YouTube Will Add Information From Wikipedia To Videos About Conspiracies (theverge.com) 226
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: YouTube will add information from Wikipedia to videos about popular conspiracy theories to provide alternative viewpoints on controversial subjects, its CEO said today. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said that these text boxes, which the company is calling "information cues," would begin appearing on conspiracy-related videos within the next couple of weeks. Wojcicki, who spoke Tuesday evening at a panel at the South by Southwest Interactive festival in Austin, showed examples of information cues for videos about the moon landing and chemtrails. "When there are videos that are focused around something that's a conspiracy -- and we're using a list of well-known internet conspiracies from Wikipedia -- then we will show a companion unit of information from Wikipedia showing that here is information about the event," Wojcicki said. The information cues that Wojcicki demonstrated appeared directly below the video as a short block of text, with a link to Wikipedia for more information. Wikipedia -- a crowdsourced encyclopedia written by volunteers -- is an imperfect source of information, one which most college students are still forbidden from citing in their papers. But it generally provides a more neutral, empirical approach to understanding conspiracies than the more sensationalist videos that appear on YouTube.
Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is something called the Backfire Effect [rationalwiki.org]. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the firm belief that it's very difficult to change anyone's mind immediately, on a subject they care about. People will be biased to be skeptical of your claims that are counter to their held beliefs. This makes some sense, as someone could easily be quickly manipulated if this wasn't the case. It is the mental equivalent of 'circling the wagons' and is a similar defense mechanism. I imagine (but haven't done any research on this) that the experiments done that found a Backfire Effect were all done s
Re: (Score:2)
If you start bullshitting people all of the time, they will start bullshitting back. Want to annoy the crap out of government and corporate propagandists, tell them you believe the crap that is undermining them, even when you don't, in fact especially when you don't. Think about it, they go through all the trouble and expense of generating propaganda to target conspiracy theories and think they are failing because the response from the public, we believe the conspiracy theory fuck off (when they actually do
Re: (Score:3)
It took years to become deprogrammed, mostly from living in Newark and New York, watching the filth of humanity greedily feast on the idiot liberals (of which I was one), begging for handouts during the day and mugging them at night, all while perfectly capable of working for an honest and productive living.
How did you track these people to find out that the ones begging by day were also mugging by night? How did you evaluate their ability to work? Or did you just make assumptions based on your preconceived notions and incomplete perspective?
Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think something else entirely will happen [wikipedia.org].
Got popcorn?
Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone. (Score:5, Interesting)
It won't change any minds, but it might prevent people from falling for it to begin with.
I remember when I first discovered moon landing conspiracy sites. I was fascinated and went down that rabbit hole until I stumbled onto a debunking site.
Since I was just looking into it for the first time, I had no commitment to it, and I was able to see that the debunkers has much simpler, more plausible arguments.
But if I had found the debunkers after telling people about it for a year, I might not have had the strength to admit I was wrong. So thanks, Internet debunkers. You do good work.
Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah I read about 9/11 conspiracy theories on Digg for a couple years before a friend linked me to a debunking site. It cleared up pretty much every incongruity that looked suspicious.
Re: (Score:2)
I object to your characterization. Pepe the frog is an alt-right nazi hate symbol, not a gay frog.
he's also fictional. REAL frogs are all gay because of the water. that horrible horrible water.
Re: Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, debunking is great...when the conspiracy theory is false. But for a long time people would call you crazy if you thought the CIA was conducting mind control programs [wikipedia.org], the NSA was faking evidence to get us involved in wars [wikipedia.org], or the spooks were recording your phone calls and email. [wikipedia.org]
I have a sneaking suspicion that YouTube has no interest in sorting fact from fiction in "conspiracy theories." I'm pretty sure they just want a method of attacking political views they disagree with. In the meantime, CNN will continue their hard-hitting reports confirming that sources familiar with the thinking of former acquaintances of Donald Trump speculate that Trump's use of Russian salad dressing confirms he's a double secret Putin agent and that Hillary really won the election #RESIST.
Re:Doesn't matter. Won't convince anyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
The other day I fell into the trap of watching a few flat earther videos on youtube. I asked myself "who would watch this tripe?". After thinking about it the truth came to me : I was watching. Flat Earther videos aren't for Flat Earthers, but to stir the waters of people like me who find the notion teeth grindingly irritating. We watch the videos to arm ourselves for a debunking. And they get ad revenue. They win. Probably 80% of people watching those videos do so because their scepticism drives them to, or because they just like seeing a trainwreck of logic.
In fact at some point I saw an ad at the start of a flat earther conspiracy theory that was unequivocally aimed at anti-flat earthers.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it a step further and question if there even are any flat-earthers.
Most of them seem like smug assholes who figured out that the average person thinks they understand science, but are just ignorant superstitious morons mimicking the sciency-sounding crap their high school teachers fed them. So the "flat-earthers" can have 1000 consecutive conversations with people who stand there claiming to think it is illogical nonsense, but can't actually explain why. Flat-earthers know their arguments can be debu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is a laffer curve? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...based on a 10% reduction of 2005 US tax rates. That does not discredit the concept of Laffer curves in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could believe that about personal tax rates but not corporate (before the recent cuts). When you have billion dollar businesses fleeing to tax havens we're in the "economic activity (in this country) comes to a halt" phase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't moving to a lower-tax jurisdiction just an extension of "tax avoidance mechanisms?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This may backfire, but the studies on the backfire effect have been called into question.
Re: (Score:3)
There is something called the Backfire Effect [rationalwiki.org]. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.
There is a more fundamental issue here; one that is well described in the book The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart [amazon.com].
As the Amazon summary says "Over the past three decades, we [Americans] have been choosing the neighborhood (and church and news show) compatible with our lifestyle and beliefs. The result is a country that has become so polarized, so ideologically inbred that people don't know and can't understand those who live a few miles away."
Living and working in co
Re: (Score:2)
There is something called the Backfire Effect [rationalwiki.org]. In short, the more factual information you give to someone pointing how/where they're wrong, the more strident in their viewpoint they become.
This effect holds for those with conventional viewpoints as well. Most people, when presented with facts that indicate a conspiracy is actually afoot, will choose to ignore that evidence and continue thinking that there is no conspiracy. It indicates to me that, regardless of our viewpoint, we should all be more open minded and less sure that we know what we know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In general, it's not the fact that the information is factual that makes then deny it, it's that they won't see the source as credible. Wikipedia is not a "primary source", which indeed will cause people to do this.
Like the only real way of putting conspiracy theories to bed is to change the algorithms to pick up words IN THE VIDEO, which the auto-transcribe function can clearly do, and find the correlation between the video and subscribers/commenters.
eg, If infowars posts a video called "drinking tap water
Re: (Score:3)
I think THIS is the primary point that needs to be pondered.
Why even bother? Is this really a problem?
I mean, why not let anyone rant how they wish? As long as it isn't directing direct violent action against anyone....what's the harm?
Isn't this what the internet was created largely for...for anyone to be able to share their views and speak freely?
Why not let the viewer/listener decide what is bunk and what is fact?
And also...who decides wh
Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN! (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking of countering extreme or harmful posts, I'd love to see Slashdot implement better measures to reduce the garbage that gets posted here. They've had millions of comments that have been moderated up or down, so it should be possible to analyze that database and find predictors of comments (like the parent) that have a very high probability of ending up at -1. These comments could then be automatically rejected or flagged for editor review before being displayed. It wouldn't get rid of all trolling, a
Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, one man's racism is not another's differing viewpoint. Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion. Nobody is expected to or even should be tolerant towards intolerant people. Read Sir Karl Poppers "The Open Society and Its Enemies", that might enlighten you.
Second and way more importantly, this is not about racism or political opinions, this is about getting rid of obvious off-topic troll posts. This thread is not about whether Hillary Clinton is a member of the KKK, and the people who post this useless drivel can just go fuck off - permban them, shadow-ban them, delete their posts. I'm personally fine leaving all kinds of KKK posts in a thread about "Hillary Clinton is a member of KKK".
These off-topic posts are designed to derail discussions. Ban those assholes, it's as simple as that.
Re: Donald trump is a RUSSIAN! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong, people mentioning issues with outsourcing major projects to India or wanting to discuss demographics of inner city crime have been called racist. It is often a smoke screen raised to prevent rational discussion, a label thrown when no substantial argument exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Someone has been accused of something they didn't do or being something they aren't. I bet that's never happened on Slashdot before on any topic that's not racism...
I hope the sarcasm is obvious.
Of course, the flip side is that sometimes the "people mentioning issues" "or wanting to discuss demographics" actually are racists, and they're actually not mentioning or discussing anything other than their clearly racist views. The claims are just how they deflect criticism, I've seen it happen both ways,
Re: (Score:2)
So you don't see a difference between off topic trolls and actual discussion?
You were even given an example: someone posting claims Hillary Clinton is a member of the KKK in a thread about something else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion.
Not in a today's SJW-infested world. For example, opposition to illegal immigration often portrayed as racism. So definition is anything but clear, and I can guarantee that my definition is quite different from AmiMoJo's.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. There's personal racism, structural racism, scientific racism, disparate impact, privilege theory, critical race theory, lived experience, etc. Racism is not simple, at all, and the way it's employed and criticized rhetorically is toxic to any sort of rational debate. You cannot simply handwave away the complexity of race in American society with "Racism is really just racism, it's a pretty well-defined notion."
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wikipedia is reknown for it's own politics, bia (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia requires submitters to cite openly verifiable sources... which is something conspiracy sources won't bother doing... they are usually are self-referencing (bad source A citing bad source B, and vise-versa).. or they're deliberately obfuscating any factual data that contradicts their message.
Re: (Score:3)
The mainstream media does this all the time. Some garbage outlet like Buzzfeed reports "Florida Man Claims Bigfoot Sighting," and then Huffington post reports "Buzzfeed Reports Bigfoot Sighting," then WaPo comes in with "According to a Huffington Post Report, Bigfoot on the Loose in Florida," then the NYT asks the White House to comment on the bigfoot sightings reported by WaPo, then CNN runs with "NYT: Administration Dodges Bigfoot Questions" and has a 12-person panel analyzing the White House response to
Re: (Score:2)
Some conspiracy theories have started using citations to add credibility to their claims. It's become quite common, especially among the "rational" community which centres around YouTube, and has been adopted by sites like Brietbart.
The thing is, the sources actually debunk them in most cases. But they know that most people don't check sources, or if they do they don't read past the headline. In fact the YouTube rationals have developed a technique for ensuring this, where they show part of the article and
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of linking to RationalWiki on the topic of fighting self reinforcing echo chambers and conspiracy is really too rich.
Hint: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gamergate [rationalwiki.org]
Then compare to http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate [knowyourmeme.com]
And ask yourself why a meme site is more capable of representing different sides.
Wait. What different sides is the knowyourmeme page presenting? It appears to be relentless pro-Gamergate page where every criticism of Gamergate is neatly answered and every critic is shot down effortlessly (Which should be a clue that it's biased). Basically it takes everything that Gamergaters claim about themselves at face value even when their words and actions do not match their claims. On the other hand, the Rational Wiki page is dismissive and certainly biased against Gamergate, but they also ap
So Wikipedia ... (Score:2)
... will "AI," common sense?
Doesn't Go Far Enough (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm all in favor of this, so long as it's expanded to creationism, fundamentalism, or any other extremist video predicated on a faulty premise. Heck, take it further and add opposing viewpoints to ANY video presenting only one side to a contentious issue, like abortion or gun control/rights.
Re:Doesn't Go Far Enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of religion is a contentious issue. In America we have it. In Iran they don't.
Free and fair elections are a contentious issue. In much of the west we have them, in much of the rest of the world they don't and they make a point of touting it as a superior alternative to ours...and some people here quietly agree.
Same thing for blind justice, property rights, the right to operate an automobile, plastic bags in grocery stores. All of is a contentious issue.
So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.
If a Christian theologian were to put a video of his sermon, would you want little atheist factboxes popping up around it? Maybe you would, but you can't expect him to stay on the platform if it's going to go at his content with a thousand little pinpricks.
If an atheist like Richard Dawkins puts up a lecture of his, is it sensible for little factboxes of REPENT SINNERS to pop up there?
Be serious dude. You're either responsible for policing all of the content on your platform or you're responsible for none of it. There's very little ground in the middle.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fine with this. It's not like there are absolutely no legitimate arguments against representative democracy. If a video makes an argument, counter-arguments can be automatically linked to on the Youtube page. Stated facts can have sources automatically added; same for contradictory facts.
I didn't say this would be done by humans, it'd obviously have to be automated. Look at Facebook's moves to combat 'fake news' and things are moving in this direction already.
What this move is really doing, is intention
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like there are absolutely no legitimate arguments against representative democracy.
It is wildly inefficient compared to a benevolent dictatorship.
Unfortunately, benevolent dictatorships are few and far between.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA it would pull the following from Wikipeida:
Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3] People who do not identify as men or women or with masculine or feminine gender pronouns are often grouped under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer. Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders.
Perhaps you can think of a better example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So being Jewish depends on you acting like a Jew, doing Jew stuff like participating in the religion etc. But being a woman isn't dependent on your acting like a woman, doing woman stuff like wearing women's clothing etc.
Also, lots of non-religious people identify as Jewish because it's both a religion and a race. But you don't have to have Jewish race to be Jewish.
IOW trying to narrowly, strictly define these labels is futile and not at all related to how people actually use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps a better
Re: (Score:2)
So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.
"If you can't do everything perfectly, never try to do anything." You have failed to sell this.
Not that you're wrong for criticizing the parent, he turned an effort to correct falsehoods into a question of contentiousness. That shouldn't have come up in the first place. The question is not, "Are the ideas in this video contentious?" the question is, "Do the ideas in this video agree with what's in Wikipedia?"
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia will tell you unambiguously that having a gun in the house increases the chance that someone who lives there will suffer a guns
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else.
Wikipedia is way more authoritative than me, or you. Since we are the ones reading it in this scenario, that's a pretty good starting point.
For your example: it's true that Wikipedia won't tell you how to interpret the facts that it gives, but presumably that's what the video that you're watching is doing. That's what conspiracy theories do. Since the point of these links is to combat false information in youtube videos, telling you whether that information is true seems sufficient.
Yes it's true that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, you do know this is about information that is factually incorrect, like man never landing on the moon, or 2.3 trillion USD missing from the Pentagon before 9/11.
Not just stuff that conflicts with your particular world view.
So all Rachael Maddow clips will be tagged? (Score:4, Interesting)
The greatest conspiracy theory of our time (and the dumbest of all time) is Russiagate. Mueller - one of the people who lied you into Iraq [youtube.com] has had more than a year but has gotten nothing more than twitter trolls and indictments that have nothing to do with Trump or Russia.
Pointing this out always results in butthurt from people who have been eager to get punked a second time by the people who lied to world about Saddam planning 911 and having WMD's. Feel free to put up or STFU with some evidence, guys. Protip: assertions are not evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your not-facts are the conspiracy theory. Again: none of Mueller's indictments have anything to do with Russian hacking or colluding with Trump to do so. This is nothing more than an excuse from partisan Democrats to explain their loss to the 2nd worst candidate in history, and so they don't have to change their corrupt cor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You first. Then explain how you can prove .0011% of a $9 billion plus election affected a vote, much less enough to swing an election. Did the Twitter click farms somehow prevent Hillary from campaigning in the Rust Belt states that cost her the election? Did the puppy ads on Facebook force Hillary to pick a right-wing pro-life running mate when she needed to bring in the left side of the party?
Re: (Score:2)
You first. Do explain how .0011% spending out of a $9+ billion election swung a vote, much less the election overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why is he investigating Trump's campaign and administration, slick? You think Mueller became a meter maid in his retirement and he's com
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, FaceBook disclosed that, mostly in 2015, some people in Russia ran clickbait ads for and against Black Lives Matter. Therefore, Donald Trump is a traitor and Hillary becomes President now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to put up or STFU with some evidence, guys. Protip: assertions are not evidence.
Oh, the delicious irony.
How awesome is it that you can demand others play by rules that you yourself won't follow? That's gotta feel good, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Insert Diego Montoya clip here. [youtube.com]
Except that's exactly how it works, dotard, as you can't prove a negative. It's the job of a person claiming a thing is a thing to prove that its a thing. If you say you believe in Santa Claus as a grown assed man (far less embarrassing than believing in Russiagate btw), is it somehow my responsibility to prove that a man with magical powers doesn't exist in an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what conspiracy theorists do. Take one line, from one email, from one crank, and say "see this proves the greys and the lizard men are conspiring with the illuminati to corrupt our precious bodily fluids WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" The entire idea that Donald Trump, the golf course and casino guy from the TV show is really a secret Russian agent is ludicrous. It's one of the stupidest conspiracy theories of all time. Not only is there no evidence, it doesn't even make any sense. How the hell did the R
Re: (Score:2)
Copied and pasted since you skipped it the first time:
Feel free to put up or STFU with some evidence, guys. Protip: assertions are not evidence.
So far you Russiagaters have as much evidence as Birthers, Chem Trailers or Lunar Conspiracy nutjobs. B
Re: (Score:2)
You've managed to stay this ignorant for 15 years? You never noticed how the neocons who lied you into Iraq bother with this claim? Chemical weapons degrade over time, sparky. That mustard gas warhead that would have killed you in 1980 might....give you a bad rash in 2002.
Protip: it's not a weapon of mass destruction if its no longer capable of causing mass destruction.
Fine print (Score:2)
Hmm. I bet these article links get about as much attention as the fine print on lawyer commercials. Good luck with that.
Wikipedia Saved my sanity (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure it will do an excellent job in protecting the fragile masses from any other conspiracy theory today.
I have an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Will it be fair?? (Score:2)
Or is it only those conspiracies that the viewpoints at YouTube disagree with.
For instance, will it provide the same information for videos about climate change, since some claim those are conspiracies?? One could argue that the views for climate change are pushing an extreme viewpoint.
Or how about a conspiracy that YouTube is biased?? Will that show up??
Should be interesting to see what YouTube considers conspiracies that people need to be informed about and those that they should just accept.
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect example of how you can't fix stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Sleeve valve.
The Wankel engine.
Look up Apple and get the history of Microsoft for free?
Interested in Microsoft? The web site will offer that with the history of Amiga.
The big brand owners are spreading a new look FCC fairness doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] all over the users browser?
Re: (Score:2)
Marvellous. Those who believe there's a conspiracy will point to that as proof.
Re:This is just the start (Score:4, Informative)
It's a private platform. They could simply ban nutjobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Once a private area starts to invite the wider population in?
That depends on US laws and what some US states say about the role of a private area as a forum open to the public for political use.
Re: (Score:2)
They already restrict content, so they can't claim any benefit of being a neutral platform. Once you are stuck self-censoring, you might as well set up the censorship to your liking. Anyone can post anything they want on the internet, so it's hard to argue that they have some kind of monopoly... just post a video somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
They created content and supported the brand and site for some time under that neutral platform.
Once self-censoring and big brand US party political censorship is used to ban once approved political content creators?
Some of the past US state laws about public use of private property open to the public for political use can become interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the past US state laws about public use of private property open to the public for political use can become interesting.
Ugh, I hope not. I feel like we already treat IP too much like real property and we need to be going the other direction - not expanding in bold new directions.
Re: (Score:2)
They could simply ban nutjobs.
After singles between the ages of 22-30, nutjobs are the biggest target of the advertising industry.
YouTube wants to open to the maximal amount of viewers. A lot of folks think Google is hell-bent on diversity. Not true. They just want to own everyone.
Axe-murderers, Neo-Nazis, pedophile pepperoni pizzagate Hillary Clinton lovers and "Donald Trump turned me into a Newt Gingrich!" folks . . . c'mon in . . . your videos, and advertising potential are most welcome at YouTube!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can not deny access to e.g. Jews or women or gays or even people at random.
There is a very narrow band of unlawful discrimination, and it actually varies by state. On a federal level, you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, or sex. Pretty much anything else is open to discrimination. Perhaps there is some obscure FCC rule that could be bent to go after YouTube, but I'm pretty sure they have full editorial control over their own website. You could absolutely ban nutjobs from your bread store, too. You could forbid people from buying bread if they don't ride a red bike to y
Re: (Score:2)
I think I have a video of my kid playing pee-wee soccer on there. I'm C-R-A-Z-Y.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Clive, AvE, and Cody's Lab?
Re: (Score:2)
Ayn Rand thought that the evil of the academic hippies could be entirely and successfully countered by reserving 5 minutes at the end of lectures for contrary views.
What liberal bias on Wikipedia? (Score:5, Informative)
What examples of "left bias" have you found on Wikipedia that are unsupported by sources that have earned a reputation for fact-checking? They might be in need of bringing them in line with Wikipedia's point of view policy [wikipedia.org]. Or is Wikipedia's guideline for determining "reputation for fact-checking" [wikipedia.org] itself applied in a manner that shows a systemic bias [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
I've been downmodded a few times recently for criticizing the left, gotta get a few downmods in for trashing the right too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soros? Pizzagate? Gamergate? Fucking LOL, this is like a guaranteed alt-right bingo.
You're even linking to a site that was delisted from Google for hosting child pornography, that's your respectable source?
I swear you conspiratards get nuttier every day.
Uh, everything that AC posted is 100% correct. Can you actually dispute anything? Or do you live on blind faith in your adopted narrative?
Re: So a left biased source will be used to hide.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The media has always been biased, but biased news isn't the same as fake news. The American media, through the printed word, wasn't exactly favorable toward their rules in Great Britain, and the British didn't exactly like the satirical coverage they received. They sought to restrict the freedom of American newspapers to publish stories that were unfavorable to them. That's why the first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. No doubt the American media was biased against the British government, but
Re: (Score:2)
"Journalistic errors also aren't fake news, provided that retractions are issued when the errors are brought to the attention of those responsible."
There is however a very specific sort of fake news related to journalistic "errors". That is to have a pattern of constant "errors" favouring one position's arguments, which get retracted later.
More people see initial articles than retractions, so as long as you post a retraction later, you can print whatever bullshit you want, get it fixed in people's minds as
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we can convince them to only eat right-handed proteins.
Don't let those hippies control your mind with left-food, only eat right-food.
Re: (Score:2)
I must be old but I can remember when slashdot was populated with people who knew how the Internet worked.
Re: (Score:2)
I must be old, but I can remember when a link on slashdot could kill the linked web site.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because adding more speech to disagree with you is surely what "suppress" means. LOL
Wow, a person who can't tell "suppress" from "disagree with." Talk about mushy thinking. You should get some sort of award, maybe even a lifelong pension.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say "suppress." Just propagandize. Things they disagree with will get "corrected," but completely erroneous bullshit that confirms their political prejudices will show up on your recommended list.
Re: (Score:2)
that thought the government was doing mind control experiments, or that they were being monitored on the internet by the spy agencies, or maybe that the CIA was involved in trafficking drugs. Loons!
This is kind of the problem. I have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist for expressing views that are now fairly mainstream (like the CIA trafficking drugs). In fact, even the term "conspiracy theorist" was deliberately made into a derogatory term by the CIA. https://www.paulcraigroberts.o... [paulcraigroberts.org]