Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmichulke | Hacker News Reader

It almost sounds as if you believe that silencing these fake news will stop people from believing fake news. I don't think so.

Also, slaughtering millions in the 20th century was usually the job of a big government in a big country and I have difficulty recalling that "fake news believers" or any kind of people actually voted for a war or went on the streets in favor of a war.

And practically always before and during these wars the governments regularly shouted "fake news" on everything that didn't fit their narrative.

View on HN

I'm not talking about wars - I'm talking about the holocaust and the deaths from internal repression in the soviet union and maoist china. One of the preconditions for such things to take place is the corruption of truth in the public discourse.

I'm sorry if this seems like exaggeration or scaremongering but I find these stories terrifying far beyond the election of donald trump.

>the governments regularly shouted "fake news"

This is another aspect of what I'm talking about. Once you break the good faith assumption of truth speaking in the public sphere, it becomes a vicious cycle as nobody is incentivised to speak truthfully.

Of course the press has always been used to manipulate the public, but this seems categorically different. The people who are writing these stories are shamelessly fabricating them, as opposed to uncritically republishing information fed to them by authority figures. This breaks down interpersonal trust in society in a way that simply pushing the government line doesn't.

I think it all three cases one problem was the lack of news. News agencies were shut down unless they "cooperated".

Therefore having a wide spectrum of media is IMO desirable, even if it means fake news. The problem starts when the state regulates the media because that's when having only one (government friendly) source of information starts.

Finally, I think, the problem is not the liars but the acting believers. If you fall for such a lie, fine you are entitled to think whatever you want. However, if you act on it (by threatening or committing violence), then you become a criminal. But that part is already covered by current legislation.

>Finally, I think, the problem is not the liars but the acting believers. If you fall for such a lie, fine you are entitled to think whatever you want. However, if you act on it (by threatening or committing violence), then you become a criminal. But that part is already covered by current legislation.

It doesn't matter who the problem is, it only matters how to solve it. Claiming the mainstream media is lying ("lying press"/"Lügenpresse") and sowing distrust in traditional sources of truth was one of the tactics that helped Hitler rise to power. I don't know how to prevent this tactic, but the current approach of letting people just blatantly make shit up and push it as truth isn't working very well. It's very possible that it's the least bad approach, but we should at least consider the alternatives before concluding.

Milgram and Stanford Prison experiments show us that "ordinary good people" are the ones who turn into monsters if you give them the right incentives/conditions.

What was one of major factors in bringing down the Soviet Union - was information campaign of which Radio Free Europe was a major part. While, indeed their policy was dissemination of truth. Undoubtedly it would have been seen as "fake news" by the Soviets.

While I have no idea what is the solution to this problem, I am pretty sure that censorship is the worst thing we can do.

Also consider - that the main stream media conglomerates have recently justified "fake news" sources by doing a horrendous job themselves.

I wish people would stop touting the Stanford experiment as some sort of truism. It was a deeply flawed experiment that didn't observe proper scientific principles and the conclusions were largely subjective and anecdotal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Cri...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...

The Rwandan genocide was in many ways a grass roots movement - Most of the killing was perpetrated by normal everyday people using farm implements and the like. It was also incredibly efficient. 800,000 people killed in just 6 weeks - more efficient than the Nazi Holocaust. A big reason for that was the unfiltered radio, spouting hate speech and misinformation, rousing ordinary people and priming them to commit extraordinary, unspeakable acts.

How would government censorship and regulation help with the Rwandan genocide?

Or would the censorship actually help the perpetrators? I.e. by shutting down "fake news" reporting about the ongoing genocide?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com