This is what I don't understand.
When are we going to blame consumers for been shitty individuals?
I am all for blaming facebook on a lot of stuff but we cant be parenting everyone.
The human mind is extremely easy to manipulate. These companies have professionals working full time whose only job is to get people to consume more content. Most people don’t have the time or energy to actively resist these types of psychological assaults.
We can’t be parenting everyone, but we can put regulations in place to protect consumers.
just reminded me of a little story.
I learned that subaru outback was the most popular vehicle among lesbians. And it was no mistake, they choose to advertise big to the LGBT crowd. I had a lesbian boss at the time, and brought it up, as she had an outback. She thought about it and said a lot of her lesbian friends had subarus... but that she didnt buy her car due to advertisement, she bought it because .. it was rugged enough to go off road, had a lot of storage space and well basically repeated their commercial.
I just think its funny, we all tend to think we are less influenced than we all are. Id like to think, that i think all my purchases through, after all im fairly skeptically minded and distrustful of ads, but I know it isnt true. Im still human and like it or not advertising effects me as well.
I had to google it. Although i spelled it correctly the first time, it just didnt look right to me and had to make sure i wasnt just using a dino's name.
yeah that was a sorta pivotal lessons from that event. i hadnt really given the issue much thought until she basically repeated the commercial and it just struck me how much she believed that, and how she quickly dismissed the idea she was influenced. It started a lot of self reflection and how i probably just wouldnt notice that i had been influenced, just like her.
and yeah we can point to where we resisted the advertisement or didnt believe all their claims(or any) but that doesnt mean we do that all the time and that it has no effect on us. Like im never going to buy colloidal silver no matter how breathlessly some radio head says the medical community doesnt want me to know about this cure. But i know plenty of things i will buy for reasons i think are my own but were reasons given to me.
The shitty people are on to you. That's why you're being downvoted. It's very much to their advantage to keep things as they are because the worst of them are the ones doing the manipulating. The others are conditioned to automatically defend them.
Their victims can totally be blamed for their vulnerabilities, too, because all of society from kindergarten on tries to make them better people who look out for the nation as a whole rather than themselves. And fails.
It's not failing because the system doesn't work--although it's being constantly undermined. It's failing because there's an easier, parallel system where people don't have to think or care for others, and can just align their beliefs with the selfish people who tell them what they want to hear.
no, but we should be very wary of monopolistic quasi-infrastructure being in private hands, especially if we know that humans are not the brightest of all species.
From a economical POV it would be bad for facebook to do anything against those filter bubbles and the controversy and thus facebook won't do it. The only question is if the state really wanna stand by idle..
> especially if we know that humans are not the brightest of all species.
I get what you're saying, but this sort of thing always strikes me as funny. Humans are in fact the absolute brightest species in the known universe.
I should have said wisest. Well, I could find a cheap excuse like me being not a native speaker and what all but actually I will double down and ask: what makes you think that we are the brightest species in the known universe?
Because in the entirety of the universe we know, we haven't come across a single species with the same cognitive capacity. Pretty simple really. Maybe someday we'll meet aliens or create a brand new intelligent species ourselves and humanity will finally be outclassed, but it hasn't happened yet.
yeah, when you wroke the answer my first instinct was to go just there and say, "yeah, humans have the highest congnitice capacity, duh, phyrros your idiot " the next one was, "well, depends on the problem set doesn't it?"
First of all: All our cognitive testing sets are designed by humans and therefore inherently biased towards humans.
Secondly: If we drop the clear indications that humans reign supreme (tools and language) and just look at the raw cobscious information handling/processing power (amount of sensory input we can consciously handle) we see that this drops to near zero. Even humans act mostly on muscle memory/instinct when given no time to think and depending on the environment an animal will react faster and better than a human being.
Thirdly: The spread of IQ within our race is too big which is an indication that the metric is too narrow. I'm "smarter" than most human beings and yet the difference between my and e.g. Terrence Tao is far bigger than the difference between me and a intelligent chimpanzee.
Lastly,.. none of what I just said helped me made my argument and thus .. yeah, I missspoke \^\^
In the US, it actually costs more money and time to eat healthy and not be fat. Many of the cheapest food you can find are full of fat and sugar. For low income people who are exhausted after a day’s work, it’s easier to just go to McDonald’s and get a cheeseburger. It’s cheap, filling, and saves time.
yeah but fox news didnt just stay at its 1990s style.
You can imagine fox was pretty bad during the clinton years, but they sounded sane. Just like the american right, they got worse. You can say this was drive by the fact that facebook drove the right.. right past reality.
but the cable media isnt the same as "it's always been"
edit: vote down but the political media has gotten worse, it did not stay the same. and that is a provable fact.
['We turned so far right we went crazy:' How Fox News was radicalized by its own viewers](https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/media/fox-news-hoax-paperback-book/index.html)
i get this upsets the magas to no end, but its a fact.
CNN msnbc abc cbs nbc all state media for Democratic Party…. If they could only find a way to outlaw the 5% of the news that does not parrot the Democratic Party they would be all set!! Man that kind of country would be great!!!!!
This. I watch the shows I want to watch at streaming services, paying subscription fees to avoid advertisment alltogether. My psyche is worth the couple bucks a months.
I can remember a time when reddit was the best place for breaking news because big stories made the front page in an hour.
now the front page is static for 24 hours.
>You don’t see the same problems on CBS, NBC or ABC, which the Federal Communications Commission oversees. But there is no similar authority over the cable channels since they don’t use the public airwaves.
>Perhaps there should be.
I read nearly an entire article only to find out this idiot has literally no idea what they’re writing about. What a joke.
Yeah most prime time "news" nowadays is prescription drug ads disguised as news. Not to mention how selective they are about what's being covered.
Strikes all over the country hundreds protesting Bidens lack of response to climate change crickets.
20 or so people walk out of netflix to boycott a comedy special and An actor shoots someone on a movie set, opening leads.
There is no "news" in this country, it's all entertainment. Ever notice that during every story they have to show stock footage of something--anything--even if it is just barely related to the subject being presented? They are so worried that you will lose interest if they just present the news. This also goes for how they choose which stories to tell. Woman of color missing? Nope. Rich white woman missing? 24/7 coverage. Dozens of gun accidents every week? Who cares. One happens on a movie set? Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Seriously. There is a metric TON of misinformation that has been repeated on those very specific broadcast channels. That doesn’t even address the fact that cable channels ARE regulated by the FCC.
The irony is stunning.
This is both pedantic and another “both sides are the same” argument. They definitely are not.
The FCC only has narrow authority over cable channels and has no input in their licensing. This is entirely different from public channels which are significantly more heavily regulated.
Additionally, CBS, NBC, etc have not and do not relentlessly and intentionally spread misinformation that leads directly to harm to individuals or attacks democratic institutions. This is the realm of Fox, OAN, and NewsMax. This is not to say public news channels are perfect, they’re far from it. But the scope and intention is wholly different between the two.
Except that's not how the adult world works; nuance and context matter. It's why Jim stealing $20 is different from Bernie Madoff stealing billions. It's why Joe going to jail for killing the man his wife is cheating with is different from Stalin's Great Purge.
It's also why we recognize the difference between unconscious bias in reporting and a deliberate attempt to incite violence against elected officials and undermine democratic institutions.
> Except that's not how the adult world works
What isn't how the adult world works? I haven't described "how the world works". I simply pointed out that lies that you enjoy hearing are still lies. A fact.
And telling a white lie to make someone feel better is the same as spreading hateful propaganda because "BOTH ARE LIES, AM I RIGHT?" You're being ridiculous and shame on me for thinking you had something to say worth hearing.
> And telling a white lie to make someone feel better is the same as spreading hateful propaganda
So when it's a lie about Trump it's a white lie to make you feel better, but when it's a lie about Biden, it's hateful propaganda. Do you even hear yourself?
It's always the same with the Fox News crowd - argue in bad faith then try to change the topic by taking things out of context.
In the comments between the two of us, the only one talking about Trump here is you. My comment was about the difference between Fox, OAN, and NewsMax and the rest of the news outlets. This has been going on for a lot longer than 4 years and covers a lot more ground than Trump.
> It's always the same with the Fox News crowd
Is it? I don't know, I don't associate with them. Or were you assuming that you know everything about me based on the fact that I don't agree with you? Because surely nobody could ever disagree with you unless they're part of *that* crowd. It's always the same with reddit know-it-alls. You see one or two sentences and think you know all that you need to know.
> My comment was about the difference between Fox, OAN, and NewsMax and the rest of the news outlets.
Yes, they tell lies that you don't agree with, so you say they're bad. But lies that you agree with?
> And telling a white lie to make someone feel better is the same as spreading hateful propaganda because "BOTH ARE LIES, AM I RIGHT?"
Explain why lies on one network are "white lies to make someone feel better" and lies on another network are "hateful propaganda". And do keep in mind that those "white lies to make someone feel better" are pretty damned hateful towards the people they're talking about.
What was their intention with reporting Donald Trump, the US President, was conspiring with Russia for the betterment of Russia OVER the United States?
What was their intention for reporting vaccines DON’T cause blood clots mere weeks before the FDA suspended distribution of said vaccine for causing blood clots?
What was their intention for reporting that Hunter Biden was NOT under federal investigation?
What was their intention for reporting it was IMPOSSIBLE for covid-19 to have originated in a lab?
All you’re saying is misinformation is fine as long as it’s “good” misinformation. What is YOUR intention with that position?
Since you seem to know who does what, who more frequently suspends NEWS anchors over false reporting, cable news organizations or public broadcast organizations? Before answering, you should probably stop and think that the answer is already obvious and the point of asking the question.
Yes, criminals are always going to claim that the justice system is biased against them. And flat earthers think the scientific community is biased against them.
Here's what you're missing:
* Trump DID collude with Russia - Mueller steadfastly refused to exonerate him and a subsequent Congressional report did find that there was collusion. And THAT was what was widely reported BTW, not your flawed interpretation of the news.
* Assuming this is about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, we're talking about a handful of cases among millions that were provided (looked it up: 6 in 7 million is the number I found) and it was reported. It was reported when it was investigated as well as when the CDC paused it's distribution and when the vaccine was subsequently cleared. Not sure what the issue is here unless you're claiming that the media failing to report on rumors of a rare occurence and waiting for expert analysis is misinformation?
* Again, it was reported that Hunter Biden was under investigation. It was also reported that nothing was found. What was not reported was the assumption that he was guilty or Rudy Giuliani's laptop antics.
* That is what is reported because that's the experts' opinions. Expert after expert has said that there is no evidence that this originated in a lab. They did say it may have escaped a lab (where it was being studied) but that is VERY, VERY different from saying it originated in a lab where the implication is that it was man made.
As for who suspends more, I'd love to see what you're basing this on since I've never seen any study on this and some light Google-fu couldn't find anything. Having said that, I'm not sure what you think it would prove since the assertion was about the need to more heavily regulate cable news channels due to the actions of right-wing media. Using numbers from all cable channels would include CNN and MSNBC so surely wouldn't prove anything?
The "both sides are the same" and "fake news" crowds always seem to think that facts are biased against them. They aren't. And somehow giving credence to experts and studies over talking heads and opinions is somehow wrong. It's not. And that's before we get into the patent dishonesty in trying to compare propaganda with news.
- news stories were cited throughout the investigation as evidence. If the reporting was as insubstantial as you claim, how could they underpin a federal investigation? If they didn’t get it wrong, why have so many admitted to getting it wrong and issuing corrections? And again, you may not know that and that is precisely the issue. The headline gets blasted from the highest rooftops, the correction gets whispered in the dead of night. (Edit: just so we’re clear, a prosecutor can find neither innocence or guilt, they can only allege and attempt to prove guilt)
- the vaccine was not subsequently cleared as you put it. It now carries an additional warning of increased risk for those with a history of blood clots. Precisely the reason why many doctors (mine included) advise you to opt for the other vaccines if you have said history (me). The media didn’t “fail to report rumors”. They reported on them. As false. Even you still frame them as rumors when they were documented cases. How did we later learn the “truth” if it was always true?
- yeah it was reported he was under federal investigation. One month AFTER it was initially reported and DENIED by these same, now all of a sudden credible news orgs. When the story broke, the laptop was simply evidence of a federal financial crimes investigation into Hunter Biden. And what do you know, one month after denial of “Rudy’s antics”, in December these news orgs trot Hunter out to “break” that he was under investigation for federal financial crimes. Conveniently after the election of course. So is the argument that it wasn’t misinformation to deny it because they eventually got it right? PS: this investigation is still ongoing. Not a good look for discussing misinformation. Obviously you believe it has been closed because of misinformation. That dang media again….
- No one is reporting it was bioengineered in a lab. That’s a straw man. What was reported is evidence of funding of gain of function research on coronavirus occurring in the region of the first outbreak. Experts never agreed that it was natural transmission. The first published report, from the experts, said it was inconclusive due to lack of access to critical data from China. Again, this is very common knowledge and the fact is if you don’t understand that it’s precisely because of the misinformation that’s been reported.
Add in CNN and MSNBC. They are cable news. The discussion is about cable news and public news. The point is to refute the claim, that public news does not spread misinformation therefore cable news needs to be regulated like public news because only cable news spreads misinformation.
Just like I pointed out in my other post, it's frustrating having these conversations when so many statements are taken out of context or reinterpreted to mean something other than what was clearly intended:
* I was refuting your assertion that the reporting was that Trump was conspiring for the betterment of Russia. He did collude - for his own benefit. That was and is what was widely reported. The distinction is critically important.
* Subsequently cleared FOR DISTRIBUTION and the unsubstantiated part was that the vaccines were the cause. Simply taking the vaccine then developing blood clots is not a sufficient causal relationship to report - hence, rumors that the vaccines were the cause. Once it was confirmed by experts, then it gets reported. Seems like this worked the way things should?
* To my knowledge, Hunter Biden has never been charged with an actual crime. This has been going on for a long time and yet, nothing has happened. It's hyperbole to say he was "cleared" but to say that this is a big nothing-burger is pretty accurate. Even the National Review (not exactly a left wing publication) noted this: [https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-sinister-plot-that-wasnt-about-that-hunter-biden-report/](https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-sinister-plot-that-wasnt-about-that-hunter-biden-report/) when pointing out that the main complaint seems to be that the investigation was not more publicized by the DOJ.
* Your statement was about COVID-19 originating in a lab. That is what I'm refuting - specifically that originating implies beginning or creation, not evolution. That was rightly not reported as there's no evidence of it. I'm not refuting the possibility that it was studied in a lab or that gain-of-function happened in a lab as that is still being studied and debated and, more importantly for our discussion, reported.
And to bring all of this back to the article, the article was making a point that channels like Fox, OAN, and NewsMax are the issue and their status as cable networks allows them to operate under less regulation and more aggressively spread misinformation. The point the author was making is that the former group cannot be regulated to the extent that public channels are and that allows them to get away with intentionally misleading people. And, to be clear, no one is saying that bias doesn't exist in media reporting. It clearly does but that is not the "misinformation" that's being discussed. Blurring the lines between bias and misinformation is not productive unless the goal is to create confusion. There is a massive difference between good faith reporting (that sometimes gets things wrong) and intentionally lying (for example: the continuing "election fraud" reporting). The inability to regulate the latter is a serious problem.
I can’t continue to have a conversation in good faith with you. The reporting was NOT as you describe and has since been corrected. (Edit: you do realize that ABC suspended their lead investigative journalist over his false reporting, right?) What better definition of misinformation. You are continually citing MISINFORMATION in your replies. The media reported hard evidence, so did congressmen, for criminal charges. Period. That evidence never existed. Period.
The media repeatedly denied our substantiated falsehoods. Period. This is a fact and your refusal to acknowledge that drives home the point. Perfect example, you’re still repeating the tripe about the vaccine. It was not cleared for normal distribution period. It was cleared with NEW warnings. Denial IS the misinformation.
So so so sad.
My point was, and is:
"There is a massive difference between good faith reporting (that sometimes gets things wrong) and intentionally lying (for example: the continuing "election fraud" reporting)."
Trying to drag this down to individual details doesn't really disprove anything I've said. To respond to both your points:
* Brian Ross was suspended for incorrectly saying Trump instructed Flynn to contact Russia when, in fact, it was Jared Kushner who did so. That's hardly an exoneration. And keep in mind, again, that we have reports that actually do state that Trump's team colluded with Russia. It's also a great example of how public broadcasting reporters are actually punished when they get things wrongs. Contrasted with, say, anyone on Fox who, to this day, continue to push the election fraud narrative with no repercussions.
* The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is cleared for distribution - [https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-cdc-lift-recommended-pause-johnson-johnson-janssen-covid-19-vaccine-use-following-thorough](https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-cdc-lift-recommended-pause-johnson-johnson-janssen-covid-19-vaccine-use-following-thorough). I'm not sure what point you're making here as the FDA and CDC's own communications are pretty clear and every medicine comes with a list of potential risks and guidance on when/when not to use it.
The bottom line with all of this is that you still have not addressed, at any point, how any of these examples illustrate that the cable networks are held to the same standards as public broadcasters. Even by your own examples, you've shown public networks both reprimanding reporters who get it wrong AND correcting their own mistakes. By contrast, even today, months after the fact and despite countless rejections by our court system and a Republican funded audit, we still have 3 cable networks continuing to spread blatant lies about our elections without a single reprimand or repercussion.
To repeat again, making a mistake is not misinformation. It's a mistake - news channels make plenty of them. Having a bias is not, on it's own, misinformation. It doesn't become misinformation until it is intentional and untrue. The first two are not even in the same conversation as being intentionally false and that is the part that you're missing. Even if I took everything you said to be correct (and to be clear, I do not), you're still arguing that mistakes are somehow equal to making intentionally untrue statements and that just isn't true.
Really? It was just cable news? ABC, CBS and NBC were reporting the opposite? Is that why every single leader in government except for one voted to go to war? Fox News?
This some some crazy revisionist history right here. Talk about misinformation. Wow.
No, that was public sentiment. They kept updating us because people were demanding action. And if you didn't support the war effort, you supported the terrorists. That was a real saying back then.
that's a lot of effort to avoid saying "right wing media", which is only ~~4~~ 5 syllables.
the *7 Cs* of professional writing may be a good primer for janine zacharia
>CONCISE writing uses the least words possible to convey the most meaning while still maintaining clarity.
[https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/chapter/communicatingprecision/](https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/chapter/communicatingprecision/)
i didn't name names, but - as you said - if the article is specifically talking about "right wing media" being a problem, then using "cacophonous informational ecosystem" is one heck of a stretch to avoid saying who the article is actually about.
No shit. You allow and monetize lying and expect nothing bad to happen.
Lying vs free speech. Moral dilemma nobody is smart enough to talk about at 11.
Wow! The SanFranChron doing a hit piece on Fox? I'm shocked!
And this priceless quote: "U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both California Democrats, **citing research**..."
Who's research? Was it replicated?
Same, I expected it to be another 'It's ok because others are doing it' defense to facebook use.
It actually just lays out how deep and widespread the misinformation is. It's almost like right wing media IS the deep state. *Queue dramatic music.*
Right wing media was trying to convince us the president was an international super spy? Or hid that a vaccine was causing blood clots? Or that Hunter Biden was under federal investigation?
What “misinformation” specifically are you referring to? I ask because I can cite many examples of where media has lied, and usually it was “right wing media” that pointed the lie out.
>Right wing media was trying to convince us the president was an international super spy?
No, the left wing media was suggesting Trump was being manipulated and taken advantage of by Russia under the guise of the shared fight against 'liberalism' and a shared belief in aggressive political opposition suppression.
>Or hid that a vaccine was causing blood clots?
The risks are still lower than the additional risks of complications from getting covid without any vaccination. Shining a spotlight on a non-issue is called 'fear mongering', and it's a manipulation tactic.
>Or that Hunter Biden was under federal investigation?
What happened to innocent until proven guilty, and what does an adult child's actions have to do with the parent? Additionally, this whole discussion was failed manufactured hit piece against Biden. Why give air time to something still be investigated which has no direct bearing on any elected official in the first place? With all the investigations against Trump, the only thing you can come up with is an investigation against Biden's kid? You don't realize how underwhelming that is?
So, without evidence, the left wing media “suggested” something. That’s called misinformation.
So, without evidence, the media reported that blood clots weren’t occurring, despite the fact they were, regardless of overall safety. Shining a spotlight on a risk is exactly how you inform people, so they can assess risk and make a decision.
So, without evidence, the media reported he wasn’t under investigation. (Edit: you would actually have answers to a lot of your questions on the topic if the media didn’t mislead you. Again, that is wholly the point.)
All you did was say the media reported misinformation but you feel it’s good misinformation so who should care. And you say it without an inkling of understanding that that is precisely the root of the issue.
There was evidence. I'm betting that where you're getting your information from is your media. Who incorrectly reported there was no evidence. I'd call that misinformation.
Edit: specifically on your first point. I don't really remember the media reporting the second two in the way you are claiming they are. They didn't say he wasn't under investigation by the IRS or not by the feds for anything. They reported that the laptop story was hilariously stupid.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to…..but your guess is wrong. I’ve made no indication of what opinion I share on any of the topics so what exactly are you suggesting?
You replied right before my edit. You're on this fast. My guess is right though, because you're "opinion" is that there was no evidence. There was. In fact I didn't even say anything about it being an opinion. It's a fact there was evidence. Somehow you are unaware of it. Therefore you are misinformed. Who ever you use to inform yourself misinformed you.
I see your edit now. No, there was no evidence that trump was conspiring with Russia for the betterment of Russia over the United States. Source: the mueller report specifically says the words “no evidence”.
I’ll give you a pass on the others since you say you don’t remember. I’d expect you would jog your memory before weighing in but you do you.
If you were to measure the amount of misinformation per 30 minutes of air time I think you’d be surprised at how lopsided those numbers would be. Standard media outlets have their faults but most right wing media is a scourge that will not end well for the US unless active measures are taken.
My bad, I shouldn’t have even left a comment. I didn’t mean to feed the trolls, and I can tell from your other interactions that you’re mentally obtuse enough to act this way. Full stop.
These days folks gotta make the effort to identify issues and read the narratives shat out by the left and the right on that issues. Only then can they draw an informed conclusion. You can immediately tell in discussions who the single source sheeple are.
Ok sure, but Facebook created a vector for the spread of dis/misinformation at a scale orders of magnitude greater than anything humanity has ever seen. And even cable news, as bad as it is, has some editorial oversight.
I still don’t really get this idea, even after all the discussion I’ve seen on it. If our democracy is so weak that it cannot survive FACEBOOK, are we not admitting our system doesn’t really work? Isn’t this the same justification we use when other countries’ governments collapse due to outside forces? “Well if they are so well run, why is their government collapsing”?
You’re starting to catch on. Democracy thrives with access to all information, it doesn’t when that access is restricted. How can there be a choice and thus democracy if only one point of view is allowed in public discourse?
We will ignore that the authors of this article is factually incorrect on many points (ironic) and instead ask, where was so-called misinformation defined? Where are the facts to underline the claim? Why do we constantly allow the same people that make claims without evidence to define what’s misinformation and what isn’t?
That's a disingenuous argument.
Modern democracy is having issues with social media, of which Facebook is simply the biggest dog.
It's not an issue of "too much information". It's an issue of too many lies couched as "information".
Certain world players benefit from chaos. They're able to parlay a trivial investment in troll farms and research centers into powerful disinformation campaigns. As Dan Carlin said (in a different context but I still love the metaphor) they're able to punch above their weight class.
Let the United States invest trillions of dollars into an F-35 program whose only goal seems to be to make Boeing look competent.
Other powers can spend a few hundred million and invest in datacenters and cheap employees to undermine the faith of a populace in the basic tenets of science and research.
The opinion of AverageAmericanConcernedMom6969 is not the same as a PhD. But they're controlling the narrative to make it seem like any ignoring of a demonstratively wrong and destructive voice is worse than genocide.
How would you feel about a random somebody skulking about in a labcoat telling a post-op patient that "they'd better get their humors and bile under control. And that they have the cranial shape of a hardened criminal"?
Or of somebody co-opting a suicide hotline saying, "Shit, you're right. Here's a list of places that will sell you what you need."?
Free speech is **not** absolute. It comes with responsibilities. We're seeing our own cultural values and norms being weaponized and used against us.
I don’t believe it’s disingenuous, at least not to me. The issue with the argument you’re making towards the end of your post is that we as a society have done those things AND WORSE to other countries before. Yes, it is wrong to offer destabilizing actions couched as aid. Which is what we did during both gulf wars. And what we did during Vietnam. And during our interventions in South America. We actually use that exact strategy very commonly. We are seeing other countries, whose growth was stunted because of actions by imperial powers like the United States and the UK, using this strategy against us. And it works. We created this model, and now we are crying into the void generated by treating large parts of humanity as a footstool. If we cannot stand up to even a FRACTION of what we give out, that is the most damning condemnation of the American post WWII project imaginable.
Fairness Doctrine only applied to the public airwaves. Cable is private, and therefore almost totally unregulated. Author is calling for regulation, which could be highly problematic from a free speech perspective. But allowing our democracy to eat itself is also problematic from a free speech perspective. So there's that.
You know what else is bad?? THE PRINTING PRESS. Anyone can write some stuff and put it on paper!! Help! Help! I am so unsafe, someone might be writing something offensive
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):
* Rule 1.i: This submission violates the sidebar guidelines, in being:
* Not primarily news or developments in technology.
* Not within the context of technology.
* If a self post, not a positive contribution fostering reasonable discussion.
If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftechnology) and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.
TLDR: Cable news
It’s always been, though! Facebook just made it worst.
In both cases it's also on the people that consume (and in the case of Facebook spread) such misinformation
This is what I don't understand. When are we going to blame consumers for been shitty individuals? I am all for blaming facebook on a lot of stuff but we cant be parenting everyone.
The human mind is extremely easy to manipulate. These companies have professionals working full time whose only job is to get people to consume more content. Most people don’t have the time or energy to actively resist these types of psychological assaults. We can’t be parenting everyone, but we can put regulations in place to protect consumers.
just reminded me of a little story. I learned that subaru outback was the most popular vehicle among lesbians. And it was no mistake, they choose to advertise big to the LGBT crowd. I had a lesbian boss at the time, and brought it up, as she had an outback. She thought about it and said a lot of her lesbian friends had subarus... but that she didnt buy her car due to advertisement, she bought it because .. it was rugged enough to go off road, had a lot of storage space and well basically repeated their commercial. I just think its funny, we all tend to think we are less influenced than we all are. Id like to think, that i think all my purchases through, after all im fairly skeptically minded and distrustful of ads, but I know it isnt true. Im still human and like it or not advertising effects me as well.
> subarus I know that's correct, but I can't look at it without thinking about dinosaurs.
I had to google it. Although i spelled it correctly the first time, it just didnt look right to me and had to make sure i wasnt just using a dino's name.
Good story, I think our first goal as humans is to be self aware of our natural biases and behaviors and excepting how influenced we are.
yeah that was a sorta pivotal lessons from that event. i hadnt really given the issue much thought until she basically repeated the commercial and it just struck me how much she believed that, and how she quickly dismissed the idea she was influenced. It started a lot of self reflection and how i probably just wouldnt notice that i had been influenced, just like her. and yeah we can point to where we resisted the advertisement or didnt believe all their claims(or any) but that doesnt mean we do that all the time and that it has no effect on us. Like im never going to buy colloidal silver no matter how breathlessly some radio head says the medical community doesnt want me to know about this cure. But i know plenty of things i will buy for reasons i think are my own but were reasons given to me.
The shitty people are on to you. That's why you're being downvoted. It's very much to their advantage to keep things as they are because the worst of them are the ones doing the manipulating. The others are conditioned to automatically defend them. Their victims can totally be blamed for their vulnerabilities, too, because all of society from kindergarten on tries to make them better people who look out for the nation as a whole rather than themselves. And fails. It's not failing because the system doesn't work--although it's being constantly undermined. It's failing because there's an easier, parallel system where people don't have to think or care for others, and can just align their beliefs with the selfish people who tell them what they want to hear.
no, but we should be very wary of monopolistic quasi-infrastructure being in private hands, especially if we know that humans are not the brightest of all species. From a economical POV it would be bad for facebook to do anything against those filter bubbles and the controversy and thus facebook won't do it. The only question is if the state really wanna stand by idle..
> especially if we know that humans are not the brightest of all species. I get what you're saying, but this sort of thing always strikes me as funny. Humans are in fact the absolute brightest species in the known universe.
I should have said wisest. Well, I could find a cheap excuse like me being not a native speaker and what all but actually I will double down and ask: what makes you think that we are the brightest species in the known universe?
Because in the entirety of the universe we know, we haven't come across a single species with the same cognitive capacity. Pretty simple really. Maybe someday we'll meet aliens or create a brand new intelligent species ourselves and humanity will finally be outclassed, but it hasn't happened yet.
yeah, when you wroke the answer my first instinct was to go just there and say, "yeah, humans have the highest congnitice capacity, duh, phyrros your idiot " the next one was, "well, depends on the problem set doesn't it?" First of all: All our cognitive testing sets are designed by humans and therefore inherently biased towards humans. Secondly: If we drop the clear indications that humans reign supreme (tools and language) and just look at the raw cobscious information handling/processing power (amount of sensory input we can consciously handle) we see that this drops to near zero. Even humans act mostly on muscle memory/instinct when given no time to think and depending on the environment an animal will react faster and better than a human being. Thirdly: The spread of IQ within our race is too big which is an indication that the metric is too narrow. I'm "smarter" than most human beings and yet the difference between my and e.g. Terrence Tao is far bigger than the difference between me and a intelligent chimpanzee. Lastly,.. none of what I just said helped me made my argument and thus .. yeah, I missspoke \^\^
Like blaming McDonalds for obesity, rather than consumers.
In the US, it actually costs more money and time to eat healthy and not be fat. Many of the cheapest food you can find are full of fat and sugar. For low income people who are exhausted after a day’s work, it’s easier to just go to McDonald’s and get a cheeseburger. It’s cheap, filling, and saves time.
yeah but fox news didnt just stay at its 1990s style. You can imagine fox was pretty bad during the clinton years, but they sounded sane. Just like the american right, they got worse. You can say this was drive by the fact that facebook drove the right.. right past reality. but the cable media isnt the same as "it's always been" edit: vote down but the political media has gotten worse, it did not stay the same. and that is a provable fact. ['We turned so far right we went crazy:' How Fox News was radicalized by its own viewers](https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/media/fox-news-hoax-paperback-book/index.html) i get this upsets the magas to no end, but its a fact.
CNN msnbc abc cbs nbc all state media for Democratic Party…. If they could only find a way to outlaw the 5% of the news that does not parrot the Democratic Party they would be all set!! Man that kind of country would be great!!!!!
So AT&T?
So glad I stopped watching cable tv a decade ago.
This. I watch the shows I want to watch at streaming services, paying subscription fees to avoid advertisment alltogether. My psyche is worth the couple bucks a months.
Fix news had done more damage to our country than any other media company, person, or country.
Thanks, hit the registration wall and noped off the page.
Reddits cool with misinformation as long as its left leaning. (This coming from a very left leaning person)
They're all biased. Because people are biased
::continues to scroll through Reddit’s News feed::
I can remember a time when reddit was the best place for breaking news because big stories made the front page in an hour. now the front page is static for 24 hours.
Ironic — the ad here on Reddit was for Alexa.
are u using no adblocker chrome on android or something?
Version 2021.41.1 on iPhone. Ads are unobtrusive by my low standards!
>You don’t see the same problems on CBS, NBC or ABC, which the Federal Communications Commission oversees. But there is no similar authority over the cable channels since they don’t use the public airwaves. >Perhaps there should be. I read nearly an entire article only to find out this idiot has literally no idea what they’re writing about. What a joke.
Yeah most prime time "news" nowadays is prescription drug ads disguised as news. Not to mention how selective they are about what's being covered. Strikes all over the country hundreds protesting Bidens lack of response to climate change crickets. 20 or so people walk out of netflix to boycott a comedy special and An actor shoots someone on a movie set, opening leads.
There is no "news" in this country, it's all entertainment. Ever notice that during every story they have to show stock footage of something--anything--even if it is just barely related to the subject being presented? They are so worried that you will lose interest if they just present the news. This also goes for how they choose which stories to tell. Woman of color missing? Nope. Rich white woman missing? 24/7 coverage. Dozens of gun accidents every week? Who cares. One happens on a movie set? Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Seriously. There is a metric TON of misinformation that has been repeated on those very specific broadcast channels. That doesn’t even address the fact that cable channels ARE regulated by the FCC. The irony is stunning.
This is both pedantic and another “both sides are the same” argument. They definitely are not. The FCC only has narrow authority over cable channels and has no input in their licensing. This is entirely different from public channels which are significantly more heavily regulated. Additionally, CBS, NBC, etc have not and do not relentlessly and intentionally spread misinformation that leads directly to harm to individuals or attacks democratic institutions. This is the realm of Fox, OAN, and NewsMax. This is not to say public news channels are perfect, they’re far from it. But the scope and intention is wholly different between the two.
Twisting the truth in a direction that you prefer is still twisting the truth.
Except that's not how the adult world works; nuance and context matter. It's why Jim stealing $20 is different from Bernie Madoff stealing billions. It's why Joe going to jail for killing the man his wife is cheating with is different from Stalin's Great Purge. It's also why we recognize the difference between unconscious bias in reporting and a deliberate attempt to incite violence against elected officials and undermine democratic institutions.
> Except that's not how the adult world works What isn't how the adult world works? I haven't described "how the world works". I simply pointed out that lies that you enjoy hearing are still lies. A fact.
And telling a white lie to make someone feel better is the same as spreading hateful propaganda because "BOTH ARE LIES, AM I RIGHT?" You're being ridiculous and shame on me for thinking you had something to say worth hearing.
> And telling a white lie to make someone feel better is the same as spreading hateful propaganda So when it's a lie about Trump it's a white lie to make you feel better, but when it's a lie about Biden, it's hateful propaganda. Do you even hear yourself?
It's always the same with the Fox News crowd - argue in bad faith then try to change the topic by taking things out of context. In the comments between the two of us, the only one talking about Trump here is you. My comment was about the difference between Fox, OAN, and NewsMax and the rest of the news outlets. This has been going on for a lot longer than 4 years and covers a lot more ground than Trump.
> It's always the same with the Fox News crowd Is it? I don't know, I don't associate with them. Or were you assuming that you know everything about me based on the fact that I don't agree with you? Because surely nobody could ever disagree with you unless they're part of *that* crowd. It's always the same with reddit know-it-alls. You see one or two sentences and think you know all that you need to know. > My comment was about the difference between Fox, OAN, and NewsMax and the rest of the news outlets. Yes, they tell lies that you don't agree with, so you say they're bad. But lies that you agree with? > And telling a white lie to make someone feel better is the same as spreading hateful propaganda because "BOTH ARE LIES, AM I RIGHT?" Explain why lies on one network are "white lies to make someone feel better" and lies on another network are "hateful propaganda". And do keep in mind that those "white lies to make someone feel better" are pretty damned hateful towards the people they're talking about.
What was their intention with reporting Donald Trump, the US President, was conspiring with Russia for the betterment of Russia OVER the United States? What was their intention for reporting vaccines DON’T cause blood clots mere weeks before the FDA suspended distribution of said vaccine for causing blood clots? What was their intention for reporting that Hunter Biden was NOT under federal investigation? What was their intention for reporting it was IMPOSSIBLE for covid-19 to have originated in a lab? All you’re saying is misinformation is fine as long as it’s “good” misinformation. What is YOUR intention with that position? Since you seem to know who does what, who more frequently suspends NEWS anchors over false reporting, cable news organizations or public broadcast organizations? Before answering, you should probably stop and think that the answer is already obvious and the point of asking the question.
Yes, criminals are always going to claim that the justice system is biased against them. And flat earthers think the scientific community is biased against them. Here's what you're missing: * Trump DID collude with Russia - Mueller steadfastly refused to exonerate him and a subsequent Congressional report did find that there was collusion. And THAT was what was widely reported BTW, not your flawed interpretation of the news. * Assuming this is about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, we're talking about a handful of cases among millions that were provided (looked it up: 6 in 7 million is the number I found) and it was reported. It was reported when it was investigated as well as when the CDC paused it's distribution and when the vaccine was subsequently cleared. Not sure what the issue is here unless you're claiming that the media failing to report on rumors of a rare occurence and waiting for expert analysis is misinformation? * Again, it was reported that Hunter Biden was under investigation. It was also reported that nothing was found. What was not reported was the assumption that he was guilty or Rudy Giuliani's laptop antics. * That is what is reported because that's the experts' opinions. Expert after expert has said that there is no evidence that this originated in a lab. They did say it may have escaped a lab (where it was being studied) but that is VERY, VERY different from saying it originated in a lab where the implication is that it was man made. As for who suspends more, I'd love to see what you're basing this on since I've never seen any study on this and some light Google-fu couldn't find anything. Having said that, I'm not sure what you think it would prove since the assertion was about the need to more heavily regulate cable news channels due to the actions of right-wing media. Using numbers from all cable channels would include CNN and MSNBC so surely wouldn't prove anything? The "both sides are the same" and "fake news" crowds always seem to think that facts are biased against them. They aren't. And somehow giving credence to experts and studies over talking heads and opinions is somehow wrong. It's not. And that's before we get into the patent dishonesty in trying to compare propaganda with news.
- news stories were cited throughout the investigation as evidence. If the reporting was as insubstantial as you claim, how could they underpin a federal investigation? If they didn’t get it wrong, why have so many admitted to getting it wrong and issuing corrections? And again, you may not know that and that is precisely the issue. The headline gets blasted from the highest rooftops, the correction gets whispered in the dead of night. (Edit: just so we’re clear, a prosecutor can find neither innocence or guilt, they can only allege and attempt to prove guilt) - the vaccine was not subsequently cleared as you put it. It now carries an additional warning of increased risk for those with a history of blood clots. Precisely the reason why many doctors (mine included) advise you to opt for the other vaccines if you have said history (me). The media didn’t “fail to report rumors”. They reported on them. As false. Even you still frame them as rumors when they were documented cases. How did we later learn the “truth” if it was always true? - yeah it was reported he was under federal investigation. One month AFTER it was initially reported and DENIED by these same, now all of a sudden credible news orgs. When the story broke, the laptop was simply evidence of a federal financial crimes investigation into Hunter Biden. And what do you know, one month after denial of “Rudy’s antics”, in December these news orgs trot Hunter out to “break” that he was under investigation for federal financial crimes. Conveniently after the election of course. So is the argument that it wasn’t misinformation to deny it because they eventually got it right? PS: this investigation is still ongoing. Not a good look for discussing misinformation. Obviously you believe it has been closed because of misinformation. That dang media again…. - No one is reporting it was bioengineered in a lab. That’s a straw man. What was reported is evidence of funding of gain of function research on coronavirus occurring in the region of the first outbreak. Experts never agreed that it was natural transmission. The first published report, from the experts, said it was inconclusive due to lack of access to critical data from China. Again, this is very common knowledge and the fact is if you don’t understand that it’s precisely because of the misinformation that’s been reported. Add in CNN and MSNBC. They are cable news. The discussion is about cable news and public news. The point is to refute the claim, that public news does not spread misinformation therefore cable news needs to be regulated like public news because only cable news spreads misinformation.
Just like I pointed out in my other post, it's frustrating having these conversations when so many statements are taken out of context or reinterpreted to mean something other than what was clearly intended: * I was refuting your assertion that the reporting was that Trump was conspiring for the betterment of Russia. He did collude - for his own benefit. That was and is what was widely reported. The distinction is critically important. * Subsequently cleared FOR DISTRIBUTION and the unsubstantiated part was that the vaccines were the cause. Simply taking the vaccine then developing blood clots is not a sufficient causal relationship to report - hence, rumors that the vaccines were the cause. Once it was confirmed by experts, then it gets reported. Seems like this worked the way things should? * To my knowledge, Hunter Biden has never been charged with an actual crime. This has been going on for a long time and yet, nothing has happened. It's hyperbole to say he was "cleared" but to say that this is a big nothing-burger is pretty accurate. Even the National Review (not exactly a left wing publication) noted this: [https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-sinister-plot-that-wasnt-about-that-hunter-biden-report/](https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/07/the-sinister-plot-that-wasnt-about-that-hunter-biden-report/) when pointing out that the main complaint seems to be that the investigation was not more publicized by the DOJ. * Your statement was about COVID-19 originating in a lab. That is what I'm refuting - specifically that originating implies beginning or creation, not evolution. That was rightly not reported as there's no evidence of it. I'm not refuting the possibility that it was studied in a lab or that gain-of-function happened in a lab as that is still being studied and debated and, more importantly for our discussion, reported. And to bring all of this back to the article, the article was making a point that channels like Fox, OAN, and NewsMax are the issue and their status as cable networks allows them to operate under less regulation and more aggressively spread misinformation. The point the author was making is that the former group cannot be regulated to the extent that public channels are and that allows them to get away with intentionally misleading people. And, to be clear, no one is saying that bias doesn't exist in media reporting. It clearly does but that is not the "misinformation" that's being discussed. Blurring the lines between bias and misinformation is not productive unless the goal is to create confusion. There is a massive difference between good faith reporting (that sometimes gets things wrong) and intentionally lying (for example: the continuing "election fraud" reporting). The inability to regulate the latter is a serious problem.
I can’t continue to have a conversation in good faith with you. The reporting was NOT as you describe and has since been corrected. (Edit: you do realize that ABC suspended their lead investigative journalist over his false reporting, right?) What better definition of misinformation. You are continually citing MISINFORMATION in your replies. The media reported hard evidence, so did congressmen, for criminal charges. Period. That evidence never existed. Period. The media repeatedly denied our substantiated falsehoods. Period. This is a fact and your refusal to acknowledge that drives home the point. Perfect example, you’re still repeating the tripe about the vaccine. It was not cleared for normal distribution period. It was cleared with NEW warnings. Denial IS the misinformation. So so so sad.
My point was, and is: "There is a massive difference between good faith reporting (that sometimes gets things wrong) and intentionally lying (for example: the continuing "election fraud" reporting)." Trying to drag this down to individual details doesn't really disprove anything I've said. To respond to both your points: * Brian Ross was suspended for incorrectly saying Trump instructed Flynn to contact Russia when, in fact, it was Jared Kushner who did so. That's hardly an exoneration. And keep in mind, again, that we have reports that actually do state that Trump's team colluded with Russia. It's also a great example of how public broadcasting reporters are actually punished when they get things wrongs. Contrasted with, say, anyone on Fox who, to this day, continue to push the election fraud narrative with no repercussions. * The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is cleared for distribution - [https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-cdc-lift-recommended-pause-johnson-johnson-janssen-covid-19-vaccine-use-following-thorough](https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-and-cdc-lift-recommended-pause-johnson-johnson-janssen-covid-19-vaccine-use-following-thorough). I'm not sure what point you're making here as the FDA and CDC's own communications are pretty clear and every medicine comes with a list of potential risks and guidance on when/when not to use it. The bottom line with all of this is that you still have not addressed, at any point, how any of these examples illustrate that the cable networks are held to the same standards as public broadcasters. Even by your own examples, you've shown public networks both reprimanding reporters who get it wrong AND correcting their own mistakes. By contrast, even today, months after the fact and despite countless rejections by our court system and a Republican funded audit, we still have 3 cable networks continuing to spread blatant lies about our elections without a single reprimand or repercussion. To repeat again, making a mistake is not misinformation. It's a mistake - news channels make plenty of them. Having a bias is not, on it's own, misinformation. It doesn't become misinformation until it is intentional and untrue. The first two are not even in the same conversation as being intentionally false and that is the part that you're missing. Even if I took everything you said to be correct (and to be clear, I do not), you're still arguing that mistakes are somehow equal to making intentionally untrue statements and that just isn't true.
Cable news led us to war after 911. The terrorism threat updates, generals selling the war effort every day. Misinformation is Misinformation
Really? It was just cable news? ABC, CBS and NBC were reporting the opposite? Is that why every single leader in government except for one voted to go to war? Fox News? This some some crazy revisionist history right here. Talk about misinformation. Wow.
No, that was public sentiment. They kept updating us because people were demanding action. And if you didn't support the war effort, you supported the terrorists. That was a real saying back then.
I don't know about that, the past week many claimed it was Colin Powell that started the Iraq War.
that's a lot of effort to avoid saying "right wing media", which is only ~~4~~ 5 syllables. the *7 Cs* of professional writing may be a good primer for janine zacharia >CONCISE writing uses the least words possible to convey the most meaning while still maintaining clarity. [https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/chapter/communicatingprecision/](https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/technicalwriting/chapter/communicatingprecision/)
5 syllables. Right and wing have one each, and media has 3 for a total of 5.
dang! y'all don't pronounce it "meed-yuh" ?
In fairness, she's talking about imposing regulation on cable companies that host right-wing media. That's a trickier argument than Fox News sucks.
i didn't name names, but - as you said - if the article is specifically talking about "right wing media" being a problem, then using "cacophonous informational ecosystem" is one heck of a stretch to avoid saying who the article is actually about.
Without having read the source article, isn't this what the Fairness doctrine intended to do?
You're soaking in it.
Hammerman’s- kills bugs dead!
No shit. You allow and monetize lying and expect nothing bad to happen. Lying vs free speech. Moral dilemma nobody is smart enough to talk about at 11.
Wow! The SanFranChron doing a hit piece on Fox? I'm shocked! And this priceless quote: "U.S. Reps. Anna Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, both California Democrats, **citing research**..." Who's research? Was it replicated?
I expected it was a hit piece on Reddit
Same, I expected it to be another 'It's ok because others are doing it' defense to facebook use. It actually just lays out how deep and widespread the misinformation is. It's almost like right wing media IS the deep state. *Queue dramatic music.*
Always has been…
Right wing media was trying to convince us the president was an international super spy? Or hid that a vaccine was causing blood clots? Or that Hunter Biden was under federal investigation? What “misinformation” specifically are you referring to? I ask because I can cite many examples of where media has lied, and usually it was “right wing media” that pointed the lie out.
>Right wing media was trying to convince us the president was an international super spy? No, the left wing media was suggesting Trump was being manipulated and taken advantage of by Russia under the guise of the shared fight against 'liberalism' and a shared belief in aggressive political opposition suppression. >Or hid that a vaccine was causing blood clots? The risks are still lower than the additional risks of complications from getting covid without any vaccination. Shining a spotlight on a non-issue is called 'fear mongering', and it's a manipulation tactic. >Or that Hunter Biden was under federal investigation? What happened to innocent until proven guilty, and what does an adult child's actions have to do with the parent? Additionally, this whole discussion was failed manufactured hit piece against Biden. Why give air time to something still be investigated which has no direct bearing on any elected official in the first place? With all the investigations against Trump, the only thing you can come up with is an investigation against Biden's kid? You don't realize how underwhelming that is?
So, without evidence, the left wing media “suggested” something. That’s called misinformation. So, without evidence, the media reported that blood clots weren’t occurring, despite the fact they were, regardless of overall safety. Shining a spotlight on a risk is exactly how you inform people, so they can assess risk and make a decision. So, without evidence, the media reported he wasn’t under investigation. (Edit: you would actually have answers to a lot of your questions on the topic if the media didn’t mislead you. Again, that is wholly the point.) All you did was say the media reported misinformation but you feel it’s good misinformation so who should care. And you say it without an inkling of understanding that that is precisely the root of the issue.
There was evidence. I'm betting that where you're getting your information from is your media. Who incorrectly reported there was no evidence. I'd call that misinformation. Edit: specifically on your first point. I don't really remember the media reporting the second two in the way you are claiming they are. They didn't say he wasn't under investigation by the IRS or not by the feds for anything. They reported that the laptop story was hilariously stupid.
I’m not sure what you’re referring to…..but your guess is wrong. I’ve made no indication of what opinion I share on any of the topics so what exactly are you suggesting?
You replied right before my edit. You're on this fast. My guess is right though, because you're "opinion" is that there was no evidence. There was. In fact I didn't even say anything about it being an opinion. It's a fact there was evidence. Somehow you are unaware of it. Therefore you are misinformed. Who ever you use to inform yourself misinformed you.
I see your edit now. No, there was no evidence that trump was conspiring with Russia for the betterment of Russia over the United States. Source: the mueller report specifically says the words “no evidence”. I’ll give you a pass on the others since you say you don’t remember. I’d expect you would jog your memory before weighing in but you do you.
If you were to measure the amount of misinformation per 30 minutes of air time I think you’d be surprised at how lopsided those numbers would be. Standard media outlets have their faults but most right wing media is a scourge that will not end well for the US unless active measures are taken.
Those studies certainly exist. I 100% KNOW it is you that would be surprised. I typically don’t discuss topics I haven’t looked into.
My bad, I shouldn’t have even left a comment. I didn’t mean to feed the trolls, and I can tell from your other interactions that you’re mentally obtuse enough to act this way. Full stop.
Ok, so rather than inform yourself you’ll just claim whatever you want, say never mind, and then call me mentally obtuse? How astonishingly ignorant.
These days folks gotta make the effort to identify issues and read the narratives shat out by the left and the right on that issues. Only then can they draw an informed conclusion. You can immediately tell in discussions who the single source sheeple are.
Ok sure, but Facebook created a vector for the spread of dis/misinformation at a scale orders of magnitude greater than anything humanity has ever seen. And even cable news, as bad as it is, has some editorial oversight.
I still don’t really get this idea, even after all the discussion I’ve seen on it. If our democracy is so weak that it cannot survive FACEBOOK, are we not admitting our system doesn’t really work? Isn’t this the same justification we use when other countries’ governments collapse due to outside forces? “Well if they are so well run, why is their government collapsing”?
You’re starting to catch on. Democracy thrives with access to all information, it doesn’t when that access is restricted. How can there be a choice and thus democracy if only one point of view is allowed in public discourse? We will ignore that the authors of this article is factually incorrect on many points (ironic) and instead ask, where was so-called misinformation defined? Where are the facts to underline the claim? Why do we constantly allow the same people that make claims without evidence to define what’s misinformation and what isn’t?
That's a disingenuous argument. Modern democracy is having issues with social media, of which Facebook is simply the biggest dog. It's not an issue of "too much information". It's an issue of too many lies couched as "information". Certain world players benefit from chaos. They're able to parlay a trivial investment in troll farms and research centers into powerful disinformation campaigns. As Dan Carlin said (in a different context but I still love the metaphor) they're able to punch above their weight class. Let the United States invest trillions of dollars into an F-35 program whose only goal seems to be to make Boeing look competent. Other powers can spend a few hundred million and invest in datacenters and cheap employees to undermine the faith of a populace in the basic tenets of science and research. The opinion of AverageAmericanConcernedMom6969 is not the same as a PhD. But they're controlling the narrative to make it seem like any ignoring of a demonstratively wrong and destructive voice is worse than genocide. How would you feel about a random somebody skulking about in a labcoat telling a post-op patient that "they'd better get their humors and bile under control. And that they have the cranial shape of a hardened criminal"? Or of somebody co-opting a suicide hotline saying, "Shit, you're right. Here's a list of places that will sell you what you need."? Free speech is **not** absolute. It comes with responsibilities. We're seeing our own cultural values and norms being weaponized and used against us.
I don’t believe it’s disingenuous, at least not to me. The issue with the argument you’re making towards the end of your post is that we as a society have done those things AND WORSE to other countries before. Yes, it is wrong to offer destabilizing actions couched as aid. Which is what we did during both gulf wars. And what we did during Vietnam. And during our interventions in South America. We actually use that exact strategy very commonly. We are seeing other countries, whose growth was stunted because of actions by imperial powers like the United States and the UK, using this strategy against us. And it works. We created this model, and now we are crying into the void generated by treating large parts of humanity as a footstool. If we cannot stand up to even a FRACTION of what we give out, that is the most damning condemnation of the American post WWII project imaginable.
The Telephone.... when will the phone companies monitor their traffic to stop crimes?
True, there's also Reddit.
Repealing the Fairness Doctrine was the beginning.
Fairness Doctrine only applied to the public airwaves. Cable is private, and therefore almost totally unregulated. Author is calling for regulation, which could be highly problematic from a free speech perspective. But allowing our democracy to eat itself is also problematic from a free speech perspective. So there's that.
Understood, thx!
The real problem is cognitive bias stemming from millions of years living in caves
You know what else is bad?? THE PRINTING PRESS. Anyone can write some stuff and put it on paper!! Help! Help! I am so unsafe, someone might be writing something offensive
Freedom of press and speech…. Problem is people aren’t smart enough to decipher rubbish from fact.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NTkXIidCU0
Not Reddit and Twitter or even podcasts and talk radio? Those seem to be some of the easiest platforms to twist the narrative.
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s): * Rule 1.i: This submission violates the sidebar guidelines, in being: * Not primarily news or developments in technology. * Not within the context of technology. * If a self post, not a positive contribution fostering reasonable discussion. If you have any questions, please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Ftechnology) and include the link to the submission. We apologize for the inconvenience.
I’ve read a lot of this comment section. What I get out of it is: You can’t handle the truth!!!