Spain Introduces Bill To Combat Online Fake News (theguardian.com) 97
Spain's leftwing government has introduced a bill requiring digital platforms and social media influencers with large followings to publish corrections to false or harmful information. The law intends to "[make] life more difficult for those who dedicate themselves to lies and spreading fake news every day," said justice minister Felix Bolanos. The Guardian reports: The draft law replaces legislation from 1984 and targets internet users who have more than 100,000 followers on a single platform or 200,000 across several, the justice ministry said in a statement. These outlets and the platforms that host them must have a mechanism to facilitate citizens' right to ask that false or inaccurate information that harms them be corrected publicly, the ministry said. The correction request will no longer have to be addressed to the outlet's director because confirming their identity is difficult for many "pseudo media," justice minister Felix Bolanos told a press conference.
Who decides? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Who decides? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds great. Now, who decides the "well regarded source"?
Re:Who decides? (Score:5, Informative)
It's unclear exactly but somehow it ends up being the sources those deciding find agreeable. [tracingwoodgrains.com]
Re:Who decides? (Score:4, Informative)
This distinction is truly crystal clear. People need to realize this and to start ignoring 100% of "conservative" media, which do nothing but "opine".
Re: (Score:3)
And this is clearly why you do not make your living as a journalist. It's any source that is in a position to know the facts, who has no personal stake in the story and who's information can be corroborated by two or more independent and similarly uninvolved sources
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds great. Now, who decides the "well regarded source"?
The same people who always get to choose: Those with all the money.
Re:Who decides? (Score:4, Interesting)
An opinion about another person is not any type of "news" fake or otherwise. When an incorrect fact is posted, one would assume that a citation from a well regarded source that disproves that fact would serve as proof of "fake news."
I think the burden of proof is with the party making the claim, not the party refuting it.
I'm not sure how the Spanish lawmakers intended for this law to work. I'll speculate that someone can challenge something, and the news outlet needs to defend their claim if they can, or withdraw it if they can't. How that differs from libel proceedings in a court, I'll leave for discussion. Someone here already mentioned that the latter is more expensive, so there's that.
Re: (Score:2)
"But if someone posts something negative about another person and they claim it is "fake news" who decides?"
That would be libel and a court in some jurisdictions. Whether you can afford it is an issue too.
Elsewhere you are probably SOL.
Re:Who decides? (Score:5, Informative)
Saying something negative about someone is not libel. It has to be defamatory or untrue as facts [legaldictionary.net], not opinion. If I say the convicted felon needs to blend his orange make up better so it's not so obvious, he can sue all he wants, but what I said is an opinion even if it hurts his feelings. It also happens to be the truth.
That said, he's said he's going to prohibit people from calling out his lies [imgur.com].
Re: (Score:2)
That said, he's said he's going to prohibit people from calling out his lies.
To me it was clear that he was talking about social media and occurrences like Twitter files.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
twitter files: here's some disinformation, you might not want to publish it.
maga: government pressure tactics! this is lawfare!
trump: sues someone for a poll he didn't like.
maga: crickets.
Re: (Score:3)
Disinformation like Hunter Biden's laptop being Hunter Biden's laptop, you mean? The leading story from the Twitter Files, where Twitter's incompetence, dishonesty and bureaucratic inertia almost exposed all of US social media to new government regulation?
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you for proving that disinformation works.
It wasn't his laptop, fuckwit. The laptop was used by Giuliani to release the hacked emails. How do you not know this by now?
In June of this year the special counsel introduced the actual laptop as evidence in Hunter's Delaware trial. It's real, the FBI has had it all along.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Biden is sharp as a tack? Or he will never pardon his son? Or the border is secure? Or Kamala was never the border czar? Or that border agents whipped migrants? Or that there will be no inflation? Or that the inflation is only transitory? Or the Putin price hike? Or if you get vaccinated, you can't catch covid? Or the Steele dossier. Or the Trump pee tapes? Or the Inflation Reduction Act reduces inflation? Or the Covington school boys blocked an Indian elder? Or mostly peaceful protes
Re: (Score:2)
Or the latest from CNN, freeing that poor prisoner who turned out to be a Assad henchman. Oooops
Or that ABC is paying 15 million to OMB in a libel settlement, for repeating a known lie.
Or the MILLIONS the government spent on crafting narratives in the news. Which is probably the worst of them all, since it is weaponizing taxpayer dollars against the taxpayers.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump was found liable for rape, as defined by common legal and vernacular usage of the word.
Only the jury literally did NOT find him liable for rape.
Re: (Score:1)
"In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Stephanopolous's defamatory statements were specifically that the jury found Trump liable for (what is legally defined as) rape, which in New York is intentionally distinct from "the common definition of the word". NBC argued that the case should be dismissed because of what Judge Kaplan wrote, and they lost that argument (shortly before the case settled).
It's like saying that a jury convicted someone for murder when they were actually found guilty of negligent homicide: the legal definition is very differ
Re: (Score:1)
The jury said he committed rape, as defined by common legal and vernacular usage of the word but not in the narrow definition in New York statutes.
The judge said he committed rape, as defined by common legal and vernacular usage of the word but not in the narrow definition in New York statutes.
Trump is on video saying he committed rape, as defined by common legal and vernacular usage of the word but not in the narrow definition in New York statutes.
Trump is a rapist, as defined by common legal and vernacula
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you didnâ(TM)t notice that the orange one won $15M + 1M in lawyer fees from the organization that called him a convicted felon and spread the rape hoax.
Of course it's 100% factual that Trump is a convicted felon. The ruling against ABC had nothing to do with that, you can find articles from every news outlet in America confirming the fact that Trump is a convicted felon because he is one.
Re: (Score:1)
Technically he is NOT a convicted felon, for the process was NEVER finished and therefore the conviction is NOT finalized. Nor is it going to be. ERGO not a conviction. Similar to being overturned on appeal. The conviction has been set aside.
"Elections have consequences" - Barrack Obama.
Re: (Score:1)
Postponed. Not set aside, not the same as being overturned on appeal.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No, "technically" he's a convicted felon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"In May 2024, he was found guilty of falsifying business records, making him the first U.S. president to be convicted of a felony"
As I mentioned above this should be apparent because every news outlet (not to mention wikipedia) labels him as such.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who decides? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is who can be trusted to decide. And the answer is no one. And in the United States, that is the law because our founders didn't trust anyone, including themselves, with the power to decide. It was up to the people to sort through what was true and they trusted us to do it.
Well, some of them did anyway. Hamilton preferred rule by an elite because other people couldn't be trusted to govern ourselves.. He lost the argument then and since, but he seems to be winning it at the moment among our current intelligentsia.
Re:Who decides? (Score:4, Insightful)
The fairness doctrine was designed to do the exact opposite of censorship. rather than shut people off its purpose was to make sure all sides were heard. It applied to broadcast licenses for use of the limited broadcast space on public airways. Its purpose was to make sure people received balanced information from those using that space so that they could make their own informed decisions.
Re: (Score:1)
The fairness doctrine was designed to do the exact opposite of censorship
So? It doesn't matter what is was "designed" for; it matters what the incentives are.
When you put government in charge of the media, the media inevitably starts toeing the government line.
Re: (Score:2)
So? It doesn't matter what is was "designed" for; it matters what the incentives are.
Its not really about what you imagine the incentives to be. Its about what actually happened. And the effect of the fairness doctrine was that broadcast news was both relatively balanced by today's standards and blandly conventional. About what we should expect from the use of public resources that are owned by all of us.
When you put government in charge of the media, the media inevitably starts toeing the government line.
When you put corporations in charge of the media, the media inevitably starts toeing the corporate line.
I think we need to challenge the idea that government is a larger threat to our pers
Re: (Score:2)
Hamilton preferred rule by an elite because other people couldn't be trusted to govern ourselves.
I have disliked Hamilton since I was a child. I read about his stance in this regard and it rubbed me the wrong way. The current version of the USA is proof positive that Hamilton was dead wrong. In fact, the harder we work to keep the "elite" from deciding things, the closer we will be to a realistic form of government. We still have a Republican Democracy to keep it from degenerating into a mob rules situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Its not a subjective measure. Its not about "who decides" its "did you tell the truth". If you didn't, you publish a correction. Its a pretty reasonable measure frankly.
Re: (Score:1)
"did you tell the truth".
Who decides what "the truth" is. Facts aren't true or false, They are accurate or inaccurate which may be objective. But whether the narrative they support is true is completely beyond objective judgment. That's the truth.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Its not a subjective measure. Its not about "who decides" its "did you tell the truth". If you didn't, you publish a correction. Its a pretty reasonable measure frankly.
And when it’s government propaganda being sold as fact? What then? Who challenges that “truth” under this new law, or is this law more a law designed to prevent and prohibit that specific line of questioning?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not a subjective measure
True, but it has become more complicated. Fake news is the intentional dissemination of false information to influence people's opinions and actions.
For example, fake news about signs of life on the moon published in the 19th century is a classic example, where the publisher later admitted it was a lie. It did, however, attract more subscriptions. And Russia has spread disinformation about a plane crash in Ukraine in 2014, and has several "troll factories" etc...
But Trump has often used the term as a
Re:Who decides? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Who decides" is still the main question. For slander and libel, it has to go through a court -- but that is not what they want for preventing misinformation.
I have a suggestion -- if we are to imbue a Ministry of Truth with the power to quash misinformation, they need to have "oopsie he he he" insurance for when they inevitably make a "mistake". For example, they could be required to put up a $1 per viewer collateral when making a claim, payable should their claim be disputed and lose in court, plus the winner's court costs too. Their rival can then either take down the claim or vouch for it with their own $1 per viewer collateral. This way, the courts which we trust to decide murder and slander and such are the final arbiter. The main reason I'd support this is because there seems to be huge support to have a dangerously unaccountable Ministry of Truth supposedly to counter dangerously unaccountable professional liars.
Re: (Score:2)
When thinking about fake news, remember that fake news is intentional false facts with a purpose. And when thinking about a statement, consider the following questions.
Is this a fact or an opinion? Double check facts.
Where was it published? On a private blog, perhaps?
Where does the info come from, and who has something to gain from its spread?
Surprisingly many countries have "troll farms", like
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm pretty sure the Ministry of Truth from 1984 is exactly what some of the proponents want, hence my proposal to completely neuter that aspect of it while still having it effective for fighting misinformation -- would be interesting to see who hates this but loved the idea of one which could freely make "mistakes".
Oh and I'm aware misinformation is also a real problem -- anywhere from idiots spreading idiocity to enemy nations specifically intending to cause us harm -- it's just I think a lot of the pe
Re: (Score:2)
We buy and sell our news now. (Score:4, Interesting)
Who decides what is "fake news". Sure, in many cases it may seem obvious. But if someone posts something negative about another person and they claim it is "fake news" who decides?
One natural problem of this, but root cause analysis states the “real” media brought this on themselves. There would have been no need for a “pseudo” media had our normal media outlets not sold their fucking soul in order to make news a profitable business. Worst thing we could have ever done to news reporting was put a damn stock price on it. They’ll say any damn thing for more clicks and views.
News is bought and sold now. Good luck finding the sponsored “truth” in that corrupt business.
And that’s just the Greed problem. Doesn’t even touch the problem of government propaganda being sold as fact.
Re: (Score:2)
but root cause analysis states the "real" media brought this on themselves
This is blatantly false. Please print a retraction.
* grabs media policy handbook *
Lets see here. Rejecting facts..Retracting offer letters..Retracti, ah here it is. Says here I’m supposed to buy the domain beware-of-basement-tigers(dot).co.uk 18 months from now, post my retraction in 2-point white-colored font on a password-protected page running over a custom HTTPS port, and advertise it with a local hosts file that exists for..seventeen seconds?
Weird. It’s almost as if we’re still wondering why media has an ethics problem.
Re: (Score:2)
root cause analysis states the “real” media brought this on themselves.
No. Fake news is the intentional false information intended to influence people's opinions and actions. It is also ancient and international, but according to Northwestern University 30% of all fake news comes from Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
root cause analysis states the “real” media brought this on themselves.
No. Fake news is the intentional false information intended to influence people's opinions and actions. It is also ancient and international, but according to Northwestern University 30% of all fake news comes from Facebook.
Fake News is also when Truth is covered up by lies. Or censored altogether. The problem becomes exponentially worse when sponsored by Government, which should be a primary concern since THAT source will never be allowed to be labeled questionable or suspect.
Our problem may become more about what is NOT said, than what is said. Another timeless issue born from corruption.
And quite frankly, 2 billion humans are on Facebook. Doesn’t take a University to know it’s a significant source of grade-A
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides what is "fake news". Sure, in many cases it may seem obvious. But if someone posts something negative about another person and they claim it is "fake news" who decides?
One natural problem of this, but root cause analysis states the “real” media brought this on themselves. There would have been no need for a “pseudo” media had our normal media outlets not sold their fucking soul in order to make news a profitable business. Worst thing we could have ever done to news reporting was put a damn stock price on it. They’ll say any damn thing for more clicks and views.
News is bought and sold now. Good luck finding the sponsored “truth” in that corrupt business.
And that’s just the Greed problem. Doesn’t even touch the problem of government propaganda being sold as fact.
And this is why I'm glad for organisations like the BBC which operates without a profit motive.
Ultimately, privately owned news agencies need to compete against an agency that will fact check and does not have an agenda enforced on it by private owners... This does not stop organisations trying to operate a channel like Fox News, in fact one exists... most people in the UK have forgotten it even exists as it's rarely featured on the BBC's Have I Got News For You programme any more. The most viewers that
Re: (Score:2)
For some reason you left out MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC......?
They're ALL guilty of lying to the US public...some more than others...MSNBC is likely the worst of the bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
BBC which operates without a profit motive.
Profit is often not a motivation to post FAKE news. It isn't even a necessary motivation. The cult isn't motivated by profit, only the survival of the cult.
Re: (Score:3)
A court, ultimately.
Re: (Score:2)
A court, ultimately.
You mean politicians appointed as judges who are almost all alumni of the same two university law schools and are all trained to make arguments for why the law should serve their clients interests. The courts are the third branch of government that is accountable to no one. Congress may pass laws, but the courts decide what they mean. If the clear language of a statute doesn't serve their purpose, they invent a new technical legal definition that does.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it works like that there. Most of Europe separates the judiciary and politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Here, the most depressing interview I have ever heard on the subject of freedom of information, censorship and propaganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Summary: US and the west redefined democracy to mean the will of (ideologically captured) institutions rather than the will of the people. The entire, century old, apparatus that America developed to influence politics, organize coups and revolutions, kill whomever it deemed a problem all over the world was turned against US citizens in 2014 after the Cri
Attack on podcasters (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that. (Score:3)
The horse hasn't just bolted past the gate, it caught a ride to Vegas, killed a hooker, boarded a flight to South America, and was last seen running a cocaine extraction site in Peru.
The idea that you can legislate this away is ludicrous. Hopefully they're doing it for the political points, rather than the outcomes. That would make them shallow instead of stupid.
Re: Spain's "leftwing" government? (Score:1)
Great example. So calling North Korea a Democratic country would be a fact or fake news ?
How does one go about proving its not really a democratic country, under this new bill
Re: (Score:2)
Great example. So calling North Korea a Democratic country would be a fact or fake news ?
How does one go about proving its not really a democratic country, under this new bill
You'd have to get a sane definition of a Democracy in the 21st Century first.
Oh, don’t mind me loading this 50-pound sack of popcorn into the hopper. I figure this is gonna take a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Communist countries always reasoned that their state apparatus was there for the people, hence that's the mental gymnastics they went through to make the claim that they too are democracies. However, I think it's only slightly worse than just giving people a popular vote and ultimately having a political class who ultimately decide whatever they want anyway.
This is why lobbying seems to ultimately be the most effective method of getting what the most moneyed people want. The public invariably is shut out of
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy, the system where the majority enslaves the minority by popular vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, I think there's a strong apparatus in place, in numerous countries, essentially to hoodwink a lot of people to vote against even their own self interest, let alone the public good. It just comes across as many people hear some motherhood statement they like and that basically rusts them on to some party and don't investigate further.
Good democracies rely on the public auditing their politicians, bureaucracies and government. This is becoming increasingly difficult, and fewer people are actually in
Re: (Score:2)
neutered spaniards (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Getting a grip! (Score:2)
Seeing that Spain isn't an isolated case, this is being prepared and presented in numerous jurisdictions, I suspect that the current state of affairs, where people can completely sideline mainstream media for propaganda, younger generations don't watch broadcast TV anymore, so I think the way it's heading is not something that governments are wanting to countenance. The problem is that it's a useful tool to undermine democratically elected "wrong" governments, but becomes a problem when the "correct" govern
Good start (Score:2)
It's a good start, but fake news can be spread by many normal users republishing a video from an influencer.
So the major sharing platforms should republish those corrections in any "streams" that republished the original videos.
Teaching critical thinking to the population is probably a good thing too. https://edition.cnn.com/intera... [cnn.com]
Don't be fooled, this is plain censorship (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It's our president (Score:5, Interesting)
I, as a Spaniard, can tell you more about this.
The UE passed some time ago the recommendation of "fight" the fake news.
Pedro Sanchez, our current president, is a liar and a corrupt man. He's involved in multiple corruption cases currently under investigation.
He has done every step through dictatorship, one step at a time, still incomplete, but doing new small changes each time.
First he put a lot of money on the main TV private media to control the narrative.
Next he pushed for judges under his control into one of the most important spanish law-maker organisms (el Tribunal Constitucional), locking lots of process.
He tried to do the same with other (Tribunal Superior) but he only was able a half baked renewal partially accorded with the main opposition party (PP).
He has nearly defame putting lots of pressure against the judges that are working in his corruption cases and others things he does that are clearly against the law.
There is a lot of things... but... what I want to say in the end is that, if a initiative to fight "combat fake news" is under the control of Pedro Sanchez, I have no doubt it will be used to enforce his and his party narrative, not to fight real and clear fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no doubt it will be used to enforce his and his party narrative, not to fight real and clear fake news.
Almost universally (possibly universally) that is the motivation for these kinds of laws. The Truth doesn't need mediating or moderating.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what "Minsitry of Truth" is this? I mean, as opposed to pretty much *ANYTHING* Trump says?
Oh, that's right, you're an AC, and afraid to name yourself.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly what "Minsitry of Truth" is this? I mean, as opposed to pretty much *ANYTHING* Trump says?
Oh, that's right, you're an AC, and afraid to name yourself.
You don't remember the Ministry of Truth / Disinformation Board that Biden tried to create? Where the proposed leader of the board was Nina Jankowicz who sang Disney tunes on Tik Tok about misinformation like a crazy person? I'm glad there was enough uproar that it never really materialized in the form they wanted.