Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Fake news and how to deal with it
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Fake news and how to deal with it
Russian propaganda—whether on chemical weapons in Syria, the nerve-agent attack in the UK, or the downing of the Malaysian Air flight over Ukraine—rarely attempts to explain the evidence but only to obfuscate it. But that’s what the guilty do. https://t.co/F3zwckGjVa
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
(And first ?)
Regarding DNA, this is a good discussion of the topic:
https://www.quora.com/Is-junk-DNA-introns-really-junk
Excellent article.
Cad?
Perhaps we need some kind of fake news watchdog to actively counter the worst excesses through rebuttal if not the pursuit of defamation cases. Certainly we need to take action against Russian trolls.
BTW, FPT:
I did, in fact live in Garden Walk as a footloose bachelor (and before that, on Old Street above a wine shop).
Subsequently bought a flat in Clerkenwell and then, as family started to grow, moved all the way out to London Fields.
But yes. We must surely have crossed paths. In fact, I just had lunch at Lantana (which I presume is almost underneath your abode!)
Rees-Mogg is a bloody bounder.
https://twitter.com/autosport/status/988723366256349185
I would not have us create an arbiter of truth, a Ministry, if you will.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/785299709342654465
Is the aim of abolishing the House of Lords to have no secondary chamber at all, no alternative source for second thoughts about Government plans ?
Is the primacy of the Commons to the exclusion of all others and MPs can do what they like because there is no one to gainsay them ?
Democracy seems to mean different things to different people - the "will of the people" is some sacred absolute which can never be revoked. Why is there such an intolerance in some circles for dissent ?
Democracy is plural not singular - many voices, many opinions, the vast majority of which have a right to be heard. Why should one strand or view of the world expressed at one time by one group of people be the only one that is heard ?
We are British, for God’s sake.
I’ll settle for House if Peers or House of (elected) Lords. I don’t mind having a few bishops and law lords in there either, to be honest, but it should be 80%+ elected.
Another reason why Brexit is fundamentally un-conservative, not only on its own merits but in the desire of Brexiters to vilify or tear down all and every part of our constitution to achieve it.
The Lords does need reform, and it would certainly help if its members recalled that the electorate is not there to be overruled or corrected by appointed lords. But knee-jerk reform of the constitution, and short-sighted, narrow-minded meddling is a Blairite solution.
Of course, if Clegg hadn't proposed such a stupid reform and then run away from any sort of democratic questioning of his proposals, we might be further along in finding an answer to the unsustainable situation we now have.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/05/04/microbead-fish-study-retracted/
Snopes has been reliably correcting internet fake news for many years
But the idea that the Lords is trying to “overrule or correct” the electorate is truly bizarre.
This plebiscitary nonsense is fundamentally un-British. The people voted, some years ago, now, on a single question. We decided to “Leave”. It’s now up to Parliament (both Houses) to figure out how.
Be especially sceptical of information that produces a strong emotional response from you. Ask yourself who wants to produce that response. Top class advice.
Good afternoon, everyone.
I said for months, I was very flexible about how we left, and my single red line was the customs union. Because it's bloody stupid staying in it whilst leaving the EU.
Edited extra bit: good afternoon, Miss JGP.
The advertising only model doesn't seem to be working for journalism.
Anyone outside the Chamber is wrong or not much listening to.
As I rarely agree with anyone, I don't have my own Echo Chamber as it would be a lonely place so I come out in the world and come onto forums like this where I am often in disagreement with the majority.
It's good to hear what other people think and good to have your own views and preconceptions and above all misconceptions challenged. The problem is when you cannot or will not challenge your own views and are so firm in the validity of your position you need to repeat them ad nauseam and ad infinitum.
The plethora of choice, thanks to the Internet and Satellite TV, means you can live without having your certainties challenged - the telescreen is always on and Big Brother is always watching you or rather Big Brother is always telling you how the world is and how it has to be.
I enjoy my doubt - it makes me think and makes me question. Robert Fisk's article in the Independent about Douma made me question my support for the airstrikes but the first response of some on here was not to question the content of the article but make snide comments about Fisk. "Fake News" is about denigrating those who tell us things that conflict with our certainties, presenting another version of events and realities that doesn't sit well with our notions as much as it is about getting to the absolute truth.
The problem there is the mass-market goes into a downwards quality spiral - if you think it's bad now, imagine every site was like infowars/skawkbox combined with taboola.
However, given the polarising rhetoric, mendacity, secrecy and incompetence that has accompanied the government’s Brexit policy, I cannot get worked up by attempts by Parliament to ameliorate our exit.
The 48% cannot and will not be ignored (let alone vilified).
That is May’s (and the Brexiter’s) cardinal error.
Of course, the BBC and twitter and other sources will always be there and free.
We need to pay for news rather than kidding ourselves that free always equals good.
He is fundamentally dishonest because he continues to espouse an impossible policy.
Just like his partner in boundership (or connerie) Daniel Hannan.
The Times is profitable I believe.
Brexiters are in power. Brexit is the policy. That carries responsibilities.
They seem to be prepared to throw endless cash at it.
It is not a bad strategy, but perhaps they ought to paywall the U.K. now, while maintaining free access in the US.
The Martin Lewis case against Facebook could be significant in this, as he pointed out yesterday these are people paying Facebook money so the platform needs to vet the adverts *before* they run. Ditto Google and other internet ad agencies, who managed to get Martin Lewis fake ads on their own stories about him yesterday.
Adblocking is now mainstream as a result, the only way the media companies are going to get around it is to take control of and start hosting their own adverts from their own servers.
As for the truculent MPs and Lords, they are just doing their job. Unless you think they are in the pay of Brussels.
The likes of ASA is not fit for purpose in this internet age. They are far too slow, only operate reactively and can't effectively punish anybody.
- the aims and intent of the EU
- the supposed ease of Brexit
- the non-problem of the Irish border
- etc etc
The biggest issue for internet regulation is one of jurisdiction - Facebook and Google will tell you that they’re based in Luxembourg, Ireland or even the USA as it suits them, so can’t be regulated by the British ASA.
Might make it more popular, of course.
They have a duty to UK interests, not the EU. The referendum victory can be attributed to almost anything one pleases because it was so narrow. The arrogant complacency of Remain early on, and the ridiculous tendency of some to just point at the opposing side and shout "Racist!" were two entirely unforced errors, and the latter continues to be a major source of bitterness and division.
I hate the idea of driving a cart and horses through 1,000 years of history.
So, if the internet saves all titles the considerable expense of printing and distributing paper copies, why can't the Grauniad or FT make ends meet by having conventional non-tracking advertising, i.e. purely display ads., down the left or right of the screen, as on a newspaper page? I'd accept non-intrusive ads. that don't track me.
My own opinion is that, if leaving the EU is so much more difficult than was expected, it is all the more necessary that we should undock as soon as possible, however long it takes to leave the EU eventually.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/988793341981675520
Followed by the usual replies.
To abolish the House of Lords just because it hampers a result that a cohort of Leavers don't like would be constitutional arson.
I think Conservatives followed their leaders a bit more loyally back then, even though many had misgivings about the end of Empire and joining the EEC, and all had less of a constituency identity and more of a national one as an MP.
Plus, from the very late 50s to the mid 70s the Conservative leadership was dominated by older men who had more ideologically pro-European views due to their experiences in WW1 and WW2; they didn’t feel the need to make a particular song and dance with the electorate about where that would eventually end up, as they felt they knew best.
There is nothing democratic about the House of Lords, and you dismiss the referendum which definitively was.
As for the rest, it’s no secret that anti immigration is assumed to have tipped the result. See All Out War and the ramblings of Dominic Cummings for details.
And, so won, Leavers need to learn that lying down with dogs does tend to leave one with fleas.
Agree on Cameroonian complacency of course, but not very relevant to 2018.
As to whether it's ridiculous or not - it seems strange that the side with the vast weight of evidence on their side, be it from academics, business surveys, economic forecasts etc. is the one being called ridiculous.
They could all be wrong. But not ridiculous to listen to them.
The amount of peers in there is completely crackers for a secondary house for starters.
It's dumb. You're not a fool, but that is a foolish argument. I voted to Leave for reasons that had nothing to do with immigration. Ken Clarke once said he wanted Westminster to effectively become a local council. You and he voted the same way but I don't get to just pretend his opinion is also yours (and all others who voted Remain) because you're separate people.
The political class has a bad record of misleading at best and lying at worst to the electorate. One reason I did vote Leave is because I had no faith in our politicians to stand up for our interest over the EU interest. Just look at the contemptible deception over the Lisbon Treaty and the referendum-that-wasn't.
And now they're trying to give the EU the power to determine our trade deals. The whole point of leaving (in that regard) is that whilst we have less muscle, we can pursue deals that are advantageous for the UK economy without having to consider 27 others. We can have deals that suit us, not the EU. It's idiotic to suppose we're better served by having deals that suit the EU27 without having any consideration of the UK interest.