Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] [Air-L] Fake News

Luiz Moncau lfmoncau at law.stanford.edu
Mon Dec 12 20:38:12 PST 2016


Hi all,

My first message to this group.

However problematic and broad are the terms "fake" and "news", there is one
important point to emphasize.

Google, facebook and other internet social networks are not liable
(legally) for the content their users produce. They are considered
intermediaries that should be shielded from liability to protect free
speech.

This is a fundamental distinction from other media platforms, who are
liable for the content they produce. I am not an expert in US media law but
here we have court decisions addressing the problem of "fake news" on
traditional media, such as NYT v. Sullivan.

The whole debate on "fake news" is related to the role of these new
internet intermediaries and if they should do something to stop "fake
news". There are great arguments on both sides. And there are many types of
intermediaries (social networks, search engines, video platforms, comments
sections of newspapers). It is hard to think that any one-size-fits-all
approach to the problem will work.

Besides that, many of these intermediaries are being considered less (at
least on a discourse level) as an User generated platform and more just
like media. See an example here -
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/11/google-frames-shapes-and-distorts-how-we-see-world


I am really not sure of this is good at all. What are the risks is asking a
private platform to block or hinder the dissemination of certain types of
content? How they already do it and what kind of benefits and risks it
entail?

The debate on extremist (not fake) content is really hot right now. Check
this news, for example:
https://blog.twitter.com/2016/partnering-to-help-curb-the-spread-of-terrorist-content-online

Where is this going to stop? I have lots of concerns both on free speech
and on the other values policies and initiatives aim to protect. Can we
have it all?

This was all to makw the point that the distinction between fake news on
platforms that do not produce their own content and traditional media is
important.

Hope it helps to frame this awesome debate.




On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:18 PM Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes <
alps6085 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not sure about the breadth of the definition of "fake news" that is
> implied.
>
>
>
> THE ONION is NOT "fake news," in the sense currently assumed by the mass
> media.
>
>
>
> Conversely, FOX NEWS, for example, is a MAJOR producer of "fake news."
>
>
>
> So, why should we trust mass media when they talk about "fake news?"
>
>
>
> It's another Trumpism, the deal with the fox and the henhouse.
>
>
>
> Satyr is NEVER "fake news."
>
>
>
> If you dilute everything, nothing tastes like anything.
>
>
>
> Best Regards | Cordiales Saludos | Grato,
>
>
>
> Andrés L. Pacheco Sanfuentes
>
> <alps at acm.org>
>
> +1 (347) 766-5008
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, kalev leetaru <kalev.leetaru5 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The concept of "fake news" is very complex, ranging from satirical to
>
> > misleading to malicious content and, when looking globally, covers not
> just
>
> > social media, but SMS and FTF communication. Much like humor, where one
>
> > person's hilarious joke might be deeply offensive to another, a good
> portion
>
> > of "fake news" revolves around how societies and peoples with different
>
> > backgrounds interpret and construct meaning from a shared set of
>
> > information. Paul Linebarger's 1948 book "Psychological Warfare" is a
>
> > powerful read into the roots and methodology of inorganic
> constructionism of
>
> > the kind that underlies much of the hundred shades of gray that we today
>
> > frequently label as "fake news." This is also why purely technological
>
> > solutions will always struggle with this complex middle ground that
>
> > constitutes a large portion of "fake news." Instead, "information
> literacy"
>
> > coupled with technological assistance offer perhaps the most robust path
>
> > forward.
>
> >
>
> > You can see more in my latest pieces:
>
> >
>
> >
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/11/30/why-stopping-fake-news-is-so-hard/
>
> >
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/10/the-inverted-pyramid-and-how-fake-news-weaponized-modern-journalistic-practice/
>
> >
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/11/the-global-perspective-on-fake-news/
>
> >
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/11/how-data-and-information-literacy-could-end-fake-news/
>
> >
>
> > Kalev
>
> > http:/kalevleetaru.com/
>
> > http://blog.gdeltproject.org/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> On Friday, December 9, 2016, Yosem Companys <companys at stanford.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> > Anyone know of any academic studies showing that fake (social media)
>
> >> > news
>
> >> > influenced the 2016 presidential election outcome?
>
> >> >
>
> >> > Thanks,
>
> >> > Yosem
>
> >> > _______________________________________________
>
> >> > The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org <javascript:;> mailing list
>
> >> > is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers
> http://aoir.org
>
> >> > Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/
>
> >> > listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> >> >
>
> >> > Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>
> >> > http://www.aoir.org/
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> >> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
>
> >> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
>
> >> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
>
> >> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> >>
>
> >> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
>
> >> http://www.aoir.org/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of
>
> > list guidelines will get you moderated:
>
> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe,
>
> > change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
>
> > companys at stanford.edu.
>
> --
>
> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable on Google. Violations
> of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20161213/f61cdabc/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list