• French President promises ban on fake news during elections
    38 replies, posted
[QUOTE=zakedodead;53026358]Can I post something that's been bothering me about the sentiment you are posting? Subjective and Objective are just points of view of the function (the subject and object of a sentence-function, for example), I don't get why people make the "objective 100% of the time" argument when the object of each law-function is the government (or whoever has the power to make legislation, could be hidden actors). Subjective doesn't mean "personal opinion" like people always say, The reason for that being common is that when conducting a study the "subject" might mean an individual person who is self reporting their own subjective "personal opinion". WE are the subject in the function of law/government (assuming you are subject to the will of the government). Subjective is the only point of view I care about in the field of government because the subjects matter, and ideally EVERYONE should be a subject to the government at some level. None of this discussion will be useful until language is defined because we all have different assumptions going in about what the words we're using mean, we don't really know each other like family even though it's a community.[/QUOTE] You seem to be interpreting it in some weird extension of the the grammatical terms 'subject' and 'object'. Which, I mean, is understandable. They're words with about a million meanings, but 'subjective' and 'objective' in relation to news generally refer to whether it's stating facts or opinions. Even then, no one is going to go against subjective media. All media is some degree of subjective. What the whole effort against fake news is about is stomping out things which are objectively wrong. Shit like "Majority of violence in the United States is performed by Muslims" is an objectively wrong statement that you'd be likely to see brought up by the right-wing press in America. It can be easily disproved by looking at available statistics on the topic, and yet it might get widely shared in spite of it's falsehood. "Muslims threaten American values" could be another headline, however this is much more subjective and would be hard to target fairly for something like this. What is American values? What does it take to threaten them? Is that being done by Muslims? All of this can pretty easily be argued both for and against, but not objectively disproved through any sort of hard, factual method. That would, at least under any non-draconian anti-fake-news laws be a legitimate article to bring.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53027084]I think you just pulled some wonky logic here, because it does not make sense at all. The terms "subjective" and "objective" used in that manner are used as adjectives to DESCRIBE a point of view. They are not used as perspectives or points of views themselves. A subjective thing in this sense means that the validity or correctness of something will depend on the way the subject interprets it, and no single opinion is correct. Objective means that the conclusion will hold true no matter which subject interprets it, and that there is only one valid opinion. Objective opinion: "2+2=4" - Because no matter who does the math, the correct answer will always be 4.[/QUOTE] Not if it's Trump. I am keen to hear what their proposal for this is though. It could work if it just extends to publications that constantly spread propaganda shit.
Once you cede this power to a government it establishes a precedent. If Macron goes through with it, imagine what a Trump-esque elected official could do by using this as precedent. When you give the government the right to do something, you shouldn't just be thinking whether you trust the current administration/elected officials with that power. You should be thinking if you'd trust all of the potential future administrations with that power.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;53027084] Examples: Subjective opnion: "It's cold in here." - Because what's cold to someone may not be cold to someone else. Objective opinion: "2+2=4" - Because no matter who does the math, the correct answer will always be 4.[/QUOTE] Not anymore, everything is subjective as long as one side insists that it is. Our common facts are no longer common, and the deluge of think-tanks give the illusion that maybe 2+2 Might not = 4 because the smart guys appear divided on that.
Democracy only works well its an educated populace. That is impossible while assholes go round actively trying to miseducate people. Peeps are scared of giving government power but stuff like liable laws work ok. We can find a workable solution and its preferable to letting baddies undermine democracy.
[QUOTE=Harbie;53028438]Once you cede this power to a government it establishes a precedent. If Macron goes through with it, imagine what a Trump-esque elected official could do by using this as precedent. When you give the government the right to do something, you shouldn't just be thinking whether you trust the current administration/elected officials with that power. You should be thinking if you'd trust all of the potential future administrations with that power.[/QUOTE] This is exactly true, but the problem with putting it into practice is, each political party in each country assumes that they will always be the winning party to utilize said powers. "We can give the president X power because our party will always have that position" And then Trump gets elected.
I feel this can too easily be exploited
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53025832]Wont work. Part of the reason fake news was so effective was because its very easy to manufacture. The court would be bogged down within days.[/QUOTE] The idea would be to fine them, and fine them really really hard so that it's not viable to keep doing it. This is a long term solution though, won't help in the short term and requires that the fines are suitably sized and actually hurt.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.