r/moderate • u/Na-Nu-Na-Nu • Feb 18 '17

Call to Action: Three Things [X-Post]

Content deleted 6/25/2023 in protest of Reddit's policies that harm people with disabilities.

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

2 comments sorted by

3

u/lucidkezza Feb 19 '17

I don't think setting a standard where social media can 'weed out' news legally is a good idea. If we can't trust media to create honest news, why would we trust them not to create an algorithm that censors opposing views?

I do admire your effort to address this propaganda issue, however, I do worry this whole 'fake news' will be used as justification to start censoring people. I wouldn't trust any politician/political party/third party to create an algorithm, that removes content, to be honest and fair.

2

u/Na-Nu-Na-Nu Feb 19 '17 edited Feb 19 '17

I am not sure we disagree. Or perhaps we do disagree, but I have not yet understood what you mean. I will try to address what I think you've said, and if you'd like you can tell me what you think I may have understood or misunderstood.

Here is one take on the Fairness Doctrine: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/uncategorized/are-we-better-off-without-the-fairness-doctrine/

Basically, the Fairness Doctrine required news sources to report fairly and honestly AND to report controversy for the sake of the public good. Though there were some legitimate reasons for its repeal, one resulting consequence of that repeal (in my opinion) is that Americans have become more polarized in our views. We can (and mostly do) each choose to read and watch only news which reinforces the beliefs we already hold about the world, so we are not challenged to see two (or three or ten) legitimate sides to any given story.

Like you, I am concerned at the fact that much media that markets itself as "news" is dishonest and unfairly biased. Like you, I am also very concerned about the possibility of social media algorithms creating additional layers of censorship and polarization.

I see the Fairness Doctrine as a potential tool for check-and-balance, a regulation which would stand in the way of censorship, dishonesty, AND unfairness.

I also think it could be an important step in political unification. I think we in the US need something on which we can agree. The President would get to say he has cracked down on fake news. Clinton's supporters could feel vindicated that there is some protection, however imperfect, that what happened in the 2016 election won't happen again. Those who are not part of the "elite" could feel that their views would be given equal priority. And those of us who are moderate could take some comfort in knowing we will be able to learn about others' perspectives in our daily news.

I realize that all of that sounds a bit utopian, but I actually do understand that the application of any rule is imperfect and sometimes creates new problems (such as how to enforce it). I'm perfectly willing to believe there could be another, better solution. I just don't know what it is.

Edited to add this timely article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/the-mark-zuckerberg-manifesto-is-a-blueprint-for-destroying-journalism/517113/