The Term "Fake News" Joins "Hate Speech" As A New Tool for Ideological Speech Suppresion
The term "hate speech" has become a useful tool for speech suppression, mostly from the Left side of the political aisle. The reason it is such a dangerous term for free speech is that there is no useful definition of hate speech, meaning that in practice it often comes to mean, "confrontational speech that I disagree with." I think most of us would agree that saying, "all black men should be lynched" is unambiguously hateful. But what about saying something like "African Americans need to come to terms with the high rate of black on black violence." Or even, "President Obama plays too much golf." I would call both the latter statements opinions that, even if wrong, reasonably fit within the acceptable bounds of public discourse, but both have been called hate speech and racist.
The Left's new tool for speech suppression appears to be the term "fake news." Certainly a news story that says, "American actually has 57 states" would be considered by most to be fake. We understand (or most of us outside places like the New York Times, which still seems to get fooled) that sites like the Onion are fake. But, as I suspected the very first time I heard the term, "fake news" also seems to be defined as "political sites with which I disagree." Via Reason:
But Zimdars' list is awful. It includes not just fake or parody sites; it includes sites with heavily ideological slants like Breitbart, LewRockwell.com, Liberty Unyielding, and Red State. These are not "fake news" sites. They are blogs that—much like Reason—have a mix of opinion and news content designed to advance a particular point of view. Red State has linked to pieces from Reason on multiple occasions, and years ago I wrote a guest commentary for Breitbart attempting to make a conservative case to support gay marriage recognition....
Reporting on the alleged impact of fake news on the election is itself full of problems. BuzzFeed investigated how well the top "fake" election news stories performed on Facebook compared to the top "real" election news stories. The fake stories had more "engagement" on Facebook than stories from mainstream media outlets. There's basic problems with this comparison—engagement doesn't mean that people read the stories or even believed them (I know anecdotally that when a fake news story shows up in my feed, the "engagement" is often people pointing out that the story is fake).
There's also a problem when you look at the top stories from mainstream media outlets—they tend toward ideologically supported opinion pieces as well. Tim Carney over at The Washington Examinernoted that two of the top three stories are essentially opinion pieces:
Here's the top "Real News" stories: "Trump's history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?" As the headline suggests, this is a liberal opinion piece, complaining that the media doesn't report enough on Trump's scandals.
No. 2 is "Stop Pretending You Don't Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton." This is a rambling screed claiming that people only dislike Clinton because she is a woman.
So in an environment where "fake news" is policed by third parties that rely on expert analysis, we could see ideologically driven posts from outlets censored entirely because they're lesser known or smaller, while larger news sites get a pass on spreading heavily ideological opinion pieces. So a decision by Facebook to censor "fake news" would heavily weigh in favor of the more mainstream and "powerful" traditional media outlets.
The lack of having a voice in the media is what caused smaller online ideology-based sites to crop up in the first place. Feldman noted that he's already removed some sites that he believes have been included "unfairly" in Zimdars' list. His extension also doesn't block access to any sites in any event. It just produces a pop-up warning.
Tellingly, in a quick scan of the sites, I don't see any major sites of the Left, while I see many from the Right (though Zero Hedge is on the list and writes from both the Left and the Right). Daily Kos anyone? There are conspiracy sites on the list but none that I see peddle conspiracies (e.g. 9/11 trutherism) of the Left.
This is yet another effort to impose ideological censorship but make it feel like it is following some sort of neutral criteria.
You asked for an example of a falsehood. I provided one. You then replied on a different topic. Jeff Sessions is not a proud racist. He's not a racist at all. Your comments about Trump are not relevant.
I understand how upset you are about the outcome of the election, and I certainly do not support Trump.
However, OD is replete with falsehoods and propaganda. Your hatred blinds you to the distinction between truth and propaganda.
Alby Dürer: You asked for an example of a falsehood. I provided one. You then replied on a different topic.
You introduced two topics, one about racism, one about misogyny.
Alby Dürer: Jeff Sessions is not a proud racist.
There is evidence that Sessions has a racist past, so it is an arguable point, not a simple statement of fact.
CC: there are calls for Facebook & Twitter etc to censor (they call it something else) fake news.
The right of people to criticize a publisher for the content of their publication is free speech protected by the First Amendment. The right of a publisher to control the content of their publication is free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Wrong. The OD statement reads that Jeff Sessions is a *PROUD* racist.
Again, if you refer to my first post, Mr. Sessions disclaims that he is a racist. I noted that perhaps OD and you might argue that he is a *SECRET* racist (which is also not true, but at least you could make such an argument without it being false on its face).
Instead OD chose to use the word PROUD as a modifier to the word racist. Thus the statement which is a compound assertion of proud racist and misogyny is false.
Additionally you claim that Sessions has a racist past, which is in dispute, but the OD statement is not that Jeff Sessions WAS a proud racist or even that he WAS a secret racist. OD falsely claims that Jeff Sessions is currently a proud racist.
People who are proud about a particular view loudly and repeatedly proclaim that view. That is what it would mean to be a PROUD RACIST.
There are no examples of Jeff Sessions proudly announcing his racism. In fact as AG he desegregated schools in Alamaba. He put the head of the Alabama KKK to death for murder after prosecuting him. And his work led to the bankruptcy of the Alabama KKK.
None of those are the actions of a *PROUD* racist. Again, your hatred blinds you to words and facts. You change the topic to misogyny.
My example of one of the MANY falsehoods at OD is that Jeff Sessions is not a PROUD racist. You need to look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if that statement is true or not. When and if you agree that it is false, you will have begun the journey to discern the difference between propaganda and fact.
So ask yourself... what RECENT (present tense) actions of Jeff Sessions reveal him to you to be a PROUD racist?
Of course there are none, and OD is engaged in propaganda and reputational smears.
Alby Dürer: Instead OD chose to use the word PROUD as a modifier to the word racist.
Seriously? Your argument is over the word "proud" as a statement of fact? It comes across more like puff; but if you want to take it literally, it is quite possible to be a proud racist, while denying you are a racist. That's what dog-whistles are all about.
Alby Dürer: When and if you agree that it is false,
As stated, we like to believe that Sessions views on race have matured, but it is certainly an arguable point.
Alby Dürer: you will have begun the journey to discern the difference between propaganda and fact.
Propaganda and fact are not antonyms. Case is point would be Fox News, which is obvious propaganda, but liberally sprinkled with facts.
Pride: "See, I belong to a certain secret society i don't believe I've got to mention its name, see these boys here, they trampled all over our venerated observances and rituals."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3eTSbC3neA
Yes, I am taking OD at face value.
Claiming that Jeff Sessions is a proud racist is no different than claiming Obama is a proud Muslim. Neither are true. There is no evidence for either claim.
If you are genuinely unable to see that OD is attempting to smear Sessions rather than writing "puff", then you are not able to distinguish fact from fiction.
Sessions is not a proud racist.
Alby Dürer: There is no evidence for either claim.
That is incorrect. There was sworn testimony that Sessions made racially derogatory remarks when hearings were held concerning his nomination to the federal courts.
Yes, you have a right to call for censorship, but you are still calling for censorship. An example is how twitter has been banning conservatives for pretty mild stuff but not people who call for the death of white people or of men.
Even if I were to stipulate that the testimony in 1986 was true, do you have any evidence in the last 25 years that Jeff Sessions is a "proud racist"? As Governor or Senator, he has quite a long public record.
The action of an editor editing is not what is generally meant by censorship.
Zachriel: That is not what is the issue. The issue is Twitter canceling membership for people like Stacy McCain or Milo whatizname or other conservatives but allowing people to call for the death of white people. The issue is Facebook supposedly having a news feed but censoring what news you get to see. Twitter is not a "publisher" nor is Facebook, they are a media platform.
We already have the problem that traditional media are so biased. They will show a protest rally up close so it looks like a lot of people but it is only 50. They will ignore violence at an Occupy rally or an anti-Trump demonstration. To have overt censorship of media just makes it worse.
CC: Twitter is not a "publisher" nor is Facebook, they are a media platform.
It doesn't matter what you call them, they have a right to create a forum with whatever parameters they choose.
CC: To have overt censorship of media just makes it worse.
What overt censorship? We agree that if a group, ostensibly private, gains inordinate control of the media, it could be considered censorship. However, there seems to be multiple sources for news. There's plenty of real news, but it is getting drowned out by fake news and propaganda.
CC: The issue is Twitter canceling membership for people like Stacy McCain or Milo whatizname or other conservatives but allowing people to call for the death of white people.
While they have a right to do so, it is also your right to criticize. Do you have a link to a Tweet of death threats that were allowed to stand?
These days you could throw the NY Times and Washington Post on the fake news list. They compromised journalistic principles throughout this election cycle.