#FAKENEWS and its effects.

[marshallnoise]

Why does the medium matter?

[BraveUlysses]

This is a pretty different issue, mainly brought about by the overuse of social media and facebook today.

Similar problem. Generating clicks to get ad views for revenue is the same root motivation behind clickbait and outright false news stories.

[marshallnoise]

Well, we should just regulate it. Right?

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Kershaw]

Probably.

It would be like forcing homeopathic remedy companies to write on their products that this item is not proven to promote recovery/health/etc. If you're a shit news company (daily mail) you have to have a warning on a banner near the top of every page that you are a sensationalized pos. Well, it probably easier to hand out certifications to the few not shit ones.

[marshallnoise]

Probably.

It would be like forcing homeopathic remedy companies to write on their products that this item is not proven to promote recovery/health/etc. If you're a shit news company (daily mail) you have to have a warning on a banner near the top of every page that you are a sensationalized pos. Well, it probably easier to hand out certifications to the few not shit ones.

Figures. Free speech for those deemed worthy of it.

[sam_]

this is literally made up

[marshallnoise]

this is literally made up

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/08/trump-approval-rating-slides-despite-support-travel-ban/

But...how is it made up?

[Wschnitz]

Its definitely not fake, the result is slightly skewed because of the people who were polled, Its only misleading.

Its not like there isn't support for a travel ban, the outcry for it is because President Trump implemented it in a shortsighted way. His plan of 'Just do it so people can't sneak in before its implemented' is straight up stupid thinking. Preventing current green card holders from entering the country is also questionable, but it was mentioned that Bannon pushed hard for that, meaning not all the fault is on Trump.

[Kershaw]

Figures. Free speech for those deemed worthy of it.

No, anyone would still be free to make a site and post whatever nonsense they want on it. But independently verified news sites would have a A+ rating. It's not like it's a new idea.

[Wschnitz]

May not seem as big to some people, but Wikipedia has removed Daily Mail from approved news sites to use as sources for their website.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website

Im sure more will begin to follow.

[djjerme]

..It's not like Wikipedia holds a lot of credibility in the academic world.

When I went back to school years ago, it wasn't allowed as a reference for any papers I wrote. Course, that was a Decade ago, before FB became a source for some peoples news..

[SkiFree]

I will poke my head in here because I'm genuinely curious.

One could argue that a piece written to persuade could be construed as fake/misleading by the very nature of the fact its objective is to prop one side while undermining the other. This stuff is coming from both sides and as a friend put it "it is a race to the bottom". I understand that a truly unbiased story/coverage is in itself a fallacy, but given the extremes stories/words that the media, FB, and the whitehouse are all propagating.... where is the happy medium? Has it just been swallowed by the divide?

If this Trump VS. MSM gets progressively virulent, who is going to be the big boy in the room and act as a calming effect (or a return to rationality)? DON'T say "if one stops, then so will the other." Both feed off of each other and have too much to lose for fear of appearing weak before the other.

[Wschnitz]

..It's not like Wikipedia holds a lot of credibility in the academic world.

When I went back to school years ago, it wasn't allowed as a reference for any papers I wrote. Course, that was a Decade ago, before FB became a source for some peoples news..

Wikipedia is very good about making sure that at least the sources referenced in their pages are good sources. Its a great place to find leads to what are considered 'Proper sources' but depending on the paper Wikipedia can work as a source.

The only thing that deems Wikipedia unreliable is the statement that 'anyone can edit it'. Which while true, usually if its not factual or a joke edit its removed fairly quickly.

[Streichholzschächtelchen]

Wikipedia is very good about making sure that at least the sources referenced in their pages are good sources. Its a great place to find leads to what are considered 'Proper sources' but depending on the paper Wikipedia can work as a source.

The only thing that deems Wikipedia unreliable is the statement that 'anyone can edit it'. Which while true, usually if its not factual or a joke edit its removed fairly quickly.

lol I was looking up water sports the other day and waterboarding was on the list

[marshallnoise]

No, anyone would still be free to make a site and post whatever nonsense they want on it. But independently verified news sites would have a A+ rating. It's not like it's a new idea.

Sounds like a website you could try to start and earn a living from. Give it a go.