Spain Introduces Bill To Combat Online Fake News (theguardian.com) 32
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:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds great. Now, who decides the "well regarded source"?
Re: (Score:3)
It's unclear exactly but somehow it ends up being the sources those deciding find agreeable. [tracingwoodgrains.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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:4, 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:1)
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:3, 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:2)
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 ou
Re: (Score:2)
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: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:1)
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)
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
We buy and sell our news now. (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
Re: (Score:2)
A court, ultimately.
Attack on podcasters (Score:1)
Good luck with that. (Score:2)
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.
neutered spaniards (Score:1)
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