Fake News: Should We Have Laws to Ban Fake News? - TLDR News
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ค. 2020
- Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
TLDR EU: / tldrnewseu
Hungary's Fake News Laws: • Is Hungary a Dictators...
Suing Over COVID: • Coronavirus: Can Peopl...
With the volume of fake news growing and the severity of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak, many are beginning to question if we should have anti-fake news laws. Should the government regulate the internet to stop the spread of disinformation, or would such a move mark the beginning of online censorship?
Follow TLDR on Facebook: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Twitter: / tldrnewsuk
Follow TLDR on Instagram: / tldrnewsuk
Discord: / discord
TLDR Store: tldrnews.co.uk/store
TLDR TeeSpring Store: teespring.com/stores/tldr-sum...
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Learn About Our Funding: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
TLDR is all about getting you up to date with the news of today, without bias and without filter. We want to give you the information you need, so you can make your own decision.
TLDR is a super small company, run by a few people with the help of some amazing volunteers. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, following and backing on Patreon. Thanks!
Who decides what is fake?
Anyone, if it didn't happen it's not news
facts
Fact checkers from accredited organisations.
What about where information is true but is manipulated by deliberately omitting important information, i.e. politics?
Accredited by whom and who accredits them?
I think the key is education. The guidelines for identifying fake news can be taught in school, and then hopefully more people would be able to decide it for themselves. Of course, including something like this in the curriculum is not really in the interest of many of the political powers who could implement such a change. The responsibility is individual, but a lot can be done even at this level.
No no of course not. It's not like school's are ment to prepare students to life.
I do agree with you, but the level of critical scepticism that I learned came from my mother, so while education is crucial I am not sure that we can expect it from conventional schools. The current system seems to expect a very small number of teachers to control and educate large numbers of energetic kids in very confined spaces, this combination of conditions does not seem to me to be conducive to the education that we really need, to learn to make good decisions based on careful critical testing of what is offered.
It is a tough situation with drawbacks to every option. One issue with increased focus on it in schooling is that people who want to manipulate political discourse will adapt to any curriculum and learn how to mimic credibility. Also, schooling is just going to feed into the conspiratory narrative that the establishment is biased in favour of certain political views and trying to brainwash people through the school system. Already, several movements are so anti-science and anti-authority that they would not listen to the school system.
The education doesn't have to be done in schools though. I was never taught how to do this in schools but I can still do it.
Conversely, even if this were done in schools, it would have to be done consistently for fifty or sixty years before it trickled up the age cohorts to include the whole citizenry. At the moment the people probably most vulnerable to online bullshit are technologically illiterate boomers.
Astir01 Your talking about indoctrination. How can I make my own mind up about a topic while being indoctrinated into a certain opinion.
Richard Feynman quote: “I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”
The question is where is the line between totalitarianism with censorship and a genuinely caring government wanting to reduce potentially harmful misinformation.
I'm not sure Feynman's quote encompasses the entire spectrum.
what about people who are against vaccines? if those conspiracies spread too much, we could end up seeing plagues come back
@@Daniel-gq4vw I'm what you'd call pro-vax.
However, never assume these people are wrong by default. Listen debunk their arguments, aye, but the listening is more important. One day they'll make a valid point - uf we assume they're wrong then, which of us will be starting plagues then?
Johanne Bremer I would say the issue is that especially in this situation with a new virus that hadn’t been in the human population until very recently, we need to rely on the scientific method more than ever in order to find out how best to treat it and how to prevent this kind of thing from happening again in the future, and a key part of the scientific method is freedom of expression (in the press, academia etc). The problem is that even a ‘genuinely caring’ government couldn’t possibly have all the answers to these questions, because we simply don’t know enough about this virus yet, and the only way we can find out is to discuss difficult issues about where it came from and what the best ways to deal with it are. Of course it will take time for us to find out the truth about those things, but open discussions where no questions are forbidden is the only way we can get there in the end.
@@horizon_hoe I think you're very right, but what can be told to someone who doesn't know or understand that, in order to eradicate his/her annoyance due to the uncertainty that this situation brought forth?
No, because the real question is who decides what is fake news. If there's going to be some law or government department deciding what is or is not fake news I nominating it to be called The Ministry of Truth.
Fact checkers from accredited organisations, technical experts, you've heard of them?
@@SirAntoniousBlock these "accredited organisations" are full of people that may be for example ideologically motivated. Technical experts often disagree and not always the majority of them is right. The same with "scientific consensus" - the term itself is oxymoron - science doesn't work on democratic principles. There is no way to tell what is"true".
Fake news is a parasite on democracy and until its gone we don’t really have one
Put it like this.
If you got factually incorrect statements that goes viral and it is aclaimed to be true by certain media outlets that claim themselves to tell the "Real news" and you'll see people acting by that information. The real question as you put it isn't about whether the statement is true or not true, its whether the information can be displayed as news or facts when it is pure fabrication or absurd speculation. If something happens and is displayed as "news" it ought to be retold as objectively as possible, analysis and speculations ought to be it's own form of media. Especially if it's not by an individual with relevant background. Regulation like any market standard, you dont sell snake oil under another name at the pharmacy anymore and you dont sell horse meat claiming its the finest cow meat (or whatever expensive vegan alt). You don't sell missinformation and call it "Real news".
French Guitar Guy Then we will never have one.
the question is, who police's speech? thats why you don't want it. you'll end up with the person you'd least like to do it.
Fake news could be a joke or a fiction. Who makes the judgement on it?
Protect freedom of speech.
And it would suppress truth as well. People who think different might havr truth but its not the consensus therefore blocked. Its a slippery slope
I don't buy that. Somehow we banned porn, a form of expression. Question is, who decides what's porn? Could be art or activism in another's eyes. Point is, just because it's a line in the sand doesn't mean it can't be drawn.
Obv like you said this is a sensitive topic that severe repercussions if done wrong. however that doesn't mean no steps can be taken forward. Here, just to get out of the theoretical discussion i'll suggest something random, see if you can spot anything wrong with it.
All news outlets and elected officials must only make claims of fact with sources, unless there's compelling interest in protecting the source ofc. I'm including puffery, boasting, and any other claims that are considered legal in advertising. I see no reason why media and those in office need to advertise. Doesn't have to be very strong evidence. When an official says they are doing a good job, just show their metric and how they scored on it. Sources can be listed on a website or something, doesn't have to interrupt the flow of the show.
In the event that a statement can be proven incorrect, with clear and convincing evidence, those who made the statement must apologize and correct themselves on the same platform 7 times or for 1 week, whichever is more. Here I mean if say a news organization made a proven false claim, at the start of all their shows for the next week they begin with the correction before moving on to any other subject; If it's a youtube channel, the apology replaces the intro of the next 7 videos; If a person in office made the false claim, they correct themselves at the beginning of every public appearance.
I should add this would ideally not happen in a court. There could be a judicial body that makes the preliminary assessment. Courts should be a last resort, and obv some protection against SLAPP need to be thought up.
To allow for stand up jokes or fiction, media can exclude themselves from this limitation by disclaimers. Something like "This is not a news program, program contains exaggerated claims for the purposes of entertainment". Fiction often already contain the "not based on a real story, similarities coincidental" disclaimer anyways, that would work just as well.
I came up with this on the spot, surely somebody with expertise can come up with a much better plan. Once again, I do not see why no steps can be taken just because it's a sensitive topic.
Trouble starts when your "free speech" damages me, either directly (because I'm gullible and decided to trust that lunatic who told me to inject bleach to "cure" covid) or indirectly (I happen to be standing behind someone at the grocery who went to their megachurch's "Jesus is my vaccine" hug-alongs and spread the disease.)
We're now in a situation where my freedom to life is directly impacted by your freedom of speech and one of us is going to have to give ground. And as the old "fire in a theater" quip goes, we (as a species really) generally choose to protect life over other freedoms.
Political "fake news" is a whole other story. It doesn't really impact life. But left unchecked, it does have significant potential to damage the foundations of the constitution that is granting you your free speech in the first place. A large part of this though is that the "left" wing (aka moderate right because the US doesn't even know what true left is anymore) is constantly playing "we should be fair" while the far right is playing "fuck you I'm taking everything." Even if you're a right winger yourself, you still have to understand the value of discourse if you want to truly understand the foundations that that USA was built on. If you just let it keep falling further and further right with essentially no resistance, you're just going to end up in a one-party system if not a full dictatorship and there are plenty of example countries around the world to show where that leads. China and Russia both love free speech! You know, as long as you remember you're only "free" to toe the party line.
People need to become more educated, this will further cultivate a lack of education among the masses.
@@randomnobody660 porn ban has always been an absurd proposition in the first place.
The Daily Mail and most other UK newspapers would have to be removed then.
And the BBC, the Guardian... hell, basically every news source these days. They’re so full of lies and spin it’s absurd.
Don't forget every religious book and pamphlet.
Onion is most likely the most truthful newspaper.
Bushflare the bbc aren't a newspaper, so idk what u mean
@@Bushflare the Guardian and Daily Mail are nothing alike. I don't even live in the UK, and I know that
Would laws against false public statements be enforced against government ministers?
Or against politicians in general!
See US Fox News Network for an example.
AHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAA, let me catch my breath ahahhaa. Not a chance, those in power are seldom held to the laws they procliam to uphold. Nepotism and cronyism runs rampent throughout the world. Although laws against fake news is ultimatlely is going to be against free speech (its a thin line) a dangerous risk.
I say we all stop watching news on tv and start watching small independent news by real journalists and not activists.
Eric Martinez yeahwhat if they’re fake? Just as much reason for an indie journalist to publish fake news
No I feel like a free media is important for any country.
Free media? yes i 100% agree. Purposely misleading and lies should be flagged up and people should be aware that what they are watching/reading is intentionally misleading, I.E 5g causes coronavirus, earth is flat, vaccines cause autism, or that everything is fine in china and they're the superior race. all that bullshit, as there's too many dumb cunts alive that would believe it and actually take action which can cause harm over it.
Winnie the Poo Flu well having a regulator body than can investigate cases but can’t prosecute without a certain level of deception maybe. Fake news is probably one of the worst things in our world right, people find it hard to trust each other, or to trust scientific fact because there are so many lies.
@@pussieswillneverbeheroes6019 there's no but, They should be aloud to say what they want, but people should atleast know when people are talking shit because too many dumb people.
Free media can coexist with anti fake news laws. Anyone would be free to spread a news if he proves that he was in good faith and has done extensive research.
@@francescoazzoni3445 ah so presuming guilt as well now!
Protect free speech
ABSOLUTELY NOT
Absolutely not, regulating the truth is bound to end badly sooner or later. It wouldn't be a case of ''if'', but rather one of ''when''.
Given our goverkent's prior attempts to overreach when legislating on the internet, I'm not sure how much trusy I have in them. Particuarly when so many politicians are still tech illiterate.
This is the question I was waiting for this channel to ask.
"We mean news that is fake"
Yeah, I'm sure you know someone who is ready to take the top spot deciding whats fake.
The laws would need to target advertisers rather than the writers of fake news themselves, so that it becomes unprofitable.
Whose job is it to save you from yourself?
if your answer is yourself, you're saying that it's on the average person to figure out for themselves when highly informed parties are lying to them.
"What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all. What can we do then? What else is left but to abandon even the hope of truth and content ourselves instead with stories?" Valery Legasov (in the Chernobyl television series)
John 259 exactly, having some kind of regulatory body for news would be amazing. No citizen benefits from fake news.
@@frenchguitarguy1091
... y’all are either missing the point by a country mile or I’m missing the joke by two.
@@frenchguitarguy1091 We could call them the Ministry of Truth.
John 259 so post modernism in a nutshell
The Tachi was not legitimate salvage!
Ever since I was a kid, my grandfather ALWAYS told me that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that instead of focusing on what something is created to be, to consider what it can become.
When applying this to fake news laws... All I can see is this being abused. Truth in many things is merely a concept, when it comes to politics where you stand, and what you want to achieve WILL influence what you see as being true. There is also the impact of the sovereign rights of the individual person to consider, our rights as citizens are not protected and if you chip away at one it allows the others to be easily chipped into also.
In the end, you could think of many ways in which you could implement such types of laws and they all boil down to the fact there would have to be an arbiter in place to decide what YOU have the ability to see. Personally, I will GLADLY take the people claiming the water is turning the frogs gay and also those that say socialism isn't a failed economic model and that it doesn't exclusively benefit those at the top and controlling it, in return for being able to see all takes and ideas to be able to come to a conclusion myself.
It's the same principle and concept as the bogus "hate speech" laws. Arbiter laws serve a singular purpose, to silence and control. Also, to those that just label the general public as stupid and in need of being told what the "truth" is... If you get your way and measures like this are put in place, don't expect them to be on your side for long, they'll be used against you before too long.
People saying to inject bleach to attack the human-malware... It's just straight up promoting suicide and using the current situation to influence those whom senses and thinking processes have been knocked out due to paranoia induced terror.
-
Consider how politicians are right now, and have been for a LONG time... Do you want these people being the ones to design laws that dictate what you talk about? Read and watch? What you can say, and even freakin' THINK? What is true?
1. We have politicians who say "white girls should shut up for the sake of diversity".
2. We have politicians who say white people are inherently racist (while funnily enough making comments that can be seen as racist, and if switched would be taken as such),
3. We have politicians who take HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of pounds from our coffers each year then complain about public service cash and taxes (despite them being part of the cause of issues).
4. We have politicians who withhold reports into issues that concern and are important to the public.
5. We have politicians who break laws, do foul things to people (example: pedo-politicians).
6. We have politicians who put virtue signalling above the well being of the general public and their concerns.
7. We have politicians who put ideology before duty and responsibility.
Ask yourself... Do you trust these people to in good faith create these laws fairly? In truth there are VERY FEW politicians who give a damn about liberties and freedoms, so I say don't give them an inch when it comes to this stuff.
Why shouldn't people be allowed to disagree with the scientific consensus? Predictions that conform to the scientific consensus of the day turn out to be wrong all the time.
Ryan Pearce no ones talking about disagreeing with science- but if you’re publishing stories that are deliberately false, with no facts or evidence to support then why should they poison the waters for other covering this news. I suspect the current news situation will only continue to break democracy
@@frenchguitarguy1091 I'm not saing that people aren't spreading fake news, nor that it isn't potentialy dangerous. I just don't trust any person or group to decide for me what is and isn't fake news. I need to decide that for myself as does everyone else.
Risks 100% outweigh the proposed benefits. The state should never be the one deciding what is true.,
could a solution to this be the enforcement of citations / references within the promotion of supposed facts within the media and social media posts.
That won't help.... look up the woozle effect
BBC wouldn’t want this to happen 😂
Should "50,000" new nurses be considered 'fake news'?
Good point, because the government stands by their framing of the data and others find it misleading at best, who gets to decide what the truth is? Both sides have based their conclusions on the numbers, who gets to be legal right and who is fake news? The people need to decide for themselves not some unaccountable group of bureaucrats and lawyers.
Didn't the Tories try to set up a "fact check site" during the run up of the general election? A lot of politicians have been caught lying and breaking democratic integrity for minor political gain, so the repercussions should begin with them if there was any banning of fake news.
@@TheIlluvater yeah it's an interesting point. Was just funny when ministers were being asked "what's 50-31?" and they were answering "50-31=50".
Having a “independent journalism standard” seal that news outlets can apply for and have to pay fines to the organization if they broadcast anything that is disinformation is probably the best way to go . Positively identifying good information is more effective and feasible than identifying false or fake.... the only issue would Then be corruption of that journalism body. Which generally means that the fines would have to go to some non-partisan charity or general tax fund...
as an American, I say you should not regulate what people say online. that leaves too much room for abuse. just because the examples of abuse are from countries that are very different from you does not mean that it can't happen to you.
people are capable of checking their own facts these days, it doesnt need to be regulated by the gov, thats a recipie for disaster
I think such laws could be beneficial, _but_ they would need to be narrowly tailored, perhaps similarly to laws against fraud and libel/slander. They'd need to carefully define what counts as "fake" or "false" or whatever term they want to use and take into account ways such a law could be abused or misinterpreted.
i am somewhat surprised that you did not even touch upon the immensely complicated subject of what is "objectively false", who decides, and what influences do they need to be protected from.
It's because TLDR are so f**king arrogant they consider themselves to be the arbiters of truth.
I’m going to say NO! before I watch this video. I’ll post my thoughts after I watched it. Fake news is a persons opinion which is open to interpretation which is a fundamental flaw with language.
No but a person should have to state it’s not scientifically proven if they come out with a statement declaring something. Kind of like when you have to use the word allegedly when making an accusation that’s unproven in court.
Few things on this: 1, With the internet spreading things so fast nowadays, only the first few hours or even minutes would matter for the news / information to make an impact. Any proof or disproof afterward would have very little impact on what has been done with the original spreading. 2, Some scientific / specific things, since most people don't understand them, will be very easy to make false statements but very hard to disproof them. 3, Things are changing over time, for example: dinosaurs have feathers? Diesel engine better for the environment? 4, Is speaking the 'fake news' (if unintentionally?) is a part of the speech freedom or not?
I guess the problem here isn't 'banning' fake news, but how to deal with them. How can people / officials figure out whether the news is fake or real with-in the first few minutes of learning it? With more information pouring into our life quicker every day, we have to choose what to hear; as a part of human nature, we only choose what we want to hear. That makes people more biased and less tolerable to different voices nowadays.
No, "'banning' fake news" is a problem, for the reasons you've highlighted.
No, this has been my TED talk.
*NO! ~ the state should not interfere or censor information, regardless of what it is* This leads to a degradation of "discernment" and "reason" in people. Ideas do not go away, they will go underground and fester, and show themselves in warped ways. Debate is the only way information can be qualified or ridiculed. FUCK corporations being the gatekeepers, we should be our own judge
I’d say add a stamp of certification that says that this is guaranteed the truth.
News does not need regulation to prevent fake, online news.
People should have access to resources that teach whether or not a source (online) is credible or not.
As it stands, on a global scale, most people have this sort of access.
As damaging as "fake news" can be, it is multiple magnatudes worse if we arent allowed to question authority.
Courts should be able to issue cease and desist orders against anyone who cant provide enough proof of any claims they are spreading,
Or at least, anyone who isnt able to prove they have a good understanding should be ordered to provide a declaration that they dont understand all the facts or concepts.
Boris banning fake news is like bees banning honey.
Can you explain what the laws are regarding the media? TV, newspapers etc.
You shouldn't 'ban', but if you still manage an independent court system that you trust. You can have legal liability attach to falsified news. Who decides what has almost always been up to the courts.
News articles should really (in an ideal world) use citations, in a similar way to scientific research papers, where the audience can actively verify and regulate evidence related to an article.
The problem really is their are too many advertising (I mean news) company's competing to have the most views, and being the first to report obviously is a good thing for the news company's as they then have the upper hand.
Any discussion on banning "fake news" means you need to have an authoritative method of determining what is "real news" and what is "fake news", and that's not really possible. To say otherwise seems to me like an open invitation of state or corporate -controlled program of censorship and information control, which is unviable in a free and open society.
My current position: No government laws to ban fake news, but media platforms have the rights to do them (freedom of association, protecting profits and branding, etc.), but their decisions are not immune from criticism.
Even more honest comment: After watching debates on free speech, I'm not sure if I'm pretending to support free speech absolutionism or I'm actually supporting it.
Just looking at the thumbnail, I was like NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
In an emotional summing up the judge declared that truth is beauty and beauty is truth. Life, being neither beautiful or true, was therefore obviously illegal and confiscated it form all those present.
Makes you really appreciate the comfort you can get from a smaller news source like TLDR. I trust you guys more than the bigger news outlets these days
Another point is that this could be used to block the output of further scientific advancement. Say there’s a topic that most people have made their minds up on. Then someone comes along with new info counter to this and it disturbs the status quo then what stops it being called fake and moving on?
We’d all like a way to end fake news, but actually doing that is basically impossible. You’d need a whole new independent separate pillar of government. But even doing that would throw up so many unforeseen issues
Kudos for having the line "make money through online traffic" cut to an advert mid-way :)
If fake news was made illegal then you would have to close the BBC; CNN; FOX and most 'newspapers'
Don't get your news from social media.
Don't get your news from the mainstream media.
Ryan Pearce at this point just don’t read any news, anything could be a lie and you can’t let them get in your head, because what if you’re wrong
@@frenchguitarguy1091 I was being facetious, I think people need to listen to a range of sources and make up their own mind.
@@TheIlluvater I don't many reasons to disdain mainstream news reporting in my country since it's usually fairly neutral, but other people have definitely different opinions. Still, I prefer aggregate sites that collect headlines from various newspapers.
Well that rules out pretty much everything from the mainstream. This is hilarious!
Publishing of blatently wrong claims should be banned under all circumstances. There is absolutely no justification within the ideals of free speech or freedom of the press, for people to be able to just say something that isnt true as if it is. That does not add anything of value to our society.
At one point science said people were made from god.
At one point major authorities claimed the earth was flat.
How do you distinguish people who are deliberately spreading fake news from people who are just being wrong. If you don't you may end up punishing people for being wrong
Absolutely not!
No. Just no. What is news? What is disinformation. Who decides.
Algorithms and ai are not the answer, so no.
Most people recognize fake news. We had a national newspaper that made its money by doing so. "Sunday Sport is a British tabloid newspaper, published by Sport Newspapers, which was originally established in 1986. Defenders of the publication have said the Sport was never intended to be taken seriously: it has featured such stories as a London Bus being discovered at the Antarctic, a World War II Bomber on the Moon, or a statue of Elvis Presley on Mars."
the answer to this issue is education, not censorship.
once we establish that our rulers can decide what is 'fake' they can use that remove anything they don't want us to see.
YES WE SHOULD!
Absolutely, at the earliest opportunity. Knowingly spreading fake news ought to be a crime.
At the end of the day, nobody should control the reins of censorship. The best we can do is fight bad information with good information, and accept that people are allowed to be wrong, or stupid, or stubborn.
Pretty disappointing that you failed to mention how some of the states enacting these laws are nothing like free or democratic.
Teal Deer. Is that you. Voice fairly similar, without the tone. But did youtube let you back on? Or is this channel a fan that took the name?
At this point, if you’re not being deplatformed or worse, you’re probably not a real journalist.
I think anybody who share fake news should accountable for it....
What would happen to satirical news networks, like the Onion?
you know in Singapore we now often used say things like "don't POFMA me" when we make jokes abt or satirise the government
I have been thinking about this sort of thing for a long while now and all I can see so far is that there is a very significant difference between private, personal opinions and the public domaine, I would suggest that anyone publishing anything as a way of earning a living should have to comply with a regulatory regime similar to what is required for any other commercial activity, so a broadcast standards authority with the power to issue heavy, punitive fines to any publisher of any 'news' that cannot be supported by verifiable evidence. With of course the burden of that 'proof' resting with that publisher. I think that a similar duty of care should be imposed on all citizens holding all and any public office. Cheers, Richard.
You dont let the politicians decide what is fake. We have several careers that are governed by bodies that police them. The BMA regulates medical doctors and can remove a Doctor's ability to practice medicine if they act inappropriately. Barristers and lawyers have the Bar Association that can remove their right to practice law. The simple solution is to do the same for journalists and 'NEWS' providers. You will need to pass a qualifying Journalism exam. You will then get a licence to practice journalism. The news you report does not need to be accurate but rather the process by which you come to it, research, multiple sources, evidence, should all be in place and open for examination by this Journalism body. The story itself must be well sourced and robustly supported.
The body should be backed up by the government, so that it is illegal to practice journalism without a licence just as it is for legal representation or medical treatment, but the government doesn't get to determine what is true or the manner by which truth is derived. That falls to the Journalism body itself. Simply being wrong should not be a problem so long as the story was prepared and sourced diligently. No cherry picking, no manipulation of data, just responsible journalism.
A democratic form of governance REQUIRES that those voting are duly informed of what and who they are voting FOR. It is worth nothing otherwise, and is merely rubberstamping the rule of a charismatic oligarchy. We currently have this broken system where politically entrenched news sources openly lie and spread disinformation to back their own agendas. As such we have become increasingly tribal in our reactions to each other as we are each able to find and embrace a bubble of media to back up our own personal biases.
By implementing this Journalism Body to ensure the practice of Journalism is performed honestly and diligently, we would route out deliberate fakery and lying without condemning a journalist just for being mistaken.
basically, cite your sources, justify your position and back it up with evidence and reason... or GTFO and possibly go to jail.
Hungary, recently sliding into a dictatorship, noted as example of a place with similar laws. Nice.
It is an appropriate time to discuss the issue because that Offcom statistic is extremely worrying of 50%; However, you begin to enter the worrying issue of excessive media censorship so it's a difficult issue to resolve fairly.
Banning what the ruling elite name as “fake news” is censorship which ever way you look at it. No censorship. You can put shit on paper and computer screens. You quote security services they’re only worried about being made redundant as paradigms change. Peace and love.
When did diamond become more valuable than platinum lol
Maybe that instead of banning fake news, why don't we focus on educating people on how to spot fake news? This should enable people themselves to spot fake news and not be as affected by it. Then, there need no people to police such speech. A prominent example of a country that does this is Finland.
The issue isn't fake news the issue is a lack of critical thinking and a will to accept things as true simply as they don't conflict with a belief.
We should have laws that restrict media outlets being able to sensationalise news stories.
Restricting what they can report on is vastly different from restricting how they can report on it.
Its the same problem, who decides, who do you put in charge of deciding what is sensationalized.
Can they report their opinions?
Can they say that some random person said something?
"The world is flat" as stated by this guy
The regulation of fake news is essentially the a form of content regulation. A form of regulation where the government judges whether or not the content of a particular speech, or in this case news, is prohibited. The problem with regulating fake news immediately pops up within the first part of the video. Who determines the line between "objectively fake" and "uncomfortable or inconvenient"? Another problem is the increasing blur between actual facts and popular narratives. In the end, I personally think that teaching people to double check sources and getting out of information bubbles should be the focus.
Totally against banning fake news as it's effectively the same as the current government creating a Ministry of Truth. As a voter it's up you to do what you can to be informed and remove bias from the sources you obtain information from
Regulation of internet commentry is akin to herding cats
The real issue is figuring out who is the one who is in charge of deciding what is fake news and what isn't... The long and the short of it is that NO group can be trusted to be the arbiter of what is or isn't Fake News on a Legal level because of the authority and ability to force those groups to comply... All I need to say is 'Look at the Media and Censorship in China' as an example.
No, the Ministry of Truth doesn't know what is fake and what isn't.
No. Next Question.
Has nobody really heard "you can't trust everything you see online."
I would much prefer laws - ones with teeth and real consequences - against fake claims by politicians.
Consequences like having to pay £350m per week, for example.
I dare say the US would benefit from a similar system.
Absolutely not. You should be allowed to say whatever you want as long as it doesn’t a direct call for violence. The arise of fake news (which is a term which feels to have come out of nowhere in the past few years) should lead to better journalism, with evidence based reported with listed sources. And on a side note, how would fake news laws effect satire or parody which use exaggeration to make a joke? If the subject of the joke doesn’t like it, what’s to stop them of getting the person fined under so called fake news laws?
These arguments were made when the laws for the mainstream media were been discussed, and since their implementation in the UK, the quality of news and information content has improved. Similar actions should be put into place for social media and other online news outlets.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility.
I think that news agencies should not be able to profit of an article and it's correction at the same time if what they wrote turns out to be wrong. They sure have it nice at the moment. Generate clicks and add revenue for an article, only to be called out and forced to issue a correction that will also generate clicks and add revenue.
But what if the governing party online ads where found to be misleading
If there were disinfor!ation laws the entire UK media would be fucked
You might want to be careful with misinformation versus dysinformation.
Categorically not. Such an act would have immense implications on our freedom of expression. No one should be the arbiter of what is "right" and "wrong". I will protest.
I'm including corporations in this designation. They possess far too much power over telecommunications... Much of the world's communication is now filtered through any number of corporate entities (Facebook, Google, etc...). That is unacceptable.
In the United States its our first amendment. I fear for other countries.
I would suggest licensing for news outlets, rather than an outright ban. In this way, if you wish to retain the ability to call yourself "news" then you must be able to back up your claims with testable evidence and citations, sources etc. But anyone ELSE, can say whatever they want, thus ensuring the government cannot dictate public discourse.
I disagree with the ban, but I agree with marking the information which is considered fake with a link to a factcheck site where the explanation why it is considered fake is publicly available.
Everything else is too much control in the government's hands and can also have a backfire effect.
No. Those falling for it are beyond protection.
Every tool people have ever made has been abused, this shouldn't stop us making tools.
Seeing the comment section, rather than the fake news issue I see a huge mistrust toward the government.
I am just surprised, how did he become this countries PM? I mean we voted these people to represent and decide for us.
Many issues, most pointedly the public health vs censorship competing interest. However one thing that needs to be weighed in is that censoring fake news, even if it’s the “correct call” will actually lend cache to the speech being censored. “The truth too dangerous for you to hear.” It may actually be more dangerous to censor than to just let a lie run it’s course.
So how do we get fake news ads off of youtube. Ep1ct1mes (1 for i to keep from helping them via yt algorithm) constantly show up for nearly every vid i watch, cant even report the ad like others ads.
As a minimum, sites and outlets purporting to be news should preface either their entire content, or sections of content which they cannot base entirely in fact with a simple statement such as,
“The following should not be considered factual or accurate information”.
An outlet or site may then choose NOT to include this statement as a preface, in an appropriate place that informs a reader / viewer / listener early enough. But if they fail to do this, and then give information that’s found to be false or misleading, then they can be prosecuted.
Yes, this may mean that the warnings for some outlets or opinionated articles become all too common. But it allows people to more easily choose which outlets are offering truly objective coverage, and distinguish which ones aren’t.
So here's a thought. Have web browsers give a 'fidelity rating' for posts, articles or videos. The ratings would be given as the average of 5-7 different fact checkers. 10 would be completely accurate and 0 would be completely false. The metadata for each rating could be flagged with what each fact checker flagged in regards to the post. Fact checkers could go back and change ratings as more evidence is put forward either showing a site as more or less accurate. A post could also have a NR, which tells the viewer that the source hasn't been reviewed for fidelity. Browser algorithms could prioritize those sources with the most reviews and highest averages, preventing one '10' review from gaming the system and encouraging a variety of fidelity. Put the fidelity rating on the upper left corner of the browsers so that it's easy to spot. Reviewers would be accredited by a country's FCC, and because more reviewers are more heavily rated, it would be harder for corrupt governments to game the system.
The result should be a few sources with high fidelity credit scores, most in middling 7-8's, a few lows, and then NR for people who don't even bother to get their sites reviewed.
This would at least inform the viewer. Adding punative damages could be added later.