Hillary Clinton Wants Government To Decide What "Fake News" Is

[Cheze]

whatever you think of the fairness doctrine, it would have no impact on the current media environment. It only ever applied to broadcasters who license a portion of the available broadcast spectrum from the government, and those are a rapidly shrinking portion of the media we consume.

[Alydael]

More people voted for her than for Trump.

I would argue they voted against Trump, as opposed to for her. There is also a bunch of people (on both sides of the ailse) that will just never, ever vote for the candidate from an opposing party. So there were many Dems (some of my friends that are Dem even), that just voted "dem," regardless of who was running for Dem.

[primalmatter]

We ministry of truth now?

[Daerio]

I think a non-partisan agency would be a good idea. Something better than Snopes...the problem is that the inherent interest in promoting an agenda in news is far too prevalent, so it would be difficult to create a truly non-partisan agency.

The right is certainly not exempt from having a bias.

Something better than that blog written by a couple from California? Yes, please.

[Wells]

Why should I care about this over, say, Trump wanting "looser" libel laws? Clinton isn't going to be President.

[Wells]

You don't. You've talked about Trump wanting looser libel laws multiple times versus posting here once.

The broader question being: "what does this matter"? Why do the vague opinions of candidates who lost the election matter?

[Wells]

Why does anything matter? Why do we matter? Why are we here?

I appreciate the philosophy, Wells. These are the important questions.

"Why does what this politician says matter?" Is hardly an abstract question.

[Gen4Glock21]

I see this fake news as journalist in a rush to be first, truth be damned. I have seen news being reported on the major networks later to be proven as false. I would rather see people use their critical thinking and fact check articles, stories before believing everything they read or see on the news. Censorship is not the answer.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

I don't think democrats are crippled by this *fake news era*. What I think is a problem is the corporate side of things. Hillary is a big one but so is most of the Right and that's obvious.

It's fairly abstract. First we would have to unpack "What is a politician?" and then move on to "Why do words matter?" and then "Why does a politicians words matter?"

Well that escalated to high levels of meta.

[Wells]

It's fairly abstract. First we would have to unpack "What is a politician?" and then move on to "Why do words matter?" and then "Why does a politicians words matter?"

Peak eye roll.

Well, she could be trying to stay relevant when/while the Democratic party is trying to jettison the Clinton Era politics after their loss.

I doubt she has much interest in actively engaging in politics at this point. She just seems to be going through the general wrap up that every campaign does.

[Zenotetsuken]

I suppose that depends on how it is done.

If an AI scans the text, and cross references actual events, and finds that there is no substance or facts, and score it as such, I see no problem with that.

The issue is that:
Most Students Can't Tell the Difference Between Fake and Real News, Study Finds
http://fortune.com/2016/11/23/stanford-fake-news/


So if an AI can actually do the fact checking... I am not sure why that would be a problem...

The problem that I find with that is that an AI would have to be extremely intrusive to be able to find out any information that people don't want to come out, and any government can't/won't allow that kind of access, so it would be an AI checking news stories against other pre-approved stories.
Most of the shady shit that comes out, happens as far away from public view as possible, so unless we are letting the AI have access to all cameras/banks/computers/microphones/gps/government buildings/private homes and businesses/all forms of travel/satellite data/etc. it is never going to be able to expose what is true, only what it is allowed to reveal.

[igualitarist]

China, North Korea and Cuba already do this

[sarahtasher]

Yes guys, keep sending death threats on twitter to people who don't like your living god (THEY URE LIARZ) but keep believing like the Gospel Alex Jones and co. who snap his fingers and order to believe Hillary Clinton pratice witchcraft.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Never give the government the power to decide what is fake and what is real. Never.

[sarahtasher]

We ministry of truth now?

Yes. Holy Breitbart and Saint Alex Jones

If they give the holy commandment that ''heliocentrism is for beta cucks'' , within the hour a Copernicus high school in Poland will receive a deluge of death threats and pictures of gun and genitals.

[Dextroden]

Peak eye roll.


I doubt she has much interest in actively engaging in politics at this point. She just seems to be going through the general wrap up that every campaign does.

Aww, that's adorable.

She very much wants throne, still. Hence thumbing up the recounts she "wasn't in on."

[sarahtasher]

As usual sarah: What the fuck are you talking about?

What they call a fake new is ''POTUS Trump is not Jesus Christ reincarnated, but racist and with a big manly gun'' and what they call the truth is people screaming about global conspiracy.

[Wells]

Aww, that's adorable.

She very much wants throne, still. Hence thumbing up the recounts she "wasn't in on."

When did she endorse the recount?

[Rudkobing]

Its news that is FAKE. Not that complicated.

[Daerio]

When did she endorse the recount?

Maybe nobody told her.