[6stringmerc]

Also relevant: the derision and mockery directed at JD Vance as a “couch fucker” even used by John Oliver.

I read “Hillbilly Elegy” and wondered why it wasn’t in there. Snopes cleared it up in a matter of minutes. Why he hasn’t sued people into oblivion is his prerogative, but it’s a fascinating case study that we are, indeed, living in a Post-Truth environment.

[red_hare]

There was a time, in the early to mid 2010s, when the phrase "Fake News" was almost exclusively used by people in publishing to talk about a very real rise in editorial disruption as news readers shifted from being desktop and homepage-driven to mobile and facebook-driven.

And then, one day, the politicians started saying it...

[titanomachy]

Oliver in that clip literally calls the couch-fucking thing "the fun kind of misinformation". He's not suggesting it's true.

[kittoes]

Interesting that you focus on John Oliver's bit considering that it came up in the context of JD Vance doubling down on the whole "they're eating the cats and dogs thing".

https://youtu.be/NtRPLCso0Sw?t=14m09s

Makes me believe that you're really not commenting in good faith here.

[righthand]

Purveyors of post-truth lies don’t turn around and sue people. They just peddle more lies, this is the kind of environment scum like the Vance’s live for.

[ourmandave]

Tucker Carlson set the precedent when he was sued for libel by Karen McDougal and won because Fox New lawyers successfully argued he wasn't a reporter and no reasonable person would believe he's stating facts.

Unless he's repeating Trump's lies, then 77M people apparently believe it.

[pessimizer]

> The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story. The statement could not reasonably be understood to imply an assertion of objective fact, and therefore, did not amount to defamation.

"Rachel Maddow Wins in 9th Circuit; OAN Loses Appeal in Defamation Case"

https://timesofsandiego.com/business/2021/08/17/rachel-maddo...

-----

> Maddow’s show is different than a typical news segment where anchors inform viewers about the daily news. The point of Maddow’s show is for her to provide the news but also to offer her opinions as to that news. Therefore, the Court finds that the medium of the alleged defamatory statement makes it more likely that a reasonable viewer would not conclude that the contested statement implies an assertion of objective fact.

https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDO...

-----

The statement in queston: "[...T]he most obsequiously pro-Trump right wing news outlet in America really literally is paid Russian propaganda."

[justin66]

Did anyone actually believe that was anything more than a joke? It was a disgusting and weird thing to suggest about a disgusting and weird guy, and highly immature, but it's only libel if it's presented as being true.

[teddyh]

In only slightly more isolated regions of the internet than here, it used to be, when this story was new, that whenever this story was brought up, with dozens or more credulous comments with varying attempts at humor, there was at least one person who commented that it was fake, often with citations. As time went on, for each new instance, the number of comments dwindled, and the lone debunking comment appeared more and more rarely. Now I never see it, even though the story still occasionally appears, with a handful of credulous comments. So I would assume that yes, many people believe it.

[justin66]

> commented that it was fake, often with citations

Citations. I'll admit that I'm starting feel like I am culturally out of my depth somehow.

[teddyh]

Are you asking me for citations?

[mrguyorama]

I earnestly did not know that it wasn't "true" or was an exaggeration or anything.

Glad to learn, but, that's zero percent of the reason anyone shouldn't like the guy, zero percent of the reason he's a bad person, etc.

Who cares if someone fucks couches? Apparently that kind of stuff doesn't end your political career anymore anyway.

It's not like he shot a puppy!

[ubertaco]

You're getting downvotes because the target of this particular lie was a known liar, so people probably feel like it's some sort of poetic justice (or they know it's just in-kind retaliation and are cathartically satisfied by it).

I don't think the right answer to widespread disinformation campaigns is retaliatory disinformation campaigns (even if they're couched – pun not intended – in a just-barely-thin-enough veil of "wink wink we know this is a joke").

The right answer is to create systems and measures that actually limit disinformation.

[arjie]

I’m with you. The net effect actually is something akin to honking one’s horn at a guy who honked at you. You think you’re giving him a taste of his own medicine, but walking by I only see two people honking their horn and I’d ideally prefer not to be around the horn honkers since they’re unpleasant.