nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Facebook, Mozilla and Craigslist Craig fund fake news firefighter

Silver badge

A good start...

would be to put their best brains to hacking the servers of the Daily Fail, Fox News etc and subtly altering the front page / newsreaders scripts. Nothing too obvious, just a steady drip of slightly more real and less viciously evil content.

3
0
Black Helicopters

Fake news

Is in the eye of the beholder.

Where do you go with climate change, creationism just to mention two obvious candidates?

Removing fake news is censorship. Once this is accepted then the power lies with those who define fake.

6
4
Silver badge

a matter of choice

Those that care to know the truth have little problem discerning, and tend to choose different sources. Those that don't care will buy "fake news" because they like it.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Fake news

No it isn't. Some topics are contentious but that's not fake news. Creationism for example is not "news" so can't be called "fake news".

Fake news is things that are just objectively untrue. I've seen reports of various examples over the last year. Unless those reports were fake...

2
0
Silver badge

Re: a matter of choice

Those that care to know the truth have little problem discerning, and tend to choose different sources. Those that don't care will buy "fake news" because they like it.

This is essentially true. However, our school systems have dumbed down education and basically killed off critical thinking. Those of us who do have the critical thinking training and skills are definitely a dying breed. I grief for the future generations.

1
0
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: Fake news

This recent fake "Fake News" meme was dishonestly started by the Regressive Left, SJW (r-types) to unfairly support (rich and several decades criminal r-type) H. Clinton by effectively censoring "triggering" (sic), mostly honest K-type (some Alt-Right) websites via the deception of attacking dishonest sites.

Some popular censored sites managed to successfully reverse the SJW censorship; it must have smarted for the SJWs involved. The SJWs in the organisations mentioned obviously haven't given up this corrupt censorship game yet, but have changed how they plan to attack K-type sites!

Donald Trump quite fairly threw Fake News accusations back at several media organisations which shamelessly supported extreme Left/SJW/r-type bias, via Twitter and by significantly downgrading press access for these organisations; that must have smarted!

r-type being anti-competition, disloyal, deceptive, regressive prey like; minority human type.

K-type being competitive, loyal, honest, evolving predator like; primary human type.

1
2

The interesting question is what is going to be defined as fake news?

For example, someone claiming that global inequality is increasing. Nope, it ain't, it's falling. Poverty increasing in UK? Nope, relative poverty is, that's inequality, is. Global inequality is falling, within country is rising.

Equally, globalisation only benefits the rich.....nope, the great gainers have been the global poor.

Companies must pay more tax! Companies never carry the burden of any tax.

And so on and so on. A true scrubbing of fake news would produce a very, very, different media.....doubt it will happen though.

5
0
Silver badge

You be the judge.

"The interesting question is what is going to be defined as fake news?"

Some papers just seem to have a different slant on life. Here's a National Enquirer headline I saw at the checkout many years ago.

Dwarf Poses As Baby, Gets Adopted By Blind Couple

0
0
Silver badge

Re: You be the judge.

It would seem that the old National Enquirer has set the bar for news, hasn't it? I open any news site and look at the headlines... celebs... sports... scandals... political activism... but little in the way of thought provoking pieces anymore on issues. The world has moved on to sound bits of tripe.

1
0
Silver badge

Gee Tim, that would also put most politicians out of business. If they don't have the media to fawn over every word how are they going to convince the peoples that we really do need more F35s more than fixing the crumbling bridges. It would allow folks to make informed selections when voting.

I'm not even going to wade into one the yawning chasms that exists in the U.S. over hot button topics like pro-choice v. pro-life.

0
0
Silver badge

I do like the uptopian vision these companies have, erradicate fake news, make people like each other again by removing incendary "facts" that have just been made up. But "fake news" - or to call it by it's proper name, propaganda - is an effective tool for Governments, companies etc to promote their own line and position.

In the UK we have The S*n and The Daily Fail, as well as The Daily Express and The Torygraph. These papers are seated firmly to the right of everything. During the Brexit campaign you couldn't move for the falsehoods these papers were promoting. When Brexit wasnt' around, you would have a set menu of Muslims supporting terrorism, the EU supporting themselves and raping the UK of what it owns, and at a domestic level, how Corbyn was a clown and he shouldn't be listened to. Even when, at the same time, the Tory government were found out to have given Surrey council a sweetheart deal in light of upcomming cuts to local services. While not fake news, you could also recall the Milly Dowler case where journalists from The Mirror were hacking in to her phone and deleting voicemail messages, making her parents think she was still alive.

Consider who owns these media organisations. The BBC is a state owned media outlet, and when it fails to report on domestic issues that affect the country because it makes the current Government look bad, you wonder why these news items aren't being reported. There was an almost pornographic obsession with the failed Labour coup while thousands of disabled people found that their benefits were being cut. Consider also that Paul Dacre (editor of The Daily Fail) went for a nice meal with Frau May immediately when she became PM - being the first and only journalist to do so - and how that rag of a paper reports on events in this country and in Europe. Consider, finally, how much influence Murdoch has over the media (both printed, visual and audio), and the opinions he's expressed over various events and how his media outlets seem to mirror those opinions.

Take in to account that the press in the UK have often said a free press must be preserved and regulation should be avoided. But when you think about the shite they've done and reported, we're still being told that a WordPress website on the internet that said the Pope backed Trump is a problem for democracy and that removing these sites would improve the publics trust in journalism?

Are you fucking high mate?

4
2

Well you're obviously a fan of fake news, because that's clearly where you got some of the 'facts' you've cited.

As one example, the BBC is NOT state owned or run. I'd start by researching this for yourself

1
2
Silver badge

"As one example, the BBC is NOT state owned or run. I'd start by researching this for yourself"

Are you sure? Because the BBC Trust are appointed via the Government, the license fee is set by the Government, and agreed upon by parliament.

So a broadcaster is controlled by a group of people chosen by the state's Government, who happen to set the fee in which the public should pay to access which is further agreed upon by members of that government through parliamentary process. The broadcaster itself is then classed as a statutory company with a Royal charter.

Insisting that the BBC isn't state-controlled/run/owned by the state is like saying Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas who managed to shoot JFK in the front of the head, even though Oswald was behind him at the time.

So, in reality, it is you who is the fake news consumer.

1
3
Anonymous Coward

Maybe a strategic nuke on chipping (s)norton could clean things up a bit?

0
0

The irony

There's a subtle irony in calling Jimmy Wales "founder" of Wikipedia, when Dr. Larry Sanger pitched the idea to Jimbo, Sanger named it 'Wikipedia', Sanger issued the first public call for participation on the new project, and Sanger's early edits to the encyclopedia outnumbered Jimmy's by a factor of seven. Years after the founding of Wikipedia by (mostly) Larry Sanger, Jimbo went on a personal tirade, modifying Wikipedia entries to minimize or eliminate Sanger's contribution to the project. Yeah, Jimbo is a great candidate to make the case against fake news.

2
0

Re: The irony

Exactly. Does any person or company on this list not have either a financial or ideological reason to influence what is deemed "legitimate" news for their own gain?

I'm afraid all this is going to accomplish is a complete fracturing of Internet communities. It's going to lead to two big, balkanized groups that steep themselves in their own favored propaganda, hurl the epitaph "fake news" at one another, and absolutely refuse to listen to anything the other group has to say.

Isn't this kind of the exact opposite of the free exchange of ideas that the Internet was supposed to foster?

0
0

Wait - PR Firms?

Those are the folks who make their money with fake news. Please.

0
0

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing