|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
I would like to understand the targeting of this "anti-fake news" campaign. The macronist law is clearly targeted (1) at Internet or more accurately "social networks" and (2) at foreign State-owned medias (and notably the Russian soft power with RT/Sputnik). Fine. But what about homemade, institutional disinformation? A few examples:
1. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
2. The Timisoara affair.
3. The Nayirah testimony about Iraqi soldiers killing babies in their incubators.
4. As I mentioned above, in December 2016 the TV public service released some story about a coffee shop in a French suburb which was supposedly “forbidden to women”. The story got quite the success as it resonated with the popular, racist theme of “uncivilized Muslims” imposing some “patriarchal apartheid” in the public space. Some other medias debunked it after a counter-inquiry, but France 2 denied it had done anything wrong and “Sevran's coffee shop” remained in the public debate, much to the joy of the islamophobic legions in France (and the far-right in particular).
5. More recently, the Ukrainian journalist assassinated which “resurrected” the day after (Arkady Babchenko).
What is foreseen in the law (whose object is to fight “the manipulation of information”) to minimize the risks of this stuff happening again? Nothing. Notice also how many of those examples were governmental lies/manipulations.
Now, what about the power balance between a mass mainstream media and, say, some little blog or Youtube channel? In France the 20:00 TV news gather ~10 millions of spectators daily on the first two TV channels. So if TV news give "bad news" only 1% of the time, it probably has a bigger public impact than several echo chambers combined on the Internet.
Additional data:
Unsurprisingly, most of the “fake news” spreading in France was located in the spheres of the hard right and the far-right (source in French).
During the French presidential campaign, Facebook closed 30 000 French accounts (source in French) which were publishing “spam, disinformation or other deceitful contents”. Apparently no law was needed.
Based on an Ifop poll about the presidential, here are the first three sources of information polled people mentioned when asked about “what means of information were the most useful for your choice”:
1. Political emissions on TV (38%)
2. TV debates between candidates (34%)
3. TV news (31%)
(Several answers possible, hence why the total is more than 100%.) Internet information sites come only fifth with 17%. Facebook is 12th with 8%. Twitter comes last (19th) with 3%. The TV still stomps Internet, with TV debates peaking at 10 millions of spectators for the first round, and 16,5 millions for the second round (there are 48 millions of voters). On Youtube the most seen video from the left-wing candidate (who ended the campaign with 300+k subscribers) during the campaign reached what… 550k views at best? and maybe 150-200k on average. Most of them being already convinced people I bet.
Maybe Facebook rules the US election but France is not the USA.
At the end of the day, if we were to draw the picture of the source of most “fake news,” it would be established powers:
1. State/government;
2. (Big) companies (think about how many decades it took to recognize the dangerosity of certain products, and the hardcore lobbying to deny any risk in order to maintain profits, the forging of studies, etc.);
3. Mass mainstream medias.
But the law (which, again, is largely redundant with the existing right) targets mainly Internet and what's come from outside.
|
On June 08 2018 03:23 TheDwf wrote:
At the end of the day, if we were to draw the picture of the source of most “fake news,” it would be established powers:
1. State/government;
2. (Big) companies (think about how many decades it took to recognize the dangerosity of certain products, and the hardcore lobbying to deny any risk in order to maintain profits, the forging of studies, etc.);
3. Mass mainstream medias.
But the law (which, again, is largely redundant with the existing right) targets mainly Internet and what's come from outside.
I don't think the European powers want to find out what happens when a far-right coalition comes to power in the state and also can appoint ministers/judges/bureaucrats capable of censoring news they deem "Fake News." The only way of imagining possible deleterious effects is to pick the most despicable person you see in politics and imagine them in the seat of power. I'm speaking as somebody who was repeatedly and reliably informed that no one like Trump would ever mount the Executive Branch, so I was being a negative nancy for disliking its power established and expanded in two administrations/multiple congresses.
|
On June 08 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 03:23 TheDwf wrote:
At the end of the day, if we were to draw the picture of the source of most “fake news,” it would be established powers:
1. State/government;
2. (Big) companies (think about how many decades it took to recognize the dangerosity of certain products, and the hardcore lobbying to deny any risk in order to maintain profits, the forging of studies, etc.);
3. Mass mainstream medias.
But the law (which, again, is largely redundant with the existing right) targets mainly Internet and what's come from outside. I don't think the European powers want to find out what happens when a far-right coalition comes to power in the state and also can appoint ministers/judges/bureaucrats capable of censoring news they deem "Fake News." The only way of imagining possible deleterious effects is to pick the most despicable person you see in politics and imagine them in the seat of power. I'm speaking as somebody who was repeatedly and reliably informed that no one like Trump would ever mount the Executive Branch, so I was being a negative nancy for disliking its power established and expanded in two administrations/multiple congresses.
The nature of (most) European parliamentary systems means that such governments could just enact the laws themselves.
|
On June 07 2018 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2018 05:31 nojok wrote:On June 06 2018 07:48 Plansix wrote:On June 06 2018 07:35 TheDwf wrote:
The State cannot decree what is true and what is false... They can, however, hold people accountable for knowing release false information to the public for mass distribution after due process before a court. Or allow their citizens to defend themselves through civil claims against people who knowing release false stories. You cannot democratize all media production, given people tools to disseminate that media to every house hold and phone and keep the rules the same. You can't have unlimited anonymity and freedom to reach everyone in your country. The goverment and citizens need recourse and systems in place tamp down on false claims. Otherwise you are at the mercy of massive companies who don't give a shit about you and the people who use their services to attack you. Because this is the cyber punk nightmare future we are traveling towards. Its a lot like blade runner, but not fake people and every company is run by a pack of morons: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/gydydm/gal-gadot-fake-ai-pornAnd it doesn't take much to see how fucked we will be in the next 10 years if our governments don't get in there and make companies give a shit. First we have to stop a few wealthy families to own all the medias (the same families who support the politics to be elected and then make very liberal rules in their favor) then we can think about rules to allow the state to control medias a bit more. Not the other way around. You would need the state to break up the media companies. Which would, in turn, require the state to become involved with the media and break it up. The only way that happens is if the government gets involved.
Obviously but it's different from being involved with the content.
On June 07 2018 08:17 Nyxisto wrote:
Honestly, does anybody here think France is going to suddenly start banning reputable journalists?
Not now but I don't want Le Pen or any similar person to have all the tools available to her disposal if she happens to rule the country which is not that unlikely. I mean Trump happened and at least some aspects of the US legislation protect them from his wrongdoing.
|
Honestly, does anybody here think France is going to suddenly start banning reputable journalists?
Yes I absolutely believe that France could suddenly start banning reputable journailsts. We have an open govenment war against the state TV in Austria. Leading right-wing and conservative politicians including the chancellor himself proclaiming that the state TV is left-biased and needs cleansing, proclaiming that if journalists don't act more friendly when talking about Putin and Orban they will be fired and stuff like that.
We have seen all of that in Hungary and Poland before. Whatever kind of Western pride you hold that makes you believe that this can't happen in more Western countries: let go of it. People in power everywhere will copy whatever means are helpful to preserve their power, when we don't challenge these developments openly, regardless of party affiliation and borders.
|
Checks and balances don't magically vanish and you're kind of making the point for me when you suggest that extremists in Austria are targetting the state TV. This new form of extremism doesn't come from some sort of evil state censorship, it comes from privately bankrolled far-right oligarchs who abuse the tabloid press and the social networks. Weakening the state is a good way to get those people into power.
Which is obviously why they all oppose those laws. Take a look at revealed preference. Don't you think the AfD would love those laws if they'd benefit from them? It's just naive to not combat extremists because you're afraid of hypothetical governments. Not doing anything will get them into power in the first place.
COMPARED TO THE US, “GERMAN AND FRENCH VOTERS ARE SHARING MUCH SMALLER AMOUNTS OF JUNK NEWS."
You've got cause and effect the wrong way. We don't consume the stuff because we have laws in place. You wouldn't try to get rid of vaccinations because nobody is getting sick right?
|
And what makes you think it comes from the law, rather than a different media ecosystem + less/weaker groups of loonies/weirdos in our countries?
|
How do you chance the eco-system without laws or regulation? It is because companies like twitter, Facebook, 4chan, YouTube and reddit are not accountable for the content on their sites that allows these conspiracy theories to propagate. There is no criminal or civil liability for those sites in the US and very little that I am aware of in the UK. And those companies have found ways to profit from it.
Mind you, if you hosted your own server and content, you would not enjoy those protections. It is only for companies with the money to these eco-systems.
So without a change in how companies are held accountable, other laws and judicial remedies are needed.
|
the different media ecosystem is a result of the legal framework they exist in. It's simply not profitable to run a fake news mill in Germany if you've looming 50 million Euro fines above your head and have to write retractions when you put out bullshit. Don't you think Breitbart would just love to expand everywhere if they could?
Also we can't do much about loonies or weirdos or people who like to gobble up nonsense on twitter. Can't educate the entire nation to be enlightened and only consume quality news out of their own volition. That reminds me of the American gun debate where pessimistic conservatives suddenly will start to argue in favour of mental help and how guns aren't the problem and you just gotta turn everybody into an upstanding citizen and so on rather than tackle the issue upfront.
We can't build some utopia where everyone is fake news immune but we can at least confront the worst offenders
|
What I meant is that there are "cultural" differences about the use of medias. If Facebook is used by 10 or 50% of the population for their daily news, it's not the same thing and impact. The law does not determine what medias people use. No law can determine whether people will use Facebook rather than get their news from TV or radio, etc.
|
On June 08 2018 07:49 TheDwf wrote:
What I meant is that there are "cultural" differences about the use of medias. If Facebook is used by 10 or 50% of the population for their daily news, it's not the same thing and impact. The law does not determine what medias people use. No law can determine whether people will use Facebook rather than get their news from TV or radio, etc.
But people don't use Facebook for news because it's Facebook. They use it because they're circle of like-minded thinkers all provide the news they want to see on Facebook.
|
On June 08 2018 04:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:On June 08 2018 03:23 TheDwf wrote:
At the end of the day, if we were to draw the picture of the source of most “fake news,” it would be established powers:
1. State/government;
2. (Big) companies (think about how many decades it took to recognize the dangerosity of certain products, and the hardcore lobbying to deny any risk in order to maintain profits, the forging of studies, etc.);
3. Mass mainstream medias.
But the law (which, again, is largely redundant with the existing right) targets mainly Internet and what's come from outside. I don't think the European powers want to find out what happens when a far-right coalition comes to power in the state and also can appoint ministers/judges/bureaucrats capable of censoring news they deem "Fake News." The only way of imagining possible deleterious effects is to pick the most despicable person you see in politics and imagine them in the seat of power. I'm speaking as somebody who was repeatedly and reliably informed that no one like Trump would ever mount the Executive Branch, so I was being a negative nancy for disliking its power established and expanded in two administrations/multiple congresses. The nature of (most) European parliamentary systems means that such governments could just enact the laws themselves.
The nature of representative governments here and abroad is that existing rules twisted to new ends survive much longer than a sudden change with new laws in a new government. The citizenry are more comfortable having lived under them for years, compared to suddenly enacting new laws.
|
Also seems like Macron has given up trying to woo Trump after the conciliatory approach during his first visit. We're living in fun times where American presidents throw tariffs at Europe while saving Chinese companies
|
Good on him if he sticks to it, rather than it being a tactic to get Trump talking again.
I think Merkel is done with him, at least. If the other EU leader countries get behind it the bloc can properly move forward.
|
I think everyone starts to realize that reaching out to Trump and trying to make him change his mind or ways is a waste of time. I want the EU to come together, scramble whatever allies they can and financially hurt the average red-state american as much as possible. They are ones who wanted this and are empowering Trump. Switching out Trump in three years won't do much if so many americans still buy this MAGA, isolation bs. After four years of some democrat president, we'll be back at square one only this time with Carrot Top at the helm. The world needs to show them that being alone and screwing over allies isn't all that awesome.
That's what I hope will happen. Probably won't.
|
As an American, I fully support Europe taking as hard a stance as possible against Trump and our government under him.
|
On June 08 2018 22:37 Longshank wrote:
I think everyone starts to realize that reaching out to Trump and trying to make him change his mind or ways is a waste of time. I want the EU to come together, scramble whatever allies they can and financially hurt the average red-state american as much as possible. They are ones who wanted this and are empowering Trump. Switching out Trump in three years won't do much if so many americans still buy this MAGA, isolation bs. After four years of some democrat president, we'll be back at square one only this time with Carrot Top at the helm. The world needs to show them that being alone and screwing over allies isn't all that awesome.
That's what I hope will happen. Probably won't.
Or seven...
|
The more proactive and resolute Europe is in not taking shit from our pathetic government, the less likely Trump's second term becomes.
|
Americans are in love with a President to talks shit and sticks it to the socialist EU so long as it doesn’t cost them a dime. Don't indulge them.
|
At this point I have to admit Trump probably has an about even chance of a second term. Best not to hope it will all go away any time soon but plan for the long winter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
