Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
dcdave.com
dcdave.com
This list is in effect a partial rule set for fake news, a problem we should all be worried about as we deserve the facts, the truth. So by defining a problem, you'r better placed to fix a problem. So whilst not all upon the list can immediately be translated into code. Some aspects can more easily translate into some code; Like verifying sources.
One thing I do know, if all news media had the level of filtering that HN has, then life would be so much better for all. Thank you Dang et all for that.
I have concerns with this ("fake news") being presented as a recent issue, as if the media told some pure truth until Trump came along.. really, it's a catchphrase employed to dismiss something out of hand without any real reason for doing so except that it goes against what the person claiming it believes. Goes right along with #5 here.
Just that the term "fake news" became the Flavour Of The Month and stuck in much the same was as selfie did. Do we credit Obama for the rise of the selfie, nope. So in that your observation about the term itself being something that can be categorised in that list does make you wonder.
Still facts and the truth are still that, and those ain't changed. But when News media is more about reporting opinions more and more over the facts, then the environment for social engineering becomes much more ripe for the picking. More so when such control can be utilised for fiscal gains, due to the effect. So share price or indeed currency manipulation being obvious examples and to be able to do that indirectly as a side effect.
This and the rise and access to the internet and the growth and use of social media has reached a stage in which it is easier than ever before to pull a hoax on the news. Let alone something more sinister. All via manipulation, or as it is referred to by the populus these days "fake news".
War on Christmas, foreigners pouring in, secilarism, socialism, sharia law, "inner cities", "gun control", the gays, "nanny state", "liberal media" etc
Once the public feels sufficiently threatened, they'll do anything you want.
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
I just find it unlikely that a random blog story about being skeptical gets upvoted 18 times without a single comment in 20 minutes.
There was a similar website posted about 20 minutes ago with no attribution similarly upvoted quickly with no comments.
Meh, I'll adjust my tinfoil hat.
More interesting: You use points #5 and #4 from the article to suppress. I add this article to highlight how ^suppression^ of information can be justified.