advertisement


‘Fake news’ and internet/political regulation

Also in "lest we forget" mode, here's the Tory Party refusing to share the attack ads it ran on Facebook during the 2017 GE campaign:

https://labourlist.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/controls-on-immigration-mug.jpg

As reported by none other than Carole Cadwalladr. In a similar vein, from the LSE:

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyp...ributing-fake-news-in-attack-ads-on-facebook/

There were reports a few weeks ago that the Tories have employed the services of the US company responsible for highly negative campaigns by the Republicans in recent years* so expect much worse at the next general election.

*If anyone has links to those reports, please share them - my google skills are failing me right now.
 
That looks like a good idea, though it would have to be done with great care. The main problem with the BBC news and current affairs programming at present is a crazy implementation of ‘equivalence’ where they platform factually incorrect bullshit or reactionary opinion from ‘both sides’ rather than just reporting events and applying real evidence-based critical scrutiny (e.g. properly fact-checking all claims made and publicly outing the liars and con-artists).

But how do you critically scrutinise something without giving it a platform in the first place?
“Democratisation” can be a very dangerous thing if it gives equal weight to idiots and experts alike.

Well in that case democracy IS a very dangerous thing!
 
But how do you critically scrutinise something without giving it a platform in the first place?

I have no objection to platforming all but the most offensive viewpoints, I’d just like statements made to be fact-checked a lot more often. Pretty much certain this country is in the utter mess it is right now because no real scrutiny was applied to Brexit claims.

Well in that case democracy IS a very dangerous thing!

I worded that bit badly! I’m just sick of seeing highly knowledgable economists, scientists, doctors etc interviewed and then rebuffed by know-nothing gobshites such as Farage, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Hunt etc as if they had similar credibility.
 
It's the difference between impartiality and objectivity. The difference is simple (in principle):

journalism-101-if-someone-says-its-raining-another-person-34866520.png
 
You seem to be falling into the binary mindset of having to support one option and decry the alternative. It is possible to be highly skeptical of influences in the mainstream and still be horrified by the traction everything from Vote Leave through to Yaxley-Lennon, Britain First etc are gaining of late through highly organised internet misinformation campaigns. None of this need impact the likes of Momentum, AAV etc, who it is clear you defend, as long as their content is entirely truthful and stands up to basic legal scrutiny. To my mind any political advertising needs to be factual, honest, and very clear as to who has funded in and in whose interest.

The only logical option IMHO is to force accountability and make it possible to sue political organisations for lies, false-promises, misinformation etc just the way you can sue a bank, financial adviser, insurance company, car manufacturer etc. Given how corrupt our politics I’d like to see it be possible to sue financial backers too, e.g. UKIP or Leave.EU’s bare-faced lies, misinformation and data mining chicanery should be underwritten by the likes of Arron Banks etc who funded it.
The committee report's definition of "fake news" is a bit broad for my liking:
1. Fabricated content: completely false content;
2. Manipulated content: distortion of genuine information or imagery, for example a headline that is made more sensationalist, often popularised by ‘clickbait’;
3. Imposter content: impersonation of genuine sources, for example by using the branding of an established news agency;
4. Misleading content: misleading use of information, for example by presenting comment as fact;
5. False context of connection: factually accurate content that is shared with false contextual information, for example when a headline of an article does not reflect the content;
6. Satire and parody: presenting humorous but false stores as if they are true. Although not usually categorised as fake news, this may unintentionally fool readers.

No problem with 1 and 3. Of the rest, 2, 4 and 5 are matters of degree and need careful interpretation. Classifying satire and parody as misinformation feels like a slippery slope.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole report so I don't know what the committee does with the above list.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't it Labour who specifically targeted Corbyn and his staff with ads he thought were going to out to everyone while they actually sent out ads slagging him off.
 
The problem isn’t so much that we give a platform to the idiots, it’s that we’ve become so cynical about the credibility of experts, to the extent that many now automatically discount expert views that conflict with their own own prejudices.

I believe the need is for us to develop institutions that restrain the worst instincts of demagoguery and prejudice. I very much regret for instance that we don’t have a written constitution and modern reformed version of the House of Lords, a proper senate. I think that would have stopped the reckless Brexit referendum in its tracks.
 
Wasn't it Labour who specifically targeted Corbyn and his staff with ads he thought were going to out to everyone while they actually sent out ads slagging him off.
Nearly:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/96848/labour-hq-spent-£5000-tricking-jeremy-corbyn

There were no ads attacking Corbyn. Instead, Labour HQ staff simply didn't use the ads favoured by Corbyn because they were deemed "too left wing". To cover their tracks, they micro-targeted these ads at Corbyn and his aides to make them believe the ads were being seen by everyone.

I'd like to know more about this story - specifically, which ads were held back, and what replaced them. If the above article is to be believed one of the things sabotaged by Labour HQ staff was a big push to encourage voter registration.

Don't you just love the "moderate", "pragmatic" wing of the Labour Party?
 
Tangentially related, you’ll be able to spot a Republican meme on your Facebook feed easily because they use stock photography.


Joe
 
The problem isn’t so much that we give a platform to the idiots, it’s that we’ve become so cynical about the credibility of experts, to the extent that many now automatically discount expert views that conflict with their own own prejudices.

True, but don't you think there are more cynical-to-science-and-fact people in the low information camp? And thanks to the net there are legitimate reasons for a expert credibility crisis. One that smacked me in the face was Amazon providing the software and platform for anyone to write and publish a book. The more savvy of these instant authors are already established on social media, and so once the book goes live scads of SM 'Friends' leave glowing reviews and rate-pump the book. BOOM! Instant expert, while most of what's in the book amounts to aggregated information from ... that's right, the Internet. It becomes a circle jerk of mediocrity. Another problem is how easily an expert's political affiliation is disseminated on the net as fodder for the inane Libtard v. Trumptard wars. Buh-bye credibility. I've seen a couple of climate change scientists tarred by Freepers as having voted for 'Killary'.

Everyone's a star in their little social media universe and they fashion their habitat with those who agree with them.
 
Those who spout Russia Today, George Galloway, chant “crooked Hillary”, watch idiots shouting on YouTube and get their news from random Twitter spam-bots and internet memes really have no place in this discussion beyond being labelled ‘Exhibit A’ and being discussed by others!
 
Seems quite accurate to me. It is blindingly obvious the whole Vote Leave campaign was based on blatant misinformation and xenophobic spin. It was almost entirely false advertising. You could never advertise any commercial product in such a way without ending up in court.
I'm beginning to think that, rather than persuading people to vote differently (ie turn Remainers to Leavers), the social media campaigns might just have been successful at getting habitual non-voters out to participate.

It is well-documented that the turnout for the referendum was at very high, possibly record, levels. It follows that this would mean that people who normally don't vote, pitched up to have their say. It seems likely that these erstwhile non-voters are not particularly politically engaged, and perhaps didn't think too deeply about the issues. These, it seems to me, would be the sort of people more likely to be influenced by advertising designed to reinforce their existing prejudices.
 
Those who spout Russia Today

we have RT america and BBC america over here. the former is, without a doubt, far more objective and intelligent. BBC america keeps bringing back the same former-bush-administration people or chaps from the heritage foundation to comment expertly on things, night after night.
 
What I’d like to see in its place is proper national political accountability, i.e. if a political party, affiliated pressure group or dodgy paid data mining company produces lies to sell a political party, side in a referendum or whatever then they, or whoever funded them, can be sued for false advertising the way an insurance company or bank would be.

How about holding them accountable for the things they campaign on, that they put in their manifestos and then renege on as soon as the voting is over?

The original political false advertising.

I would include that bollox about the 360 million pounds a week spouted in the Brexit campaign and the promise by the Labour party of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty... another promise that was dropped as soon as the vote was in.

Political parties lying to sell political parties.
 
BBC america keeps bringing back the same former-bush-administration people or chaps from the heritage foundation to comment expertly on things, night after night.
Because they're part of the Regime Change TV Network.
 
we have RT america and BBC america over here. the former is, without a doubt, far more objective and intelligent. BBC america keeps bringing back the same former-bush-administration people or chaps from the heritage foundation to comment expertly on things, night after night.

I can certainly see how you would view some content on RT as being closer to your extreme political viewpoints, but you will never convince me it is more objective or intelligent! Its agenda is just as clear as say Fox, it just pushes views and values aimed at destabilising rather than reinforcing the western status quo. Exactly as one would expect it to.

It never ceases to surprise me how many so called leftists are so desperate for airtime and exposure they’d appear on what is so obviously a propaganda tool for a deeply authoritarian and racist/homophobic Russian administration. Obviously some characters make a lot of money from their appearances, and it is obviously highly effective at forming opinion (see Exhibit A), so I can see why Putin’s administration funds it, but I can’t grasp why some folk can’t see it for what it is.
 
tony.

based on what you are writing, i don't believe you have actually watched RT america and definitely not the shows i am talking about. one of them presents a wide variety of views from all perspectives and the host is a conservative, so hardly anything to do with my political viewpoints.

then there is "on contact" with chris hedges. you have a problem with him too?

you seem to fabricating your impressions on prejudice.

btw -- for years, i had similar prejudices and never watched RT because of them.
 


advertisement


Back
Top