> "real fake news"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
or (to play coy): you're suggesting we block fiction from the internet...?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
or (to play coy): you're suggesting we block fiction from the internet...?
Remember also that almost everyone selects their email provider precisely because they don't want to see everything - they want someone to take care of the spam for them. Popup blocking, ad blocking, and now it seems some sort of "clickbait"/"fake news"/"russian troll" blocking is going to be popular.
now. who gets to arbitrate what is "political"? who gets to arbitrate what is "fiction"? who gets to arbitrate someone else's "intent"?
Clinton? Trump? Bezos? Huffington? pick your poison. and i'll find half a country that disagrees with you.
signed,
a very confused liberal
As for how they'd decide what websites to block or put a warning in front of, that seems fairly straightforward. Have a committee that represents different demographics, and require a unanimous vote to take action against a site.
you want a company or government to decide what content gets blocked. that is what's partisan.
remember this conversation when the guy you don't like gets control of that company or government. cheers mate. i mean well.
I’m not interested in arguing about whether objectivity is possible in news, just saying this distinction is important.
https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-photo-of-president-trump-dump...
an honest question, do your content police block CNN for this one article? if yes, i respect your consistency but i think CNN deserves some forgiveness. if no, why not? what is the threshold? any threshold is just A SECOND slippery slope.
> The first is an attempt to mislead people about events that have happened
i see. and who gets to decide what has happened? CNN or FOX? Google or Mozilla?
i think... show me a group capable of political objectivity, invulnerable to influence, and i can start to come around.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became...
Are you also against spam filters, virus scanners, security certificate warnings, mixed content warnings, and known malware domain click-throughs?
Which content police did I propose? I simply pointed out that you're conflating political fiction (eg George Orwell's 1984) with fake news (eg this story from "American News dot com": https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/facebook-google-crack...).
> http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond...
Was this video you posted from CNN fake? Was someone fabricating that or did it really happen? It's a very dumb story (and one of the reasons I don't bother with CNN), but I don't get the sense that it was fabricated.
Yes, news sources have political slants, I doubt you'll find anyone to argue with you on that one. The clickbaitization of news continues to ruin journalism, and I'd really like to reverse the trend. However, that's a different issue than the problem I pointed out with your argument.
A vastly bigger problem than fake news, is how we've all sat on our collective asses as Democratic and Republican parties have sabotaged voting districts with gerrymandering and the Electoral College by giving those seats to party loyalists, not better people.
This is not at all the system we have. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp