1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

‘Fake news’ and internet/political regulation

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Tony L, Jul 29, 2018.

  1. TheDecameron

    TheDecameron Unicorns fart glitter.

    Or drive.
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  2. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    Also in "lest we forget" mode, here's the Tory Party refusing to share the attack ads it ran on Facebook during the 2017 GE campaign:


    As reported by none other than Carole Cadwalladr. In a similar vein, from the LSE:


    There were reports a few weeks ago that the Tories have employed the services of the US company responsible for highly negative campaigns by the Republicans in recent years* so expect much worse at the next general election.

    *If anyone has links to those reports, please share them - my google skills are failing me right now.
  3. AndrewM

    AndrewM pfm Member

    But how do you critically scrutinise something without giving it a platform in the first place?
    Well in that case democracy IS a very dangerous thing!
  4. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    I have no objection to platforming all but the most offensive viewpoints, I’d just like statements made to be fact-checked a lot more often. Pretty much certain this country is in the utter mess it is right now because no real scrutiny was applied to Brexit claims.

    I worded that bit badly! I’m just sick of seeing highly knowledgable economists, scientists, doctors etc interviewed and then rebuffed by know-nothing gobshites such as Farage, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Hunt etc as if they had similar credibility.
  5. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    It's the difference between impartiality and objectivity. The difference is simple (in principle):

    Nick_G and maxflinn like this.
  6. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member

    The committee report's definition of "fake news" is a bit broad for my liking:
    No problem with 1 and 3. Of the rest, 2, 4 and 5 are matters of degree and need careful interpretation. Classifying satire and parody as misinformation feels like a slippery slope.

    Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole report so I don't know what the committee does with the above list.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
    sq225917 likes this.
  7. thebiglebowski

    thebiglebowski pfm Member

    Wasn't it Labour who specifically targeted Corbyn and his staff with ads he thought were going to out to everyone while they actually sent out ads slagging him off.
  8. AndrewM

    AndrewM pfm Member

    The problem isn’t so much that we give a platform to the idiots, it’s that we’ve become so cynical about the credibility of experts, to the extent that many now automatically discount expert views that conflict with their own own prejudices.

    I believe the need is for us to develop institutions that restrain the worst instincts of demagoguery and prejudice. I very much regret for instance that we don’t have a written constitution and modern reformed version of the House of Lords, a proper senate. I think that would have stopped the reckless Brexit referendum in its tracks.
  9. droodzilla

    droodzilla pfm Member



    There were no ads attacking Corbyn. Instead, Labour HQ staff simply didn't use the ads favoured by Corbyn because they were deemed "too left wing". To cover their tracks, they micro-targeted these ads at Corbyn and his aides to make them believe the ads were being seen by everyone.

    I'd like to know more about this story - specifically, which ads were held back, and what replaced them. If the above article is to be believed one of the things sabotaged by Labour HQ staff was a big push to encourage voter registration.

    Don't you just love the "moderate", "pragmatic" wing of the Labour Party?
  10. Joe P

    Joe P certified Buffologist / mod

    Tangentially related, you’ll be able to spot a Republican meme on your Facebook feed easily because they use stock photography.

    Still likes this.
  11. Marky-Mark

    Marky-Mark pfm Member

    True, but don't you think there are more cynical-to-science-and-fact people in the low information camp? And thanks to the net there are legitimate reasons for a expert credibility crisis. One that smacked me in the face was Amazon providing the software and platform for anyone to write and publish a book. The more savvy of these instant authors are already established on social media, and so once the book goes live scads of SM 'Friends' leave glowing reviews and rate-pump the book. BOOM! Instant expert, while most of what's in the book amounts to aggregated information from ... that's right, the Internet. It becomes a circle jerk of mediocrity. Another problem is how easily an expert's political affiliation is disseminated on the net as fodder for the inane Libtard v. Trumptard wars. Buh-bye credibility. I've seen a couple of climate change scientists tarred by Freepers as having voted for 'Killary'.

    Everyone's a star in their little social media universe and they fashion their habitat with those who agree with them.
  12. maxflinn

    maxflinn pfm Member

    Indeed, the so-called ''moderates' are right-wingers.

    Perhaps those using the fake term of moderates could start the online regulation with themselves...
    droodzilla likes this.
  13. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    Those who spout Russia Today, George Galloway, chant “crooked Hillary”, watch idiots shouting on YouTube and get their news from random Twitter spam-bots and internet memes really have no place in this discussion beyond being labelled ‘Exhibit A’ and being discussed by others!
    Still likes this.
  14. maxflinn

    maxflinn pfm Member

  15. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Staying alert

    I'm beginning to think that, rather than persuading people to vote differently (ie turn Remainers to Leavers), the social media campaigns might just have been successful at getting habitual non-voters out to participate.

    It is well-documented that the turnout for the referendum was at very high, possibly record, levels. It follows that this would mean that people who normally don't vote, pitched up to have their say. It seems likely that these erstwhile non-voters are not particularly politically engaged, and perhaps didn't think too deeply about the issues. These, it seems to me, would be the sort of people more likely to be influenced by advertising designed to reinforce their existing prejudices.
  16. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy

    we have RT america and BBC america over here. the former is, without a doubt, far more objective and intelligent. BBC america keeps bringing back the same former-bush-administration people or chaps from the heritage foundation to comment expertly on things, night after night.
    maxflinn likes this.
  17. Joe

    Joe pfm Member

    How about holding them accountable for the things they campaign on, that they put in their manifestos and then renege on as soon as the voting is over?

    The original political false advertising.

    I would include that bollox about the 360 million pounds a week spouted in the Brexit campaign and the promise by the Labour party of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty... another promise that was dropped as soon as the vote was in.

    Political parties lying to sell political parties.
  18. maxflinn

    maxflinn pfm Member

    Because they're part of the Regime Change TV Network.
  19. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    I can certainly see how you would view some content on RT as being closer to your extreme political viewpoints, but you will never convince me it is more objective or intelligent! Its agenda is just as clear as say Fox, it just pushes views and values aimed at destabilising rather than reinforcing the western status quo. Exactly as one would expect it to.

    It never ceases to surprise me how many so called leftists are so desperate for airtime and exposure they’d appear on what is so obviously a propaganda tool for a deeply authoritarian and racist/homophobic Russian administration. Obviously some characters make a lot of money from their appearances, and it is obviously highly effective at forming opinion (see Exhibit A), so I can see why Putin’s administration funds it, but I can’t grasp why some folk can’t see it for what it is.
  20. vuk

    vuk \o/ choose anarchy


    based on what you are writing, i don't believe you have actually watched RT america and definitely not the shows i am talking about. one of them presents a wide variety of views from all perspectives and the host is a conservative, so hardly anything to do with my political viewpoints.

    then there is "on contact" with chris hedges. you have a problem with him too?

    you seem to fabricating your impressions on prejudice.

    btw -- for years, i had similar prejudices and never watched RT because of them.
    maxflinn likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice