HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".
Just wondering, what is she referring to?
What are some examples of "fake news"?
What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining abo
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Savant
- Posts: 12235
- Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
- Location: New England
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining abo
Post #1 My theological positions:
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #11Current liable and slander laws are sufficient, in my opinion, and is the only check/balance necessary for spreading false and damaging information. Nothing new required.Divine Insight wrote:Why not?KenRU wrote: The government should stay away from limiting news sources. It has all it can do to police itself, let alone the free market of information. Which, as blue accurately points out, it has no chance of corralling anyway.
If people are willing to believe something without sufficient information, then that is their prerogative.
Buyer beware, as the saying goes. I take responsibility for what I choose to believe.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Then let the offended party take action in court under the current law. If there is no offended party, then there is no issue.The government protects its citizens against advertisement fraud, why not also offer some protection against "news fraud"?
Take FOX News' stand on Climate Change. Something like 99% of scientists agree that climate change is impacted by man. If people who watch FOX News want to believe that 99% does not constitute a "consensus amongst scientists" then that is their right to do so.
Not to the extent that HRC and many on the left want though, correct?Although in a sense they already do.
Absolutely. And that is her right.I mean if Hillary Clinton feels that some news source has slandered her with lies she has the right to sue them for slander.
No change in law required. Which is my point.
Which has happened all the time, even before the information age. Granted it is exacerbated by modern tech. But nonetheless, it is my responsibility to be diligent. I don't need that taken from me.One problem is the question of who do you sue? What happens is that some original news fraud source creates a totally fabricated story and then that story starts getting repeated by a lot of other social media.
Sure, when possible.Do you then need to narrow it down to who actually started the false stories?
Let the court decide who is most culpable. Or HRC can just take it like a champ, like other losing candidates have in the past. Many of which were victims of false attacks.Or should everyone who repeats false stories be held responsible for not verifying their sources before passing on the false information.
Agreed. But she was still a reprehensible candidate for president. So I have no sympathy for her.I think we all know that many of the stories told about Hillary Clinton on the Internet are totally bogus lies.
Ridiculous, I know. Such vile and noxious bias and divisiveness ......I mean, for crying out loud, they have her torturing babies in basements.
We shouldn't even try to legislate common sense.At what point do the readers have a responsibility to just know that such stories are insanely unreal?
Agreed. My counter point would then be, what if the person who started the (or any) news story simply made a mistake? Errors happen in journalism all the time.Does anyone genuinely believe that Hillary Clinton tortures babies in secret basements? Just how utterly absurd can accusations get?
Hillary Clinton -lesbian-demon-pedophile-child-rapist
I mean, come on, these people are the scum of the earth propagating such hateful lies as if there is some sort of truth to them. This is the ultimate "Bearing false witness against your neighbor".
I stand by my point. Keep the government out of the media. It is a bad mix. To me, the separation of gov and media is just as important as the Separation of Church and State.
Not by a legal definition it isn't. As HRC is not a protected group. But I gather your point. : )It truly is a "Hate Crime" to spread these kinds of hateful lies about someone, and it should be treated as such.
IMO, it is a bad idea to have the government meddle in the media.
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
-
- Savant
- Posts: 6224
- Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
- Location: Charlotte
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #12[Replying to post 11 by KenRU]
Exactly fake news is nothing new, how long has the national enquirer been around? You bring up a great point with the government meddling with media. Just look at Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and many other countries that meddle with the media. However, well intentioned this may be it will cause more harm than good. It will become another political apparatus to effect non fake news more than it would effect fake news. Just look at our drug enforcement policy and the scheduling of drugs, it ain't based on science but political whims.
Exactly fake news is nothing new, how long has the national enquirer been around? You bring up a great point with the government meddling with media. Just look at Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and many other countries that meddle with the media. However, well intentioned this may be it will cause more harm than good. It will become another political apparatus to effect non fake news more than it would effect fake news. Just look at our drug enforcement policy and the scheduling of drugs, it ain't based on science but political whims.
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #13I tend to agree with most of the points you make Ken, including this point. However, in some sense our government has already legislated that citizens must be educated. It's the law that we have to send our children to school. So in some sense some level of "common sense" or "mandatory education" has already been legislated to a very large degree.KenRU wrote: We shouldn't even try to legislate common sense.
The problem is that our educational systems aren't working to produce well-educated citizens. By law we are forced to send our kids to schools that are largely producing idiots as their final product.
But yeah, wasn't the whole idea of making education legally mandatory based on the idea that a society of "well-educated" citizens would be a safer society than just allowing everyone to be as uneducated as they want?
So in some sense there has already been an attempt to legislate common sense into our society. It just turns out that our school systems are failing miserably to turn out graduates that have any common sense.
A lot of these idiots who run these hateful ignorant false news sources probably have high school diplomas. Some of them even hold higher degrees of education, yet they still continue to act like idiots. Although to be fair, many of them are probably fully aware that they are propagating lies and are just doing it for the MONEY.
In other words, they truly are criminals knowingly spreading lies to the vulnerable idiots that our school systems failed to teach even basic common sense.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #14I disagree. Book smart, does not mean Street smart. And common sense is nothing specific that can be delineated or defined.Divine Insight wrote:I tend to agree with most of the points you make Ken, including this point. However, in some sense our government has already legislated that citizens must be educated. It's the law that we have to send our children to school. So in some sense some level of "common sense" or "mandatory education" has already been legislated to a very large degree.KenRU wrote: We shouldn't even try to legislate common sense.
The line I used was merely a point to show you how absurd I thought the accusations were, and that I agree with your sentiment.
Let's agree that some schools are better then others, and for the record, so what? I teach my son to believe things based upon evidence, reason and logical thinking.The problem is that our educational systems aren't working to produce well-educated citizens.
The parents are more responsible then the schools, imo.
I can only agree partially. If my son is becoming an idiot, then I am partially to blame (he shares some as well). The information and knowledge is there for him and I to make use of. If we don't, that is OUR fault.By law we are forced to send our kids to schools that are largely producing idiots as their final product.
Sure, we just disagree on how successful or not the school systems are, or, possibly more to the point, how successful they COULD be. If we, as a people, took it more seriously.But yeah, wasn't the whole idea of making education legally mandatory based on the idea that a society of "well-educated" citizens would be a safer society than just allowing everyone to be as uneducated as they want?
Again, common sense should be taught by parents, not necessarily the schools.So in some sense there has already been an attempt to legislate common sense into our society. It just turns out that our school systems are failing miserably to turn out graduates that have any common sense.
Like I said, it is our responsibility, not the governments. If there was no market for confirmation bias news, it wouldn't exist. End of story, imo.A lot of these idiots who run these hateful ignorant false news sources probably have high school diplomas. Some of them even hold higher degrees of education, yet they still continue to act like idiots. Although to be fair, many of them are probably fully aware that they are propagating lies and are just doing it for the MONEY.
Criminals, hmm, I sort of agree. I liken them more to preachers/priests/imams and rabbi's. Spreading info they probably wish were true but really isn't, lol.In other words, they truly are criminals knowingly spreading lies to the vulnerable idiots that our school systems failed to teach even basic common sense.
-all the best, DI.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #15A few examples of ones that I heard:Elijah John wrote: HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".
Just wondering, what is she referring to?
What are some examples of "fake news"?
Claims that she was running a sex trafficking ring out of a pizza restaraunt.
Claims that 46 people were suspiciously murdered by her and her husband.
Claims that she joked about a rape victim having fantasies about being with older men.
more here:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... y-theories
I can't help but think that these conspiracy theories were a pretty big part of the election.
I don't know much about libel laws, but I tend to agree with you. As you said, if there is no party that can claim damages then there is no significant harm. It is better to allow people believe a lie than to try to force them to only hear the truth.KenRU wrote: Current liable and slander laws are sufficient, in my opinion, and is the only check/balance necessary for spreading false and damaging information. Nothing new required.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #16I totally agree. Still, the law already has their foot in the door on this one with having made schooling mandatory. That's the point I was making about legislation already being involved. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, but only to point out that they're already involved.KenRU wrote: Let's agree that some schools are better then others, and for the record, so what? I teach my son to believe things based upon evidence, reason and logical thinking.
The parents are more responsible then the schools, imo.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
- bluethread
- Savant
- Posts: 9129
- Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #17Government involvement in education, at least on the federal level, had nothing to do with ensuring "common sense". It, like many other federal programs, was sold as a military project. There were too many young men during WWI that did not have enough education to even be able to handle a military rifle, let alone a tank an other cutting edge technology. That said, that speaks about government programs not private communication. I agree that the government should regulate information coming from the government, but regulating private speech for factuality could easily be used to silence opposition. Government opposition is precisely what the first amendment was designed to protect. The fact that the government has engaged in overreach in that regard does not justify further erosions of the first amendment.Divine Insight wrote:I totally agree. Still, the law already has their foot in the door on this one with having made schooling mandatory. That's the point I was making about legislation already being involved. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, but only to point out that they're already involved.KenRU wrote: Let's agree that some schools are better then others, and for the record, so what? I teach my son to believe things based upon evidence, reason and logical thinking.
The parents are more responsible then the schools, imo.
- Divine Insight
- Savant
- Posts: 18070
- Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
- Location: Here & Now
- Been thanked: 19 times
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #18This brings up an interesting question. Should a public news media source be considered "private communication"?bluethread wrote: That said, that speaks about government programs not private communication.
We have tons of laws regulating what public businesses can do in an effort to protect consumers. Would it be that much different to place regulations on what public media sources should be able to produce?
I don't think this is necessarily as clear cut in the first amendment as one might think. One could argue that the first amendment protects the rights of people to voice their "opinions". But does it necessarily protect the right to spread outright lies whilst claiming that it is a known fact, when in truth there is no evidence to even support it?
I mean, if something like Infowars made it clear that they are just voicing unsubstantiated opinions, then they could say whatever they like under the first amendment. But if they are going to report total falsehoods that have no evidence behind them as FACTS, then I think it would be realistic to expect there to be regulations against that.
I'm not convinced that this would necessarily be in violation of the first amendment.
After all, we have limited what companies can say about their products. They have to tell the truth and not lie. In a sense you could argue that this would be in violation of the first amendment because companies should have the freedom to say whatever they like about their products whether it's true or not.
Tobacco companies should be able to tell people that smoking their cigarettes will vastly improve the health of the consumer, and according to the first amendment the government shouldn't be able to make them say otherwise.
[center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #19Divine Insight wrote:This brings up an interesting question. Should a public news media source be considered "private communication"?bluethread wrote: That said, that speaks about government programs not private communication.
We have tons of laws regulating what public businesses can do in an effort to protect consumers. Would it be that much different to place regulations on what public media sources should be able to produce?
I don't think this is necessarily as clear cut in the first amendment as one might think. One could argue that the first amendment protects the rights of people to voice their "opinions". But does it necessarily protect the right to spread outright lies whilst claiming that it is a known fact, when in truth there is no evidence to even support it?
I mean, if something like Infowars made it clear that they are just voicing unsubstantiated opinions, then they could say whatever they like under the first amendment. But if they are going to report total falsehoods that have no evidence behind them as FACTS, then I think it would be realistic to expect there to be regulations against that.
I'm not convinced that this would necessarily be in violation of the first amendment.
After all, we have limited what companies can say about their products. They have to tell the truth and not lie. In a sense you could argue that this would be in violation of the first amendment because companies should have the freedom to say whatever they like about their products whether it's true or not.
Tobacco companies should be able to tell people that smoking their cigarettes will vastly improve the health of the consumer, and according to the first amendment the government shouldn't be able to make them say otherwise.
Well it should be a law, that anyone whom put down any disinformation without any proof, must be stated before it starts, that it is Fictional. Like the way they rated R,PG,G. And that any media that is only promoting one-sided stories, must state whom they are sponsoring in big letters. And so if they are on the side of Hillary, that they must state in big letters that they are Hillary's supporters. But if they do leaves out information that only promoted one-side stories and without stating what side that they are promoting will be fined, and cannot reopen under another name, just to avoid from paying the fine. But some will try to just take the money and run.
The fines should be $10,000,000 fine for every letter that was used in the offense. And if not able to pay the fine, then they should have all the individuals that were in with it, even the actors, serve a mandatory sentenced of more than five years. And the media must from now on, be known as a what they are, when they has committed an offense. And that will keep corporations from trying to sneak things in, and just pay only a $100 fine. Just imagine if there's a billion dollar fine, no media will not ever tries to spread disinformation at all.
Re: What is the "fake news" Hillary is complaining
Post #20People really ought to read the news--legitimate sources, at least.Elijah John wrote: HRC is calling for legislation that would prohibit "fake news".
Just wondering, what is she referring to?
What are some examples of "fake news"?
It has come to the fore recently and Hillary was not the first person by any means to begin to complain about it. On November 14th Google and Facebook took aim against fake news being posted on their sites: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/techn ... rvice.html
If I were Hillary Clinton, I would be upset about "Pizzagate" too. I can't blame her for speaking out. As it turns out, it was a black eye for the Trump camp.
As far as I am concerned, gossip has always been a problem and this is no different. We just have to check our sources and know that our sources are legitimate news organizations--not that they are always completely accurate either. Considering Pizzagate, I have to wonder that anyone could possibly believe such nonsense! But Youtube is full of it--anybody who wants to can post whatever they want.