"Oi bruv, you got a loiscience for dat news?"

Clearly, the solution is to give governments much greater control over media. What could go wrong?

Since you are the first to bring that up here, please explain your reasoning.

Obviously when people are left to their own devices (literally, in this case) they'll post all kinds of nonsense. Since we all know that only Correct Information should be posted, it becomes clear that there should be a special government office to control what gets posted on social media. That way we can be sure that properly vetted Truth enters the public discourse, and not any dangerously independent thought.

It is certainly an interesting proposal, but not at all in line with the proposal in the OP.

Any thoughts on that?

Also, what if it isn't 'people' behind accounts, but bots or troll farms, or foreign intelligence services? What if it isn't news so much as propaganda designed to divide our country? And what if they aren't just posting it, but are paying companies to promote it and target it?

Do foreign intelligence services have a right to pay American companies to target American citizens with propaganda designed to disrupt and destroy American social and political institutions?

Information is best fought with more information, not suppression. Then again, people are fuckin' idiots, so do as you will.

Not on a radio, then you just step on each other and everything is garbled and confused.

Which is the goal for the foreign intelligence services you believe have the right to disrupt and destroy American social and political institutions.

Careful, there might be commies in your soup.

Breathtaking leap of logic there, Anc. I believe no voice should be silenced, but all voices should be identified. You want to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, everyone is going to know it was you. Russian moles and trolls want to post shit to Facebook, fine, but they should be identified as what they are.

Compromise: government can certify positively the quality and integrity of news sources without being able to compel failing ones to stop publishing.

How do you make that a reality short of the government mandating it?

Wouldn't work in a country where the CBO, FBI, CIA and Snopes are all viewed by one side as unreliable partisan hacks whenever they provide inconvenient answers.

FTFY

"Remember to cast your vote for me in November! I'll make sure the right people are running the Federal News Quality Board."

Honest question: Do you believe there are objective, a-political journalistic standards that should be followed in the production of the news?

Bots are programmed by people. Troll farms are staffed by people.

Foreign intelligence services are also staffed by people, and if an American wants to repeat what they say, said American has a right to do so.

It can be propaganda, it can be blank-verse poetry, it can be Broadway musicals, it can be videos of lesbian orgies. Freedom of speech is not limited to news.

If they're doing it in order to influence an election, they may be violating campaign finance laws, and those laws should be enforced.

Yes. As does anyone else.

And when you go back through our history and review the list of people who were accused at one time or another of trying to "disrupt and destroy American social and political institutions," the reasons become clear.

I, for one, and not surprised that Anc embraces totalitarian ideals.

Oh yeah? What about the mute?

Pretty insensitive of you.

Tobacco company ethics.

The one and only thing our local fishwrap does well is hold local politicians accountable. I can certainly see an army of public figures calling in every favor they have at the state level to get the paper's "Approved Journalist Certificate" revoked. If that would happen in this small community, can you even imagine the nightmare at the national level? Oy...

The truth is, fake news has existed since news became a thing. All of us in the US learned about "yellow journalism" in our history or civics lessons. Propaganda has always and will always be a thing. There will always be the fools that fall for it.

It's not totalitarian to protect people from snake oil salesmen. You can't sell colored water as a cure for cancer and you shouldn't be able to lie to millions of people and call it news. That's fraud. If you're some assclown giving your uniformed opinion that's one thing but when you pose as a news organization and knowingly spread falsehoods and lies then that's certainly something the government should put a stop to.

Irrelevant. Say there aren't: well then it becomes political immediately, doesn't it? Say there are: a regulatory body would still have to codify them, and regulatory bodies, congressional and executive, are inherently political. Say by some miracle, they promulgate a set of standards everyone at every point on the political compass can agree on. Perhaps something akin to the scientific method*. Then every news production has to be certified. How's that going to happen? Embedded observers are out for what should be obvious reasons. Post hoc auditing is out because it would reveal sources, and most of the reasons to eliminate embedded observers apply, if less obviously.

*I don't believe this is possible even in principle, because the content of the news is neither apolitical nor amoral. Every decision on what to publish or report on is in part a moral one. Consider gossip magazines, constantly weighing privacy vs. newsworthiness.

The news will never be completely objective. Doesn't change that some of it is more reliable, and some is less reliable. Get used to it. Use your brain and figure out which is which.

If you want accurate news, incentivize it. The way to do that is to not watch inaccurate news channels, don't buy from advertisers on those channels, and only engage on social media with reputable sources. Even pay for it when you find it.

Knowingly spreading lies already leaves you open to slander and libel charges.

Well...




/thread

Maybe, instead of making a website owner vet every link someone posts on his website, we educate our children well enough that they can laugh at a goofy picture without taking it as truth?

Or would that make it too hard for the people in control to keep winning elections?

It wasn't children being targeted by the Russians in 2016.

On the contrary. In the long run, it's the only solution.