• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fake news a democratic crisis for UK

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
23,565
Reaction score
15,461
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The UK faces a "democratic crisis" with voters being targeted with "pernicious views" and data being manipulated, a parliamentary committee is set to warn.The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee has been investigating disinformation and fake news following the Cambridge Analytica data scandal.
In its first report, MPs will suggest social media companies should face tougher regulation or a new tax.
It also proposes measures to combat election interference. Link

Just what to do about fake news though?

We live in an age where many people proudly support alternative facts or news. Likewise, what to do about elections where rules have been broken in the process. Here, a small majority won the EU referendum but it's clear after the event that funding and other rules were broken and the question is whether people would still have voted as they did if the facts had been presented more truthfully and if rules had been enforced earlier.
 
Just what to do about fake news though?

We live in an age where many people proudly support alternative facts or news. Likewise, what to do about elections where rules have been broken in the process. Here, a small majority won the EU referendum but it's clear after the event that funding and other rules were broken and the question is whether people would still have voted as they did if the facts had been presented more truthfully and if rules had been enforced earlier.

Let's get a fully functioning Ministry of Truth up and running.

Half measures are not cutting it!

*Biting Sarcasm*
 
Just what to do about fake news though?

We live in an age where many people proudly support alternative facts or news. Likewise, what to do about elections where rules have been broken in the process. Here, a small majority won the EU referendum but it's clear after the event that funding and other rules were broken and the question is whether people would still have voted as they did if the facts had been presented more truthfully and if rules had been enforced earlier.

The ONLY thing you can do -- that will be effective -- is tell the other side of the story.

But, if you attempt to "shut down" the fake news, you risk turning those "news" sites into martyrs, and they will draw even more followers.

And, you have to realize that different people have different opinions and ideas, and some fringe sites may appeal to them.

Just put out the correct news and let it go. There's nothing else you can do that won't further hurt the situation.
 
In the UK I believe they have a solution.

You ask people to vote again if they don't get it right first time ;)

They call it a 'People's Vote', or a Final Say (unless of course they got it wrong again in which case they'd need a Final Final Say).
 
Let's get a fully functioning Ministry of Truth up and running.

Half measures are not cutting it!

I'd prefer a ministry of love. :mrgreen:
 
Just what to do about fake news though?

We live in an age where many people proudly support alternative facts or news. Likewise, what to do about elections where rules have been broken in the process. Here, a small majority won the EU referendum but it's clear after the event that funding and other rules were broken and the question is whether people would still have voted as they did if the facts had been presented more truthfully and if rules had been enforced earlier.
There are things social media can do to highlight fake information distribution on their platform and deal with it.

And it is not like we were not warned. Years ago some started to distribute a letter saying by posting this on Facebook, then Facebook could not use pictures and other things you posted.... absolute bull**** of course but it is interesting looking back how many of the same people who spread it back then, are today easily swayed by "fake news" and spread it... at least that is what I have noticed among my Facebook friends....

Education and a coordinated rebuke of fake news is needed but it will still be hard when news media like the Daily Mail and others get away with fake news consrantly....

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
Let's get a fully functioning Ministry of Truth up and running.

Half measures are not cutting it!

*Biting Sarcasm*
We already have that. It's called "fake news".
 
The ONLY thing you can do -- that will be effective -- is tell the other side of the story.

But, if you attempt to "shut down" the fake news, you risk turning those "news" sites into martyrs, and they will draw even more followers.

And, you have to realize that different people have different opinions and ideas, and some fringe sites may appeal to them.

Just put out the correct news and let it go. There's nothing else you can do that won't further hurt the situation.
I agree in principle.

It's a helluva lot of work and often fruitless as people will prefer their opinions over actual facts, much as false allegations most often outlive their withdrawal.

But

"A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes" doesn't mean truth might as well not be made to set out.
 
The ONLY thing you can do -- that will be effective -- is tell the other side of the story.
But, if you attempt to "shut down" the fake news, you risk turning those "news" sites into martyrs, and they will draw even more followers.
And, you have to realize that different people have different opinions and ideas, and some fringe sites may appeal to them.

I disagree.
There is no valuable "other side" to true. Well there, is, and it's called false, which is an error, and should only be tolerated in so much as it indicates something that needs to be corrected. We do teach errors in science as a matter of academic education, but we dont broadcast those errors as truth, it's entirely different.

You don't get to blather on about how you discovered a new medicine that cures people, without violating the law. Claims of curative cannot hit the airwaves without the potential for being shut down. But claims that affect national security that are lies, are tolerated? It's nuts.

The only issue here is that historically for news, we have relied on common sense broadcast, self-regulation. Surely on institution would be crazy enough to spout lies all day? They weren't back in the day, or they weren't popular. But the stake are as high as they get in politics, and if it's not illegal, someone will eventually capitalize on it. Which is why we have major "news" outlets that now spout nonsense, CT crap, lies, 24/7, with no checks whatsoever. Self-regulation? They decide they don't want to. People regulate it? They are marketed too, too strongly, and fall victim to the well designed, psychologically sophisticated propaganda. Enter, a problem.

People loved cigarettes too, they were marketed to, got addicted, and the companies made a fortune, but it was killing people directly and indirectly, to a degree that was deemed unacceptable. We do this all the time in adult-world.

Create clear distinctions between credible, reputable, "science-based" news and commentary.
And the rabble is everything else.

Just like in medicine, just like in physics, just like in psychology (To a degree), etc.
You can get a cable show and talk crazy all you want, free speech is not limited in that regard. You will simply not be able to classify your broadcast in a way that indicates you can't pass muster.

Again, we do this in so many fields, and we do it because NOT doing it, is dangerous. No different.
 
I agree in principle.

It's a helluva lot of work and often fruitless as people will prefer their opinions over actual facts, much as false allegations most often outlive their withdrawal.

But

"A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes" doesn't mean truth might as well not be made to set out.

Your quote made me look it up as I thought it was 'pants' not 'shoes.' Seems your version is attributed to M.Twain. the version I remember is attributed to W. Churchill.


"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Winston Churchill



“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
― Mark Twain

Day's lesson......:2wave:
 
But what is 'fake news'?

The problem that the UK really has is not that there are a lot of factually verifiable lies in the media, more that it doesn't like certain opinions. The UK bangs on about RT, but the rate with which it violates broadcasting standards is consistent with mainstream broadcasters. RT doesn't spread 'fake news' per se .......... it spreads an opinion the mainstream elite don't like.

Now, opinions can't be fake. You can disagree with them, but to hold an opinion should not be, in a supposedly democratic society, a problem.
 
There's the old adage of being entitled to one's own opinion but not to one's own fabricated facts.

Of course there are people who don't understand that, often leading to them considering the opinions they try to peddle as representing truth. And even making that claim.

But just as often intentionally lying as in knowing the facts but misrepresenting them in pursuit of their equally dishonest agenda.

RT and Olgino is full of those types, but those two lie factories by far don't stand alone.
 
Your quote made me look it up as I thought it was 'pants' not 'shoes.' Seems your version is attributed to M.Twain. the version I remember is attributed to W. Churchill.


"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."
- Winston Churchill



“A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”
― Mark Twain

Day's lesson......:2wave:
One may contemplate the embarassment that some may feel at travelling the world without pants, to do it all without shoes would however be utterly foolish.:lol:
 
One may contemplate the embarassment that some may feel at travelling the world without pants, to do it all without shoes would however be utterly foolish.:lol:


Never knew there were two near matching quotes; brings to mind:” never a borrower or a lender be.” I suspect Winston had heard of and read Sam Clemens........borrowed a bit?
 
Never knew there were two near matching quotes; brings to mind:” never a borrower or a lender be.” I suspect Winston had heard of and read Sam Clemens........borrowed a bit?
The concept as such is older than either, without Jonathan Swift who knows what either Churchill or Samuel Langhone would have said.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
 
I disagree.
There is no valuable "other side" to true. Well there, is, and it's called false, which is an error, and should only be tolerated in so much as it indicates something that needs to be corrected. We do teach errors in science as a matter of academic education, but we dont broadcast those errors as truth, it's entirely different.

You don't get to blather on about how you discovered a new medicine that cures people, without violating the law. Claims of curative cannot hit the airwaves without the potential for being shut down. But claims that affect national security that are lies, are tolerated? It's nuts.

The only issue here is that historically for news, we have relied on common sense broadcast, self-regulation. Surely on institution would be crazy enough to spout lies all day? They weren't back in the day, or they weren't popular. But the stake are as high as they get in politics, and if it's not illegal, someone will eventually capitalize on it. Which is why we have major "news" outlets that now spout nonsense, CT crap, lies, 24/7, with no checks whatsoever. Self-regulation? They decide they don't want to. People regulate it? They are marketed too, too strongly, and fall victim to the well designed, psychologically sophisticated propaganda. Enter, a problem.

People loved cigarettes too, they were marketed to, got addicted, and the companies made a fortune, but it was killing people directly and indirectly, to a degree that was deemed unacceptable. We do this all the time in adult-world.

Create clear distinctions between credible, reputable, "science-based" news and commentary.
And the rabble is everything else.

Just like in medicine, just like in physics, just like in psychology (To a degree), etc.
You can get a cable show and talk crazy all you want, free speech is not limited in that regard. You will simply not be able to classify your broadcast in a way that indicates you can't pass muster.

Again, we do this in so many fields, and we do it because NOT doing it, is dangerous. No different.



All nations have some sort of regulations against misrepresentation, but that's not what the OP is talking about.

In the OP link it references "hyper-partisan views" and the griping is being heard from those who don't like it that Brexit passed.

In reality, it isn't fake news as much as it is points of view that don't sit well with the liberal majority. This isn't about smoking or medicine or any of the other things you claimed.

This is about trying to squash the opinions of the majority to benefit the minority.
 
There's the old adage of being entitled to one's own opinion but not to one's own fabricated facts.

Of course there are people who don't understand that, often leading to them considering the opinions they try to peddle as representing truth. And even making that claim.

But just as often intentionally lying as in knowing the facts but misrepresenting them in pursuit of their equally dishonest agenda.

RT and Olgino is full of those types, but those two lie factories by far don't stand alone.



One day you'll grow up and discuss with me directly. I'm sure you're capable.


In the interim, your pathetic repetition of RT and Olgino illustrates an almost child like approach which seeks to stifle discussion.

It does you no credit Chagos. You're a bright guy with interesting views, but you demean yourself by crassly dismissing any views you find challenging as the product of the mythical troll factory.

It's really rather sad.
 
All nations have some sort of regulations against misrepresentation, but that's not what the OP is talking about.

In the OP link it references "hyper-partisan views" and the griping is being heard from those who don't like it that Brexit passed.

In reality, it isn't fake news as much as it is points of view that don't sit well with the liberal majority. This isn't about smoking or medicine or any of the other things you claimed.

This is about trying to squash the opinions of the majority to benefit the minority.


Absolutely right.

We see in this thread attempts to dismiss opinion which are based on faulty reasoning. It's not far removed from the Ministry of Truth, or the idea that certain views should be made illegal, or certain people dis-enfranchised for being too thick, or just for having views which are deemed 'wrong'.

That's exactly the logic of the Brexit 2 referendum. Liberals really have convinced themselves that it is objectively wrong to support Brexit, and therefore that the decision must be reversed. The motives behind Brexit 2 do not respect democracy, they represent a loathing of the people who voted for it.
 
All nations have some sort of regulations against misrepresentation, but that's not what the OP is talking about.

In the OP link it references "hyper-partisan views" and the griping is being heard from those who don't like it that Brexit passed.

In reality, it isn't fake news as much as it is points of view that don't sit well with the liberal majority. This isn't about smoking or medicine or any of the other things you claimed.

This is about trying to squash the opinions of the majority to benefit the minority.
Actually it's about prevarications preventing people voting on a(ny) issue from being able to gather accurate information.
 
Somebody from the Ministry of Truth bashing the Ministry of Truth here is truly priceless. Even more priceless while engaging in exactly its tactics.

Added comedy moment presented by calling the troll factory that everybody knows about "mythical", while elsewhere engaging in self-demeaning tactics of denying Russian invasion of both Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, to then blather on about anyone else demeaning him- or herself in here.

THAT is exactly what this thread is about, calling propaganda what it is, calling the lies it is bent on spreading what they are and, in the process, revealing the distributors for what they are.

And that's not sad at all, it's actually rather necessary.
 
All nations have some sort of regulations against misrepresentation, but that's not what the OP is talking about.
In the OP link it references "hyper-partisan views" and the griping is being heard from those who don't like it that Brexit passed.
Nope. This:
alternative facts
That's the fun way of saying "not facts".
From the OP. It's just like the U.S. only I think the U.S. has it deeper and harder..in a bad way.

In reality, it isn't fake news as much as it is points of view that don't sit well with the liberal majority. This isn't about smoking or medicine or any of the other things you claimed.
Maybe you didn't get it, those are references to how we have with laws, changed our freedoms to prevent harm. Same thing being talked about here. You claim it can't be done.
I'm telling you it's been done in an analogous way for decades in all sorts of venues/freedoms.
 
Nope. This:

That's the fun way of saying "not facts".
From the OP. It's just like the U.S. only I think the U.S. has it deeper and harder..in a bad way.

The term "alternative facts" does not appear in the OP link. If you took the time to read the article instead of going off half-cocked you'd find this:

The social media ads that were seen used by Donald Trump and the Leave campaign are the most lethal political weapons ever invented,

Both of those were what they term hyper-partisan.

Maybe you didn't get it, those are references to how we have with laws, changed our freedoms to prevent harm. Same thing being talked about here. You claim it can't be done.
I'm telling you it's been done in an analogous way for decades in all sorts of venues/freedoms.

Your examples aren't even close to what this subject is about. Your examples all broached misrepresentation of data or known facts. Political opinions are NOT facts. The Leave Campaign was quite clear that Brexit was the only way. The ones who wanted to stay -- and ignorantly thought they had the votes -- rested on their laurels. And they got beat. Now, quite like the democrats who can't accept that Trump is President, those Brits are taking steps to silence the "opposition."

But, as I said -- regulating opinions won't work.
 
The term "alternative facts" does not appear in the OP link.
It's in the OP's own writing
We live in an age where many people proudly support alternative facts or news.
If you're gonna try and correct someone, twice, try to be more accurate, it's tiresome to have to show you more than once.

If you took the time to read the article instead of going off half-cocked you'd find this:
Both of those were what they term hyper-partisan.
Or if you read the headline of the link:
Fake news a democratic crisis;
What the devil do you think Fake News is...its' alternative facts, it's made up ****, it's lies, it's "not true".

Wait, the first line in it!
"The Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee has been investigating disinformation and fake news following the Cambridge Analytica data scandal."

Fake news, what do you think that means. Disinformation, what do you think that means..information? This is trivial stuff.

Meanwhile, Jamie Bartlett, the head of think tank Demos, said the report is about the "long-term integrity of elections" so people "trust they are getting accurate information".
Accurate information. In other words, not CT, nonsense, fake news, etc.


And what are they proposing? Laws to ensure facts are easier to separate from fiction, just as I typed.
creating a public register for political advertising so that anybody can see what messages are being distributed
online political advertisements should have a digital imprint stating who was responsible, as is required with printed leaflets and advertisements
social media sites should be held responsible for interference in elections by malicious actors
electoral fraud fines should be increased from a maximum of £20,000 to a percentage of an organisations' annual turnover

Look at that, increase fines on fraud. Do you know what fraud is? It's "not truths". It's not hyperpartisan, it's lies.
And the rest is a paper trail so they can be held accountable, and reputation can persist, two things often missing in digital communication.

As I said, the issue is that the industry is fairly new, and has just been creatively used in the biggest, most public way to effect governance, and they are reacting to it just like we have in every other industry once you find out just how bad people can abuse new frontiers/technology.

You're the only one I see saying that nothing can be done, and that it's not also about fake news, lies, alternative truths, etc.
 
Actually it's about prevarications preventing people voting on a(ny) issue from being able to gather accurate information.

Problem is -- we're seeing prevarications on both sides and who is to be the judge? You've got one group that likes the status quo and tells everyone to vote for it -- again. You've got another group that hates the status quo and wants to change it. Both groups use fearmongering to make their points.

But, those are just opinions. That's what politics is. If we start making laws that no one can fudge or exaggerate, we're going to start punishing everyone -- because every politician exaggerates his/her point of view. Runups to votes have always been notoriously noisy with lots of mudslinging. If we really believe the average citizen is too stupid to sift through it -- we probably need to put some restrictions on who can vote.

In any sort of democratic election we see people on both sides of an issue. If everyone was on a single side -- you might have a point, but as it is -- it appears to be pretty diverse.
 
Problem is -- we're seeing prevarications on both sides and who is to be the judge?

Fine people on both sides eh?
Real
not real

true
false

How do you think you differentiate these.
 
Back
Top Bottom