[techsupporter]

> What is 'fake news' for one person is truth to another.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence.

There are some things that are demonstrably true and untrue. Society gains nothing, and loses much, by simply throwing up our hands and saying "well, nothing to be done!" in the face of this.

> who decides what is the truth and whether they have the right to censor everything and everybody else

That is one heck of a leap.

Screaming the cries of censorship when faced with people who disagree--either on your point, your presentation of your point, or the facts underlying your point--is escaping to a place where your position is no longer the one being debated, it's the "terms of the debate." Thus, one no longer needs to defend their position; they can simply stand to the side and feign being the actual aggrieved party.

> I definitely don't like this trend of censorship, it's not what our western democracy is built upon.

It is not censorship. Censorship is not saying "you are incorrect about this and I am calling you out for it and encouraging others to take note of your being incorrect." Heck, censorship is not even being shouted down for one's beliefs. If you say something and other people yell at--or praise!--you for it, that's not censorship.

This article alone says there is no active censorship since people can, and do, merrily spread incorrect statements and half-baked "just asking questions" that even the Weekly World News would have found too preposterous to print.

[roenxi]

> "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence.

Is there any evidence either of them believe that view to be a fact? Politicians routinely make up their own facts. In practice people are actually entitled to their own facts. There are mechanisms to mediate disagreements as best we can but we rely on a certain amount of goodwill rather than an ability to determine the truth.

[macintux]

Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts.

Certain demagogues are fond of nonstop lying, but in U.S. politics that hasn’t been the dominant approach until recently. It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.

[roenxi]

> Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts.

Different pronunciations of the same word; what they do is a juvenile ritual on top of lying. They don't observe facts neutrally or build a solid argument that they test against reality, they start with the conclusion and work out what they need to say to get other people there. And I'm not saying it is a failing on the part of politicians - the voters demand that sort of behaviour from them. But if that is acceptable, flat lying is acceptable. The intent and outcome aren't different as long as bargains are honoured.

> It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.

I don't know if there is any particular evidence that is a bad thing. The main lesson from the 2000s and 2010s was if Congress is united on a course of action it is probably going to be a disaster.

The US still hasn't managed to shake off the PATRIOT act or clean out the secret law court that was established. We seem to be well into a trend where every president will be subject to a spying campaign before entering office. The US economy has been out-capitaled by literal communists in China. It seems like an excellent time to have someone challenging the basic facts that the congress has been agreeing on.