Hillary Demands Government Censorship Of “Fake News”

I agree only allow government approved news.

>>94183
>CNN article about pizzagate.
Wow this is certainly a worth reading non-biased article. I'm sure it'll provide a lot of hard facts with sources and proof to back up their claims. Surely it won't just be an echo chamber for a corrupt politician that's lashing out because they lost an election.

>>94186
> Surely it won't just be an echo chamber for a corrupt politician that's lashing out because they lost an election.

That sounds suspiciously like "fake news" to me.

You wouldn't want to get a visit from the Ministry of News Purity now, would you?...

>>94183
>Claim that Pepe is a symbol of white supremacism
>base part of your campaign on the wage gap lie
>want to ban fake news
kek

My biggest problem with these efforts to ban "fake news" is that it's going to be completely one-sided. They'll ban conservative fake news but liberal fake news will stay

>>94207

Some of us have jobs and can't be on 4chan 24/7 but the article is current news and the "48 hours" clause applies to the threads themselves, not the date of the article.

>>94219
> No news older than 48 hours, this is a stipulation to keep it current.

Then we might as well just talk about the fucking weather…

Because in today’s society, where people have access to literally thousands upon thousands of news articles everyday (indeed, every hour) via the Internet, there is no way any human can keep up with it all, within a 48 hour time frame.

I consider myself a bit of a “newsie” and I didn’t hear about Hillary’s comments above until today and I believe it’s still critically important and the issue is still current news that everybody ought to be aware of.

As for /pol/, you know as well as I, that it’s a wasteland (or you wouldn’t be here) where having any kinda conversation that’s even remotely of value is almost impossible but as /news/ does not allow the posting of pics, 90% of the illiterate shiposters from /pol/ avoid this board and that gives posters the “breathing room” to have interesting conversations (akin to the good ol’ days of Usenet).

>>94229
>but if you look at the catalog, there has already been a thread started on this topic.

I'd like to suggest to Hiroshimoot that the catalog page for /news/ ought to use the standard catalog page as the rest of 4chan with clickable thumbnails, even if the board itself doesn't allow posting of pics (beyond the OP).

hi to all people of 4chan(a.k.a: people from deepweb) are you ready to lose your anonymity, so it's about time, i created everything and now i will knock it down, bye

Seems logical and necessary. All rights need to be limited because we share of world with finite resources and no one can enjoy infinite freedom with respect to any one right.

An educated electorate is essential to the democratic process. News is essential for an educated electorate.

We hold businesses accountable for false advertising. News is now a similar product, sometimes with ulterior motives than public interest. News that is similarly and beyond reasonable doubt intentionally misleading, propagating objectively false information, should therefore be fair grounds for legal dispute and consequently perhaps censorship or liability for damages.

There exists relevant historic precedent. Trump himself has advocated libel laws similar to what has successfully existed in the UK.
It's just never been much of an issue until this election. Now's the time to change our strategy.

>>94241
This is the most pathetic thing I've ever read. Our Constitution gives us the right to free speech, be it lies, misleading, or any combination of the two.

Since when does the public need to be babied? Instead of limiting speech and starting a slippery slope, let's teach kids, and adults apparently, to think subjectively. Personally, I question every bit of news I hear. If it's important enough, I'll research it on my own. Every human being should be doing this, rather than blindly trusting the news outlets.

To suggest limiting speech in any way is unamerican and unconstitutional.

>>94268

I really do understand where you're coming from but we need to adapt to changing realities.

First of all, the context in which our constitution was crafted was a society in which citizens did not have the power to directly elect the head of the executive branch. That was intentional to prevent a foreign power from influencing the electorate against their own interest and to prevent a populist demagogue that would seek to disintegrate the democracy from being elected. The founders were well aware of human nature and understood that risk. We no longer enjoy that protection so we depend on the electorate to will the continuation of our Republic and the interests of our people.

Secondly, the digital medium of the internet has fundamentally altered the means by which humans consume information in ways that the constitution could not have been crafted to anticipate. Just three decades ago, everyone consumed their national news from the same several networks that could easily be held accountable for false reporting. None of that holds true anymore.

The fact is, government is no longer the only source of censorship that society need worry about. Concerted efforts to flood out factual information with misinformation is now feasible and effective and unsurprisingly we see exactly that tactic being taken advantage of by parties with ulterior motives than simply serving news. It has effectively the same outcome as officially mediated censorship and propaganda.

So what is the alternative other than to hold news media accountable for the truth value and intention of the views they propagate to some extent? We need to strike an optimal balance.

>>94268
>Since when does the public need to be babied? Instead of limiting speech and starting a slippery slope, let's teach kids, and adults apparently, to think subjectively. Personally, I question every bit of news I hear. If it's important enough, I'll research it on my own. Every human being should be doing this, rather than blindly trusting the news outlets.

Since we gained the technological power to annihilate the biosphere. "We'll learn from our mistakes" and "oh well, if our society fails, the world will keep going" can no longer be taken for granted. We can't assume the constitution will be forever relevant as is. That's why there is a process for amendment. And yes, there are grave dangers there too. But again, we need to find a balance. There is no perfect answer.

Even if it's against the letter of the law proposed by our founders, it is in its spirit. The founding fathers would have understood the ultimate importance of compassion and reason above all codified regulation. That is what motivated them at penalty of death to found a new type of country. If anyone understood, it would be them.

relevant
>>90580

>>94300

This. The Founders preached Democracy yet created the Electoral College to pick the President, not even specifying that the general population should vote for electors, because they didn't trust the general population of the time with having necessary or sufficient information to make national-level decisions. And based on education and communication standards of the time, they had a point.

Obviously when education and communication improved, as they did very quickly, the popular vote tied to the electoral vote solidly. But now we have this situation where even though we're well-educated and have information available if we want to research it, the communication methods have suddenly fallen to shit -- fake news is just the phenomenon tipping the past year, but the past 20 years has had deliberate disinformation campaigns on global warming, politicians' war records, history itself (i.e. the Civil War, rose-tinted glasses over Reagan and Kennedy). So yes, people are talking about regulating how mass media is done.

Personally, I think the answer will be in a mix of technology and web infrastructure rather than top-down regulation. But in the short term there might have to be a small carrot-and-stick implementation put in place, just to get the major outlets motivated not to crawl completely into their darkest corners.

blue voter here, this is a bit much. While I do think fake news is a big problem it should be handle more by robust fact-checking on the peoples end, not the gov's end.

>>94319
>blue voter here, this is a bit much. While I do think fake news is a big problem it should be handle more by robust fact-checking on the peoples end, not the gov's end.

You're absolutely correct, but that's a bit of an impediment to the creation of a literal Ministry of Truth, isn't it.

yes, yes. government now defines what the truth is. yeeeessssss.
one more step and then the facts will once again be a function of power, regardless of truth. YYEEEEEEESSSS.

>>94312
Government is there to step in when an industry fails, and the media is failing right now. It needs regulations to be kept in check and kept factual and truthful.

>>94183
OY VEY SHUT IT DOWN
F-FAKE NEWS

Yeah right. Manipulative pedofag will not get away with taking our rights. I'm sure /pol/ will love this.

You know how you know the current generation sucks ass?

There are multiple people in here arguing the the federal government should get to decide what news the public hears.

Who could possibly defend such a ludicrous idea? Something so against our core values?

The people have the right to speak freely. The public can form an opinion based on what they say.

This is how it has been for hundreds of years. The democratic party loses an election, and now the government needs to control the media?

>>94297
> I really do understand where you're coming from but we need to adapt to changing realities.

It’s clear you really don’t understand where anon is coming from or even the basic concept of free speech.

There is no definition of “fake news” nor can there be, as literally anything and everything can be labeled as “fake” by someone somewhere who doesn’t like what’s being said.

This is exactly what the Useful Idiots of the Left have been demanding via their cries of “hate speech”, “bullying”, “shaming” and now, “fake news”, as they foolishly believe these proposed censorship laws will somehow never be used against THEM.

I’d suggest you piss off back to Twitter, (or better yet, North Korea) where you and your junta can gang up to “down vote” comments you don’t like...

Up until dems got BTFO, "fake news" on Facebook referred to "Local Mom Loses 245lb in 4 Days with this One Weird Trick Seen on Dr Oz" advertorials.

>>94415
tl;dr
>you can't know nuthin'
How very enlightening.
The judiciary interprets arguements for truth value all the time.
That is why it exists. That is why judges swear an oath to the constitution, receive life appointments and can be made to recuse themselves from trying cases in which they've a vested interest.
Claiming you're the singule source of the truth and that it includes a child sex ring run by Hillary Clinton is not inherently much different than lying to about the fuel efficiency of a car you sell.

>>94426
True, because that helped illustrate one hazard of fake news that hadn't been anticipated.

>>94431
I agree we need only government approved news

The best solution is probably promoting awareness that not everything you read on the internet is real (you'd think people would know this already but apparently not) and encourage fact checking over a plethora of sources (not just the ones that agree with you). You could also encourage news organizations to have fact checking segments or mythbuster sort of things. Not exactly super effective but a lot less dangerous than government approved truth (which both parties should be wary of, this isn't a partisan issue).

>>94432

No society enjoys perfect freedom with respect to any right, because humans have to share finite resources. The one reason for the government's existence is for precisely the reason to produce a legal framework wherein exercise of rights by one doesn't infringe on the rights of another.
If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that someone propagated false information with the intention to convince impressionable fools to make an attempt on someone else's life, you have a circumstance where someone's rights are under threat from someone exercising speech.
That's an example with an extreme hazard (someone's life is under direct threat) to illustrate a principle.

>>94426
Before the election, conservatives and republicans were roundly decrying unfair, not even fake but unfair, news from the medias, and Trump promising to legislate libel laws was met with cheering at his rallies.

>>94435
>Wall of text

>>94436
>My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/777280259875975169?lang=en

>>94436
or even fair stuff. Like "hey here's a direct quote from Donald Trump with the full context"
"OMG HOW DARE YOU SLANDER TRUMP LIKE THAT!"

>>94199
seriously though we do need to stop pretending conservatives are the only ones with fake news

>>94435
The impressionable fools should be at fault. Have you ever heard the saying, 'if Tom told you to jump off a bridge, would you?'

The idea that speech inhibits the rights of another is preposterous. One can simply ignore speech. One can research. One can respond.

Your asinine assertion that we're so diluted in fake news that it needs to be controlled is outright exaggeration and fabrication, and would ironically be banned with your liberal-supported bill.

>>94455
First off, what specifically are the measures being proposed? I suspect it isn't going to be a government office that's going to pour over individual posts one by one and vet which is false and requesting it be taken down.

Secondly, do people, non-Americans, living outside of the US, even state actors, enjoy full protection under the first amendment to spread information within the US as they please?

>The impressionable fools should be at fault.

Unfortunately by the time they're discovered to be an impressionable idiot, there's a serious risk someone already be dead.

I don't know whether we've been "too diluted" with false information; but it's simply a worthwhile consideration. I don't think the answer is clear either way. Communication over the internet is fundamentally different than IRL and our law should maybe be uniquely tailored to reflect that.

>>94430
> The judiciary interprets arguements for truth value all the time.

Oh, so now these accusations of “fake news” will be tried in open court with lawyers and such?

Yeah, I didn’t think so…

The Left/Dems have instead formed an unholy alliance with corporate on-line and other media outlets and social networks like Facebook, Twitter, etc. to arbitrarily censor any information that the Left/Dems deem to be “fake”.

And by “fake”, they mean information they don’t like, regardless of how truthful it may be.

This is some straight-up George Orwell bullshit here.

>>94469
>First off, what specifically are the measures being proposed?

Again, there can be no definition of "fake news", just as there can be no definition of "hate speech" or "bullying", etc. This is all about arbitrary, undefined and open-ended claims of somehow being "injured" by speech that result in people being dragged into court, like this guy in Canada;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott

>>94517
> No. There is a definition for fake news. That's just delusional.

Nonsense, “fake news” is just another meme term for any information somebody doesn’t like.

During the election, the Right accused Hillary of supporting an open borders policy and the Left/Dems jumped up and accused them of spreading “fake news”, with PolitiFact even supposedly “fact checking” the claim and stating that it was unequivocally false.

And even AFTER Wikileaks released transcripts of a speech by Hillary in Brazil(?) where she said exactly that, the Left/Dems continued to claim it was somehow “fake news”.

> There's a reason why we don't allow new organizations to knowingly slander someone for being a pedophile, for example.

So take the “fake news” spreader to court.

Ahh, but the SJW stormtroopers of the Left don’t want to do that, as they know full well their bullshit claims wouldn’t stand up in an actual court room…

>>94523

In the world the anti-free speech Dems would have us live in, the claim that Hillary was pro-open borders would have been censored by a Ministry of Truth, even though the claim was true.

In fact, the entire Wikileaks web site would be blocked for spreading “fake news”.

>>94183

This is hilarious. Literally a corrupt politician attempting to use corruption to cover up her corruption by labeling those who expose it as corrupt. Truly she is evil incarnate.

>>94620
>anti-free speech Dems
It's all fun and games until anti-free speech Republicans censor the internet.

>>94674
It sounds like you actually believed some of >>90580 's fake news about Hillary. He did say pro-Trump propaganda was the most profitable for him because they'd believe anything he wrote.

>>94675
>>anti-free speech Dems
>It's all fun and games until anti-free speech Republicans censor the internet.

You Democrats opened this Pandora's Box with your cries of "hate speech" and "fake news".

Enjoy having it shoved up your ass sideways...

>>94690 Couldn't agree with you more.

>>94523
Well said!

>>94690
The more that your side pretends that incidents like
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/in-macedonias-fake-news-hub-teen-shows-ap-how-its-done/2016/12/02/98bce38e-b88d-11e6-939c-91749443c5e5_story.html
don't exist and stick your head in the sand, the more my side wins.

>>94993
Which is clearly why you lost control of all forms of government I hope you keep "winning" or whatever it is you call It.

>>95021
>Dems lost control of everything!
Meanwhile:
>>95001

>>94993
>still posting WaPo brand fake news
laughingwomeneatingsalad.jpg

>>95027
The Washington Post will always be a legitimate news source whether you like what it says or not.

>>95022
they are up for reelection in 2018 along with many other democrats very few republican seats which are in safe states.
They have no control of the senate most state governments governorships senate house president and soon the supreme court. You have lost.

>>95037
>They have no control of the senate most state governments governorships senate house president and soon the supreme court. You have lost.
If you would have read the article you would have seen that there are 52 republicans in the senate, and in order for them to pass anything, they need 60 votes. And in order to get 60 votes, they need at least 8 of those 10 democrats to join them. So much for the GOP agenda, eh?

>>95040
Enjoy losing!
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/12/oops-harry-reids-nuclear-option-backfires-means-trump-will-appoint-100-judges-immediately/

>>94993
>the more my side wins.

Your side just lost the White House, the Senate, the House of Reps and most of the Governorships and State legislatures.

Not to mention that globally, France is going Rightwing next year, the UK just bailed on the EU, Poland elected a Rightwing government across the board, etc.

Real people (i.e. those who aren't trust fund babbys in college) are rejecting Leftist insanity all over the planet.

I have to admit, the whole "fake news" thing concerns me. How will they designate fake news? And, let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it passes and no fake news may be reported. What about tabloids? They make their money on "fake news". They help quiet the idiot public. Now, would there not be a chance that in passing it, the wool would be lifted and not even the given narrative be reported since it would be classified "fake news" thus rendering the liberal/SJW bullshit null and void?

>>95059
Hint: the "real people" are the leftists. The "rightists" are corporations.

>>95042
You don't know what losing is you reactionary retard. Enjoy the myth that the GOP is in lock step with each other as long as it lasts. It's going to be hilarious when the Tea Party Caucus starts voting down the big-government, tax-and-spend Trump proposals like a border wall.

As if Hillary has a single clue what is true. Hillary babbles back whatever someone told her she ought to believe. It's her arrogance and ignorance that is offensive. If she saw how arrogant and ignorant she was--showed some sign of intelligence--then I wouldn't be afraid of being anywhere near her. I sure wouldn't trust her with a child. But lots of people are as ignorant as Hillary so they would.

She can't even adhere to the simplest of security protocols that "CAUSED THE (likely) HACK BY GUYS IN RUSSIA." We wouldn't have had this problem with the election: BUT FOR HILLARY. And now she blames other people for her gross incompetence, her inadequacy to protect the USA.

People choose to believe non-sense; sometimes because they have lots of dollars but no cents. People have lots of money for a second house: but not enough sense to fill it with smoke detectors and escape plans. Sounds suicidal to me: Or money [implicitly] implies stupid.

Or because people choose to be stupid and gullible cause it's the easy way, believing in miracle, fix-themselves cures rather than earning something, anything.

>>95061
There is a difference between tabloid journalism and this shit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/world/asia/pakistan-israel-khawaja-asif-fake-news-nuclear.html

>>95065
> you
Your progressive tears are delicious.

>>94445
I'm an unabashed libcuck Hillary supporter, and even I hate Occupy Democrats and ThinkProgress and all that shit. Almost as much as Breitbart and Blaze, but they don't seem to masquerade as first-source news orgs rather than as news aggregators.
I usually think generalized cynicism to come to a bipartisan conclusion is a copout, but both sides have their uninformed echochamber fuckwits.
>>95068
She's arrogant as fuck (Colin Powell's emails confirmed as much), but she's not as blatant a liar as Trump. Like, Clinton is the, half-truths poltician kind of liar. At least her claims are usually cherry-picked from facts. She was nowhere near on the same level as "mexican immigrants are mostly rapists and climate change was created by China".
Clinton's problem isn't incompetence, it's arrogance. The idea that people (especially her political enemies) won't take issue with her bypassing security protocol, that people won't take issue with her emails, that people won't take issue with her private speeches, that the "blue wall" will hold out because her national polling averages are so strong, and that Trump's campaign will be ended if you play "Grab them by the pussy" enough.

>>95070
I'm not crying. I'm laughing at your delusions.

>>95096
Call it what ever you want you still lost.

>>95095
Clinton has flip-flopped on every major position she has ever taken.

First she was anti gay Marriage, then when the wind changed, pro, first she was pro Iraq War, then when it started to go wrong, Anti.

She has no scruples whatsoever with regards to the position she will take if she thinks it will win her the popular vote.

Also, her pro-woman campaign was a joke simply based on her getting most of her funding from the Saudis, who run perhaps the most sexist regime on earth.

>>96296

You're partly right; people found her ability to accept paycheck from some particularly despicable authoritarians to be rather unnerving.

But over 30 years, she managed to convince people that her patronage wasn't an end in itself but just realpolitik to efficiently maneuver herself into a position where she could attempt the sorts of reforms she honestly believed to be in her constituency's interest.

Trump appears equally unscrupulously pragmatic but unlike Clinton has no history in politics so nobody has any clue what his end game is. Is it even in any American's interest? All that we know for certain is that he wants to please Putin because that's the one thing he has a record of any consistency regarding, but even there we're left in the dark regarding the true justification. In comparison, the worst that can be said about Clinton is that she's a career politician.

>>96299

I'm just floored at how we can be so incredibly nonchalant with respect to the dangers of nuclear war and catastrophic climate change. Why is it still treated as a footnote, even by many democrats?

There's a serious possibility that we're not going to be able to sustain human civilization on this planet and we're more concerned with health insurance and slightly faster GDP growth. If the risk was 5% it would still be terrifying, but at least in the case of climate change you have the large majority of climatologists who have been researching this for decades in agreement, you have the beginnings of solid evidence of hazards coming to fruition on an immediate timescale. Maybe there's a case for some alarmism? I'm left feeling like almost everyone else must be slightly insane. Who gives a shit about manufacturing jobs or health insurance, maybe first make sure we'll have a livable planet in the future? Why isn't that terrifying to people?

I'd vote Trump for president for the next 10 elections if he was our best bet here; unfortunately it seems the one thing he wants for certain is an end to EPA.

>>96296
>First she was anti gay Marriage, then when the wind changed, pro.... She has no scruples whatsoever with regards to the position she will take

In the 90s you'd sink any national politician's career if you said you were pro gay marriage, even if it were your spouse. Hell, Hillary was going to sink Bill's career by not taking his last name. You cannot publically have a controversial position on an issue if you are the spouse, sibling, or child of a national politician -- due to the pain in the ass of the media you must be prepared to not "have political scruples".

And who doesn't have a controversial position on one or two issues? In the late 1800s, any national politician who openly had a black friend would be sunk.

>>94183
>2016: The year politicians called for the banning of memes

I know this has happened before but now they are actually calling for a ban on internet memes.

Can't wait to see what 2017 will bring.

>>94199
If you want to ban fake news then start with FB. It's, sadly, where most people get their news from and it's obviously incredibly leftist.

>>96382
Biased news =/= fake news

>>96383
Oh shit, all those stories about people getting harassed, attacked, and assaulted by Trump supporters were real?

That poor guy that had a glass bottle broken on his head by a Trump supporter must've been telling the truth.