The problem, in my eyes, is, if we let people like Alex Jones speak, there seem so many morons out there who believe him and start persecuting victims of the events that he claims are fake news.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
Perhaps the blame for abusing the survivors should be on those doing the abuse? I don't blame Jodie Foster for John Hinckley, Jr's actions, nor JD Salinger for Mark David Chapman's.
Is it really ok to say that the Manchester Arena bombing didn't happen? Is it ok then to abuse survivors of that bombing?
If it isn't, what should we do?
Yeah it's a strange time where large numbers of people disagree about reality. The problem is it's not always easy to prove the truth or convince people when evidence can be ignored or twisted.
Is it really ok to say that the Manchester Arena bombing didn't happen? Is it ok then to abuse survivors of that bombing?
If it isn't, what should we do?
What we should do is to sue the perpetrators of these lies, just as Alex Jones has been. What shocks me is how long it took for the case to come before the judge. I was glad to see in the Panorama programme the nasty weasel who spread malicious lies about the Manchester bombing is being sued by why has five years elapsed? (By the by, I thought the journalist who presented the Panorama programme was poor. She should have been much better prepared with her questions and more spearing of her target).
What to do with those who forward the nastiness is trickier. Prosecution is probably not viable though I like the stringent action taken by the football authorities in dealing with trolls who racially abuse players. What we must do is impose punitive fines on the likes of Facebook if they fail to police their own sites. Multiple million pound penalties will see them smartening up their behaviour.
Up thread Nutcutlet had a jab at mainstream media. I’m sorry, but I totally disagree. The standards of journalism demonstrated by the BBC, and the other channels, is first rate in my view. It is admired around the world for its objectivity and professionalism and, if I were to take issue, it is that the channels are too balanced, giving overemphasis to the minority view. Should the mainstream media transgress protocols, and they have got it wrong at times and very badly wrong, they are fined and made to apologise. This happens far, far less often on the almost unregulated social media channels.
Two trends of recent times concern me greatly. First is the denigration of expert knowledge. We saw Johnson and Farage do it in the referendum debates, we saw Truss’s scorn of Treasury orthodoxy. Climate change, Covid … everyone is an expert now. The problem is they have got hold of a massively distorted half truth and use it as a weapon against the scientific consensus. Now I am not saying that orthodoxy should not be challenged (though citing the 500 year old example of Copernicus was weak) but it should always be done with marshalled, verifiable evidence that can be independently scrutinised. I called them distorted half truths a moment ago but the word half is flattery. The foundation which underpins conspiracy theories is always pathetically weak, usually confused and rarely verifiable.
And that does lead to the second trend - the abandonment of mainstream media in favour of news assimilated from alternative sources. Recently I think a poster here suggested that perhaps 25% of the public are sourcing knowledge from the unregulated morass that is social media. Some information is good, other stuff is fluffy … flaky … bizarre. If your education at school gave you weak foundations wheat cannot be separated from chaff. What is quirky, memorable or mad is seized upon and repeated. And repeated. And again.
And, after that excessively long preamble, am I in favour of free speech? Yes, but with fierce penalties for those that spread libel.
One (lack of) rule that frustrates me is the number of politicians who appear on our screens or in the press, but who either publish no contact email address or shelter under Parliamentary protocol against dealing with those outside their constituencies. If they're allowed to voice, often dubious, material to the masses, a challenge should be possible?
Is it about 'truth' or what we want to believe? Haven't we seen throughout history that it's belief that drives? Religion uses belief, governments use belief.
If you try to stop 'fake' news, how do you define truth - and who defines that truth? Do you close all religious centres for instance? And you believe in whatever because of your conditioning. I would guess that Russians, in general, believe Putin - I don't. But is that only because I've been conditioned not to? If I had been born in Russia, I would most likely believe him - wouldn't I?
As Trump said, he could murder someone and get away with it - and his incitement did just that - and his 'believer's' see no wrong.
@punkdoc has an issue with the 'fake' news around the Manchester bombing, but thousands have/had an issue with the Blair/Bush WoMD stuff that lead to the deaths of thousands and that still has a ripple effect today. Which has/had the most impact? Are either 'true'?
I have to say I find the fact this entire thread was considered, frightening! But I also respect anyone's right to bring up and discuss any subject but believe it's a dangerous question. We are long past truth. Our prime minister lied to the country. People lie every day, omit the truth or neglect to give balance of context. It's our jobs as humans to sort the wheat from the chaff. For goodness sake it's constant through history.... Look at the witch trials, I'm sure they are all based in fact and not demonizing outspoken women folk at all! 🤔
It's our jobs as humans to sort the wheat from the chaff.
It's hard to find a good analogy for the modern problem. One person's wheat/chaff is another's needle/haystack is another's wood/trees. I suspect that generations raised to believe the narrative told by one newspaper/that bloke down the pub are more susceptible to believing the same online. Except the bloke down the pub is now a Chinese bot farm with extremely targeted misinformation based on their overuse of social media. The internet should have set humanity free of the ignorance that has dogged us through history but so far it just seems to be making some of the problems worse.
Greta Thunberg is a great example. A young girl stands up to governments and pleads with them to listen to scientists about climate change. But look at the amount of people who spend their time spreading conspiracies and trying to discredit her rather than thinking about the message. They share some fake news post about her on social media without checking if any of it is true because the truth doesn't interest them as it doesn't fit what they want to believe. If someone calls them out they simply block them until they're surrounded by like-minded people like sheep herded into a pen bleating that they're the ones outside the fence.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
Posts
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
https://youtu.be/BiqDZlAZygU
Is it ok then to abuse survivors of that bombing?
If it isn't, what should we do?
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
What to do with those who forward the nastiness is trickier. Prosecution is probably not viable though I like the stringent action taken by the football authorities in dealing with trolls who racially abuse players. What we must do is impose punitive fines on the likes of Facebook if they fail to police their own sites. Multiple million pound penalties will see them smartening up their behaviour.
Up thread Nutcutlet had a jab at mainstream media. I’m sorry, but I totally disagree. The standards of journalism demonstrated by the BBC, and the other channels, is first rate in my view. It is admired around the world for its objectivity and professionalism and, if I were to take issue, it is that the channels are too balanced, giving overemphasis to the minority view. Should the mainstream media transgress protocols, and they have got it wrong at times and very badly wrong, they are fined and made to apologise. This happens far, far less often on the almost unregulated social media channels.
Two trends of recent times concern me greatly. First is the denigration of expert knowledge. We saw Johnson and Farage do it in the referendum debates, we saw Truss’s scorn of Treasury orthodoxy. Climate change, Covid … everyone is an expert now. The problem is they have got hold of a massively distorted half truth and use it as a weapon against the scientific consensus. Now I am not saying that orthodoxy should not be challenged (though citing the 500 year old example of Copernicus was weak) but it should always be done with marshalled, verifiable evidence that can be independently scrutinised. I called them distorted half truths a moment ago but the word half is flattery. The foundation which underpins conspiracy theories is always pathetically weak, usually confused and rarely verifiable.
And that does lead to the second trend - the abandonment of mainstream media in favour of news assimilated from alternative sources. Recently I think a poster here suggested that perhaps 25% of the public are sourcing knowledge from the unregulated morass that is social media. Some information is good, other stuff is fluffy … flaky … bizarre. If your education at school gave you weak foundations wheat cannot be separated from chaff. What is quirky, memorable or mad is seized upon and repeated. And repeated. And again.
We are long past truth. Our prime minister lied to the country. People lie every day, omit the truth or neglect to give balance of context.
It's our jobs as humans to sort the wheat from the chaff.
For goodness sake it's constant through history.... Look at the witch trials, I'm sure they are all based in fact and not demonizing outspoken women folk at all! 🤔