Even in America, there has always been certain material that was rendered unavilable by legal action. Usually the big hammer was reserved for child porn, but there have been other cases.
Remember also that almost everyone selects their email provider precisely because they don't want to see everything - they want someone to take care of the spam for them. Popup blocking, ad blocking, and now it seems some sort of "clickbait"/"fake news"/"russian troll" blocking is going to be popular.
Fake news is a distinct category of story that is easily quantified. It is a real problem that the United States faces and if we don't attempt to combat it, discourse will suffer. Since you're a fan of Wikipedia articles, try reading this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_websites_in_the_Unit...
ok. read the whole article. and i understood you right off the bat just fine. you want to block fiction from the internet. specifically, political fiction. and to be really generous, more specifically, political fiction with a certain intent.
now. who gets to arbitrate what is "political"? who gets to arbitrate what is "fiction"? who gets to arbitrate someone else's "intent"?
Clinton? Trump? Bezos? Huffington? pick your poison. and i'll find half a country that disagrees with you.
You’re conflating “fake news” and “political fiction.” The first is an attempt to mislead people about events that have happened, the latter is a story about the way events could happen.
I’m not interested in arguing about whether objectivity is possible in news, just saying this distinction is important.
an honest question, do your content police block CNN for this one article? if yes, i respect your consistency but i think CNN deserves some forgiveness. if no, why not? what is the threshold? any threshold is just A SECOND slippery slope.
> The first is an attempt to mislead people about events that have happened
i see. and who gets to decide what has happened? CNN or FOX? Google or Mozilla?
i think... show me a group capable of political objectivity, invulnerable to influence, and i can start to come around.
Was this video you posted from CNN fake? Was someone fabricating that or did it really happen? It's a very dumb story (and one of the reasons I don't bother with CNN), but I don't get the sense that it was fabricated.
Yes, news sources have political slants, I doubt you'll find anyone to argue with you on that one. The clickbaitization of news continues to ruin journalism, and I'd really like to reverse the trend. However, that's a different issue than the problem I pointed out with your argument.
We need to insist only on excellent public education. And then in aggregate, people can figure out what is fake. The problem is we're combining mediocre education, with propaganda specifically designed to work on the weak minded. And so it succeeds.
A vastly bigger problem than fake news, is how we've all sat on our collective asses as Democratic and Republican parties have sabotaged voting districts with gerrymandering and the Electoral College by giving those seats to party loyalists, not better people.
I don't understand why you're treating this as a partisan issue. Fake news affects every political affiliation, and it isn't limited to political issues. I don't want incorrect information that agrees with my point of view any more than incorrect information that agrees with it.
As for how they'd decide what websites to block or put a warning in front of, that seems fairly straightforward. Have a committee that represents different demographics, and require a unanimous vote to take action against a site.
Remember also that almost everyone selects their email provider precisely because they don't want to see everything - they want someone to take care of the spam for them. Popup blocking, ad blocking, and now it seems some sort of "clickbait"/"fake news"/"russian troll" blocking is going to be popular.