Helping vs. Meddling: where's the line? | THE COLLINE GATE

Helping vs. Meddling: where's the line? Feb 7, 2017 8:57:16 GMT -5

Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2017 8:57:16 GMT -5

Two major stories inexorably intertwined from the US elections: the impact of fake new on the results and the impact of Russian meddling (from hacking to spreading fake news).

Allow that both are "bad":

1) fake news is propaganda and it can influence the decisions of people who don't recognize it as propaganda

2) groups--like other nations' governments--shouldn't be involving themselves in elections that don't concern them

Both seem to make sense, right? And both were "fractured" during the most recent election, both evoked a huge response, from the media, the citizenry, and actual government officials.

But one of the things that bugs me, personally, about that response was the apparent lack of recognition that both of the above precepts are violated year in and year out, in election after election all over the world. The US has, itself, "meddled" in more elections than one can shake a stick at. And propaganda flows freely from both major parties; sometimes that propaganda is even reinforced by elements of the media.

So look at this: money.cnn.com/2017/02/06/technology/france-elections-fake-news-facebook-google/index.html

Google and Facebook are partnering with journalists to help prevent fake news stories from spreading during France's presidential election.

Google News Lab and the non-profit First Draft News have launched a verification project called "CrossCheck" that will help French newsrooms identify and quickly debunk hoaxes, rumors and other false claims.

It's presented as an absolute positive in the story, a Good Thing. But is it? Because it represents both meddling AND a potential for propaganda. Because someonw is getting to make these calls on what is allowable and what is not. And that someone is apparently not the government. It's not even the French Media, per se. It's a "project" of a multi-national corporation.

Probably, it will all be a huge success, it would be lauding as a Great Thing. Probably.

Helping vs. Meddling: where's the line? Feb 7, 2017 11:19:46 GMT -5

Post by Amadan on Feb 7, 2017 11:19:46 GMT -5

Of course other countries have an interest in our elections and vice versa. It's hardly surprising that Putin, and every other world leader, would have a preference as to who becomes President, and might choose to express that preference and even push some propaganda or support through back channels. It's what major powers do. We do it, they do it, everyone does it.

Actively hacking into another nation's political parties' databases (if true), however, reaches the level of "Seriously aggressive intervention that merits a response."

(I don't doubt we've pulled stunts like this too, and I would expect a country that catches us at it to respond poorly.)

As for "CrossCheck" - I do think the idea is good. Some way of vetting news stories, a sort of "official" Snopes.com. The problem is of course that every group has biases. Snopes has long been under fire, mostly by conservatives, for an alleged liberal bias. I do think contributors to Snopes probably lean left, but I think the reason it has seemed for years that Snopes is "out to get" right-wingers is that conservatives have been the ones more prone to circulating ridiculous, laughable-on-the-face-of-it emails. You know the ones - how Jane Fonda acted the prima donna at a restaurant and got smacked down by a Vietnam war vet, or how Obama issued an executive order in the middle of the night banning Bibles. Shit like that that your crazy right-wing uncle sends.

Lately, I see nearly as many silly memes and fake news stories coming from the left, but it does seem to be the alt-right that is making dedicated efforts to churn out "fake news" and claim that all mainstream media is unreliable "fake news" because of liberal bias.

I think fact checker organizations are good, but they will have to be transparent about their sources and how they reach their conclusions. And they'll still get dinged for bias by groups that don't like having their alternative facts checked.