Facebook employees have reportedly created a task force to stop fake news stories

[mbrowne5061]

Also, parody sites are almost never labeled as such - because that is exactly the point of parody. Closest you get might be a small-font disclaimer at the very bottom of the page.

Either parody sites are labeled or they aren't. You can't have it both ways.

Pretty sure I made that clear the first time I wrote it.

No, you aren't. You are arguing for the creation of a truth keeper. Per your own words, an international organization that has the power to decide what is labeled fact and what is labeled fiction. All in the name of protecting people from false information.

Go read up on the Dewey Decimal system. It is maintained by an independent, international organization: OCLC. It is actually probably less independent than ICANN presently is, but I don't think anyone can realistically make the argument that they are suppressing information by simply classifying it. How is anything I've argued for different? If ICANN was still under the thumb of the US Govt, I would agree with you - but its not anymore, its not under anyone's thumb.

A Dewey Decimal just appends publications with a piece of meta data that allows for rapid sorting of material and judgment of the context of the content. It is not saying "This is right. This is wrong". It says "This is science. This is history. This is fiction. This is non-fiction". Most importantly in this case, it can also say "This is news. This is commentary". Right now, too many people are confusing what is essentially commentary as news or investigative journalism.

If it makes you happy, just argue for the use of the Dewey system itself. It is almost already completely compatible with the way computers presently handle information, and it certainly would be cheaper and more effect to use this existing solution.

 

[davislane1]

If it makes you happy, just argue for the use of the Dewey system itself. It is almost already completely compatible with the way computers presently handle information, and it certainly would be cheaper and more effect to use this existing solution.

When it comes to matters of news vs. commentary vs. etc, I am against any type of regulatory interference at all. Period.

If you want people to not be swayed by fake news, teach them how to vet what they read. If you don't want them to confuse commentary for news, teach them how to read. It's very simple.

 

[mbrowne5061]

When it comes to matters of news vs. commentary vs. etc, I am against any type of regulatory interference at all. Period.

If you want people to not be swayed by fake news, teach them how to vet what they read. If you don't want them to confuse commentary for news, teach them how to read. It's very simple.

How do you expect to teach them the difference if they lack a wide-reaching, consistent model to learn from? Because of the Dewey system, you can go into any library in the world and immediately know where to look to find the information you want to know about. But on the internet, you realistically only have Google/Bing/Yahoo search results, and those are based on how often something is linked to (for the most part). Just because something is cited often does not make it true/false, accurate/inaccurate, helpful/harmful, or anything else. It just makes it cited most often. The only additional filters you can get are with things like Google Scholar, which essentially only pays attention to .edu sites and known academic journals and journal hosts.

We learn by imitation and pattern recognition - but if you forbid the establishment of a pattern, then that only leaves imitation. Imitation without a wider-reaching pattern is how you get the echo chambers that we have been running into online. People just parrot what they read on the very forum or site they are talking on, and not much else - because they didn't learn anything else.

 

[davislane1]

How do you expect to teach them the difference if they lack a wide-reaching, consistent model to learn from?

Bro, this is reading 101. People are taught this in school. If you need a regulatory entity to establish a tagging system so that people can learn the difference between content types, the problem is even more serious than any of us realize.*

*There is an excellent case being made here that it is.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Does fake news = propaganda
there seems to be more of it around than there is white on snow

 

[davislane1]

Does fake news = propaganda
there seems to be more of it around than there is white on snow

Relevant video:

 

[mbrowne5061]

Relevant video:

Because Paul Joseph Watson is such a widely respected figure in the journalism and political science fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Joseph_Watson

 

[davislane1]

Because Paul Joseph Watson is such a widely respected figure in the journalism and political science fields:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_Joseph_Watson

 

[mbrowne5061]

Question someone's qualifications is not an ad hominem. You don't go to your auto mechanic for internal medicine. I won't go to a conspiracy theorist for anything about 'fake news', unless it is themselves admitting they have no physical evidence to back up their theories.

 

[davislane1]

Question someone's qualifications is not an ad hominem. You don't go to your auto mechanic for internal medicine. I won't go to a conspiracy theorist for anything about 'fake news', unless it is themselves admitting they have no physical evidence to back up their theories.

It's a textbook ad hom that you're doubling down on. But don't take my word for it: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The ruling on the field stands.

No wonder you need labels.

 

[mbrowne5061]

It's a textbook ad hom that you're doubling down on. But don't take my word for it: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

The ruling on the field stands.

No wonder you need labels.

Its not an attack on his person or character, only his expertise. If it was an attack on his person, it would have been me calling him a liar, conman, or whatever. Something personal. But even in the beginning, it wasn't ad hom. I made a point that he had no standing in the field of journalism or political science, the fields he claims to be an expert in, as no one in the 'center' of either of those fields uses him as source or subject matter expert. No recognized expert in either journalism or political science, recognizes him as peer - or even a student. I challenge you to find me one who does.

You put him up as an expert dealing with and identifying fake news - news that has not be substantiated with multiple third-party accounts or physical evidence - but he is known for spreading conspiracy theories about 9/11. He is the source of a whole 'genre' of fake news, with his self-published (un-verified by independent third parties) books, and basically runs his own conspiracy echo chamber. That doesn't make him an expert at dealing with it at all. If anything, his publications and sites are an example of what happens when you don't examine the source and the context of the publication you are reading - you take it at face value, and run with it.

He is about as qualified to speak on 'fake news' - aside from admitting his own theories lack supporting, non-circumstantial evidence - as Jenny McCarthy is to speak on Autism and Vaccines. The most I will give him credit for is 'independent thinking', but just because it is independent doesn't mean it correct, or even closer to the truth. It just means it deviates from the 'average'.

 

[severus]

And Facebook employees will be policing facebook news stories . hmmmn. And,who is going to be policing anything facebook does? Anybody really trust these wheezers anymore?