The Truth About What Constitutes "Fake News" for the Left Which They Want to Ban.

a reply to: UKTruth

Bingo. That is is exactly as it should be. That way free speech is protected, but like all other free speech there can be consequences.

So if someone claims that a media outlet is telling lies about them, they can have a court-- the government-- punish it financially?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Bingo. That is is exactly as it should be. That way free speech is protected, but like all other free speech there can be consequences.

So if someone claims that a media outlet is telling lies about them, they can have a court-- the government-- punish it financially?

The way I envision it, it would happen just like any other lawsuit. There would be a plaintiff and a defendant and the burden of proof would be upon the plaintiff, and a jury would decide the damages.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Bingo. That is is exactly as it should be. That way free speech is protected, but like all other free speech there can be consequences.

So if someone claims that a media outlet is telling lies about them, they can have a court-- the government-- punish it financially?

The way I envision it, it would happen just like any other lawsuit. There would be a plaintiff and a defendant and the burden of proof would be upon the plaintiff, and a jury would decide the damages.

That is the problem: the plaintiff cannot prove a negative. If a magazine claims that someone is a rapist, there is no way for the plaintiff to prove that they are not. What's more, because the Anglo-American judicial system favors the defendant, the defense attorney can get a court order granting them access to the plaintiff's documents. This would enable a muckraker to "fish" for a scandal by printing a story that might be true, then using the libel suit to get evidence that the story is true.

I believe a rating system on truthiness, is the way to go, similar to what we have for restaurants or like the BBB. The rating would need to apply to news networks all around the world and be judged by journalistic peers and scholars on the subject from around the world. Ratings would include the truthfulness of headlines in the ratings and facts vs misinformation/lies presented.

It would be entirely voluntary whether you post your rating, so as not to infringe on anyone's right, but not posting your Rating would be a sign you were not entirely truthful, as any news source would be subject. -- Though I'd like to see this mandatory like a restauarant that is forced to display a D on their window for violations.

The goal would be to help people easily identify A-rated information sources.

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
I believe a rating system on truthiness, is the way to go,

You mean like stars and flags on ATS? lol,,,because we all know how representative of how accurately information is conveyed based upon the stars and flags [/sarcasm]

a reply to: alphabetaone

Nope, not like that.

a reply to: spiritualzombie

I've spent the better part of my free time over the past couple weeks or so thinking about just such a system. Several ideas have gone through my head, such as a blockchain on news stories that can verify authenticity based on how many echo the stories contents as true. User submitted rankings. And even just having a more stringent legal standard on sourcing material.

It all comes down to one fundamental problem though, it relies on the end user to be able to determine fact from fiction. In the first case, you need to rely on 51% or more of the population to be able to agree a source is fake or true. I'm not so sure we have that. With the financial data blockchains were originally created for it's simply a true false on a numerical transaction, it's a simple fact. But news stories mix fact with opinion and people tend to think their opinions are the correct one. This system would just verify what the most popular sentiment is.

User submitted rankings have a similar problem. The people who vote on this stuff are the pissed off enfranchised people, especially with political news. This creates a subsection of people who are blinded to their ideology doing the voting, and those in the middle who can be swayed and critically examine a source don't participate.

In the final case, no one ever checks sources. Look at how few read a source in an OP in a thread here. Magnify that by 1000 and that's how few check what a journalist sources.

Verifying information when there's no factual base to begin from is actually very, very difficult.

a reply to: Aazadan

The list of "red flags" linked in the OP is actually a pretty good guide. In addition, if you see exactly the same story reposted VERBATIM all across the WEB, COMPLETE WITH ALL CAPS and speling misteaks, you can assume that it is echo chamber copypasta that has not been vetted at all.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Aazadan

The list of "red flags" linked in the OP is actually a pretty good guide. In addition, if you see exactly the same story reposted VERBATIM all across the WEB, COMPLETE WITH ALL CAPS and speling misteaks, you can assume that it is echo chamber copypasta that has not been vetted at all.

I can assume that, and sometimes I'll be right. I know I've certainly been fooled by fake news in the past though, even though I have what I think is a pretty good BS meter. The bigger problem to me, is that the general public can be fooled, and a large percentage of them are fooled on pretty much every single issue.

In a world where we protect the views of the minority, and the majority needs closer to an 80% consensus on a political topic to pass it rather than 50%, I see it as something of a problem that fake news can sway the public and essentially grind our government to a halt.

a reply to: Aazadan

Although it would be unconstitutional to force websites to carry disclaimers or social media t "flag"suspect sources, there is nothing wrong with the industry doing it voluntarily. This is what Facebook and Google are doing. Unfortunately, "Yelp" style reviews are of little use, since they are easily manipulated by trolls. The bottom line is that everyone needs to be their own arbiter of truthfulness. Disseminating guidelines like these is a first good step.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Aazadan

Although it would be unconstitutional to force websites to carry disclaimers or social media t "flag"suspect sources, there is nothing wrong with the industry doing it voluntarily. This is what Facebook and Google are doing. Unfortunately, "Yelp" style reviews are of little use, since they are easily manipulated by trolls. The bottom line is that everyone needs to be their own arbiter of truthfulness. Disseminating guidelines like these is a first good step.

There's constitutional ways to do it. We have a free press, but the definition of press is always open to interpretation. If you went with a rating system and said that everyone below X rating doesn't qualify as press, they wouldn't have those protections.

This opens up the problem of who is rating the press though. I certainly don't want a situation where in order to qualify as press and earn your A rating, you have to write that Trump is the bestest, greatest, richest, most orangest, biggest handed person ever. But at the same time, I don't want a system that lets places like The Huffington Post and the Blaze peddle their lies.

At the end of the day, it might just come down to an issue of trust in our population to regulate themselves. Any oversight agency is ultimately made up from our countries citizens. At some point you have to assume they want society to work. I don't have that trust though right now even though many other aspects of society devolve to that trust.

I wonder if this issue of false press is the lead to our Roman Empire, and if we're destroying ourselves with our own brilliance.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Bingo. That is is exactly as it should be. That way free speech is protected, but like all other free speech there can be consequences.

So if someone claims that a media outlet is telling lies about them, they can have a court-- the government-- punish it financially?

The way I envision it, it would happen just like any other lawsuit. There would be a plaintiff and a defendant and the burden of proof would be upon the plaintiff, and a jury would decide the damages.

That is the problem: the plaintiff cannot prove a negative. If a magazine claims that someone is a rapist, there is no way for the plaintiff to prove that they are not. What's more, because the Anglo-American judicial system favors the defendant, the defense attorney can get a court order granting them access to the plaintiff's documents. This would enable a muckraker to "fish" for a scandal by printing a story that might be true, then using the libel suit to get evidence that the story is true.

Allow me to clarify.

The burden of proof is on the plaintiff, yes. This is the typical modus operandi of the courts.

However, the press has an obligation to publish demonstrably true stories -- that seems to be the basis for this entire debate.

Ergo, the plaintiff's burden would be to SHOW that the defendant's EVIDENCE for the story was lacking.

I realize this sounds like an end-around way of saying the burden of proof is on the defendant, but in reality it ends up as both sides making their best argument and the courts deciding.

It's similar to how the plaintiff in a contract dispute has the burden of proof, but the contractor has an obligation to satisfy the demands of the contract.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Bingo. That is is exactly as it should be. That way free speech is protected, but like all other free speech there can be consequences.

So if someone claims that a media outlet is telling lies about them, they can have a court-- the government-- punish it financially?

If a media outlet makes a claim that damages an individual or an organisation with no proof, then they should be punished.

a reply to: Greggers

I realize this sounds like an end-around way of saying the burden of proof is on the defendant, but in reality it ends up as both sides making their best argument and the courts deciding.

It is, and the discovery process opens the plaintiff up to being investigated. as I have pointed out. There are reasons why celebrities don't generally sue tabloids.

a reply to: Aazadan

How do we "protect the views of the minority"?

I can understand protecting the rights of every person including minority persons, but how are their views (a completely subjective quality) protected, and by whom?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Greggers

I realize this sounds like an end-around way of saying the burden of proof is on the defendant, but in reality it ends up as both sides making their best argument and the courts deciding.

It is, and the discovery process opens the plaintiff up to being investigated. as I have pointed out. There are reasons why celebrities don't generally sue tabloids.

Yes it does, as "truth" is an absolute defense.

However, we currently do not have laws confirming the press has a duty to publish demonstrably true news. If we did, it wouldn't be about whether the subject committed the alleged transgression, but about whether the paper had performed proper due diligence before making the claim.

There are several "news stories" published just before the election that would have been shown to have shirked the basic responsibility of fact checking (at best) or who were actively engaged in a smear campaign for political purposes, and I can't imagine any jury who would have disagreed if the full cases were laid bare.

If there's no solution for those types of "fake stories," there's no hope for the internet as a tool of enlightenment -- it's primary purpose will be one of manipulation by people with money and power.

a reply to: UKTruth

If a media outlet makes a claim that damages an individual or an organisation with no proof, then they should be punished.

Punished by who?

If a claimant can proof that the story, whether true or not, violated their civil rights and that they were "damaged" they can certainly file a civil suit. But, here in America, the 1st Amendment provides that the free speaker is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

a reply to: Greggers

Yes it does, as "truth" is an absolute defense.

But the discovery process may turn up truths that would not have otherwise come to light... and there is a certain assumption of a "right to privacy," although it is not actually included in the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Greggers

Yes it does, as "truth" is an absolute defense.

But the discovery process may turn up truths that would not have otherwise come to light... and there is a certain assumption of a "right to privacy," although it is not actually included in the Bill of Rights.

...unless one is familiar with the Ninth Amendment.

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Greggers

Yes it does, as "truth" is an absolute defense.

But the discovery process may turn up truths that would not have otherwise come to light... and there is a certain assumption of a "right to privacy," although it is not actually included in the Bill of Rights.

...unless one is familiar with the Ninth Amendment.

How would that apply in a civil case?