motivation of China with their great firewall. That was the motivation of the old Soviet governments. Censorship and control are not the answer. Meaningful dialogue and a critical eye are. We need to stop with the vehement rhetoric and the everpresent need to prove the other side wrong or scream about how the sky is falling. We need to calmly start asking for citations and weigh the evidence presented. We need to remember that most issues are finely nuanced and that sometimes both sides are partially right and partially wrong. We need to stop seeking out spurious information that confirms our own worldview and re-inforces our comfy bubble, but rather seek out contrary information and evaluate it.
If we can do that then all the BS in the world from foreign state agents won't make a difference. We are only susceptible to it now because of all the ridiculous infighting. Decades of that have left us uncritical, petulantly defensive, blind to facts, and obstinate to an impossible degree.
If your response to this is to just blow it off as "yeah, people are stupid, you can't do anything about it" or make more sarcastic comments then you are part of the problem. This can be changed. Shitty government can be changed. Shitty news agencencies can be run out of business. It just won't happen if we're all sitting around mouthing off about how bad everything is on the internet instead of discussing ways to fix it.
Of course, the pessimistic cynic in me says that this won't even show up on the page. Prove that voice wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Joe McCarthy back? (Score:2)
Oh, great. So now we'll have a truth commission
Next we need to find the disloyal propaganda-spewing reporters and make them sign loyalty oaths.
Oh, and don't forget that Hollywood is owned by foreigners. Something should be done about that.
Why does the USA care so much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Elect anyone who is slightly socialist?
USA to the rescue!!
Elect someone the USA doesn't like? Must be election fraud!!
Nationalize oil companies? Here, have an embargo.
Violate the human rights of women and immigrants, don't have democratic elections, no freedom of religion, no free press?
Please be our ally UAE!!
Honestly, fuck the US and their hypocrisy.
They can complain about russians influencing their election when they stop fucking around with countries all over the world.
File under "history" (Score:3)
Historical article: "Establishment of Minitrue"
The Decline of Big Media has been Noticed (Score:2)
This is the government realising that the internet is taking control of ideas away from big media and giving it to the people ... of the whole world. Unfortunately some of the people are apparently paid by the Russian government and that's going to be hard to deal with. Big media is relatively easy for the government to control, or maybe it's the other way around. Either way, neither of them like the change in the status quo. Luckily for those in the US, you have strong constitutional protections for fr
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that people equate being able and allowed to tell the truth with some sort of obligation to do so, and that's dangerous. You have the same effect as you do with people being dissatisfied with the medical system or with science. I do not want to believe in established science/pharmacy/news, and there is someone else who sells "non-establishment" science/pharmacy/news, so he must be right because "the establishment" is something I don't trust.
And that's dangerous.
Just because A is false doesn't
FAKE NEWS ALERT ... (Score:2)
,,, PUSSY GRABBER becomes President of the United States of America.
US declares the Onion an enemy of the state. (Score:2)
The only true way to combat fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
Is to fix the credibility of the so called real news, in this election they basically burned all their goodwill as fast as a gamegear plow thru batteries.
Total Coincidence (Score:3, Insightful)
This much censorship makes it MORE likely there's something to the allegations, not less. Nobody cares when the National Enquirer makes up nonsense about Brangelina or the Weekly World News claims to have found aliens.
Re:Total Coincidence (Score:5, Informative)
Rumors about Pizzagate hit the internet. Twitter removes people talking about it. Reddit deletes the group talking about it (but leaves actual groups of pedophiles online!). Even 4chan, the internet's cess pit is trying to censor it. The MSM won't touch it. Suddenly there's a big war on "fake" news, simultaneously by the new media, the old media, and now the government.
This much censorship makes it MORE likely there's something to the allegations, not less. Nobody cares when the National Enquirer makes up nonsense about Brangelina or the Weekly World News claims to have found aliens.
Media should ignore fake news when possible. Reporting it, even to debunk it, tends to give the story more credibility and make the target look more suspicious.
Pizzagate is a great example. It's fake news, a particularly ridiculous piece of fake news where people have invented a massive pedophile network all because they didn't understand why a restaurant owner (who was also a fundraiser) was mentioned in an email [bbc.com].
Pizzagate isn't a scandal. It's a trashy detective model where the characters have been given names of real people.
Now were Twitter and Reddit right to censor those discussions? I don't know. Going by the fact I've been spared knowing about this particular piece of stupidity until now I can't say they're wrong.
What about that anti-Muslim video? (Score:5, Interesting)
You remember.......the one the Obama administration blamed for the Benghazi attack? Does that count as fake news?
There is only fake news (Score:3)
I used to turn to BBC for reliable news but once they became embedded during the Iraq war they never extricated themselves and are no longer a reliable news source. I turned to Al Jazeera who always reported both sides and went out of their way to help me understand the other side of the story but the US military actually targeted them and arrested them so they stopped printing the truth. There is only fake news left. I now read a variety of sources like Russia Today as well as western news and judge the truth to be somewhere in the middle of the two lies.
So, more paid trolls. (Score:2)
What happens for the other 22 months? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>All they're doing is hiring critical US journalists and satirical comedians to report facts however they want to (as long as they're not critical of Putin or the Kremlin). It's not that hard to do.
RT, DW, BBC, Al-Jazz, etc., don't have to make shit up to make the US look bad. This "hurr the Russians were fucking up our election" bullshit pales in comparison to the actual shenanigans (seals on WI voting machines *visibly* broken, the latest news... and going back to the restriction on voting venues in m
Re: (Score:2)