Nothing, you’d have to remove all of the users. There’s way too many viewpoints. People seem to be fine with fake news so long as it’s what they want to hear. If it’s something they don’t want to hear then it becomes fake news to them.
Maybe one could set up instances that won’t allow submission of posts until they have a comment history of X over a Y period of time. The problem could become problematic as the site is trying to build content and users.
This guy is gold! I’ve bought a few pairs of cheap headphones after reading his comparisons and reviews, and all have been spot on! He tests on both iPhone and Android, and he explains the differences in sound quality if very approachable and concise ways. When I need headphones again, his site is my no 1 stop.
The real challenge is “how do users can judge what is a fake news?”. In a similar situation it is an extremely difficult task even for newspapers with journalists on the field. See what’s happening with the blame-shifting on the bombing of Gaza’s hospital.
Even guardian and bbc have trouble understanding where is the truth.
A solution could be filtering the sources (for instance, no unknown blogs, or the sun and fox News, only reputable sources such as guardian and bbc). But important real news might be missed in this case, that are direct testimony of journalists on the field. And supposedly reputable sources such as wsj or similar are also known to have shared fake news, particularly when it comes to this conflict. And also reputable sources are biases.
It is an extremely difficult topic. No one has a definitive answer unfortunately.
I would be in favor of filtering at least the widely known sources of fake news (shady blogs, all Murdock’s media and so on)
People need to learn to admit to themselves that “I don’t know enough” and “I’ll refrain to the best of my ability from passing judgment when I don’t know enough”.
Yeah, the heavy emotion-inducing nature of propaganda is there to push you into “taking a position” (and real news often also have a strong emotion-inducing component, but if they’re honest it’s not going to be a constant “appeal to emotion” like propaganda) so it’s hard to fight oneself on this on such an emotionally feeble principle as “I shall not take stands on shit I don’t know”, but at least try it.
(And, by the way, this is also a “message to self”).
My own experience in political parties (not in the US, by the way, so don’t presume, dear reader) has shown me things like, for example, in big party conferences when asked to vote on various things almost nobody actually goes for “I abstain” even when some of those things are of the “very few people are qualified to pass judgment on this” kind. I remember this situation of voting for various suggestions to add to the party electoral program, were in an audience of over 1000 people maybe 3 or 4 would actually abstain once in a while.
Having lived in various countries in Europe, I don’t think this difficulty in admiting “I don’t know enough to make a choice here” is a local cultural phenomenon.
I don’t put wsj as reputable. I meant that even a journal considered reputable as wsj has been found publishing fake news in the past. That’s why I say that I am pro filtering all Murdoch’s media
Edit. I added an adjective in the original comment to make it clearer
I was in a similar spot a long time ago. Even though in such a situation it’s incredibly hard to see it from outside your black bubble of depression, from your family’s and friends’ POV, it really does help to try.
Gimme that canvas, let me paint some shit/ Pass me some poison, let me take a hit/ I’m just embarrassed and comfortably numb/ But failure is painful and lying is fun
Dress code, cocktails, looking so fancy/ We feel like we’re a little bit classy/ Cheers to the fact that we’re not dead/ Swimming with the sharks, but we’re still not dead yet
Psycho I go right to buy those/ Optimistic magic fix it pills/ I’m so right though, that’s my life, bro/ Underwater, coughing with my gills
Don’t let this moment go to waste/ You don’t know when the feeling could happen again/ Don’t let this moment go to waste/ You don’t know when the feeling could happen again
Touch me, taste me, tell me I’m not fading/ Tell me that I look just like a man/ 'Cause lately, baby, I’ve been going crazy/ Trying not to be an embarrassment
There is a certain compilation of rules/norms (which I’m surprised so many people don’t know about) called The Ten E-cepts (written there in the style of the philosopher Philo) which were made for anyone who may be considered a frequent browser. Commandment three points to something vital, that there’s no measure for that kind of thing. Regarding this kind of thing, each person must decide the difference and have it held to them.
A funny but also sad story related to this. Now everyone has probably heard of the Guinness book of world records, which holds all the world’s records people achieve and was made because drunk nerds in the bars in the UK (hence its name) would argue about world firsts all the time (true story). So I mentioned how I have the world record for the most websites having signed up for, and I got a triad of people at one point say they discredit the program, which turned into an argument over the apologetics and counter-apologetics of Guinness. And at the end of the argument I said something like “to anyone reading this from the Tilted Kilt, drunk arguments may resume”, because apparently nobody is safe.
asklemmy
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.