Facery, a war with fake news

Is it true that a man's wrong information is the salvation of another man?

Or is it really true that people's censorship is sometimes the sublime of God?

Nolan Higdon, the author and lecturer at the university, may not be so pondered to ether. What he is convinced is that as I wrote on Sunday at the salon, “a war with fake news backfired.” His subtitles tell the story and the truth about his meaning. Wit:

“Content moderation did not eradicate fake news.”

No, this is not news for new American readers. However, there is a deeper problem that Higudon has not dealt with. For example, he wrote, “CNN's Chief Media Analyst, a Brasster Terter, has recently tweeted that the fact check has become a dirty word.” You shouldn't do so. However, there is something that should be considered not only dirty, but also worthy of eradication. Professional “organizations that confirm facts” have been promoted to Demigod status to determine “democracy”. (Details later.)

Incorrect direction of wrong information

To clarify, it is probably encouraging that the left -wing outlet, such as a salon, is an editor with the big technology truth police. He also doubts that this has only occurred when this has caused a clearly rebellious cultural change. Anyway, it is this area where Higudon is shining, and I write it

Content moderation did not eradicate fake news. Rather, it is a tool that is performed by people who have power to form the story and integrate the influence. … What this means for users is to show that the platform is always biased, what they want to see, what are more, and below.

Higudon wisely pointed out that “fake news” is not a new problem in the past. (Why don't you have a false witness? “Is commanding a lie because the lie has bothered a man.) And he concludes his work:

The trust of the billionaire and high -tech companies to act as a true gatekeeper does not protect democracy. It was dangerous. These efforts have built a more powerful tool to control and distort the story instead of being able to critically involve information. The war with fake news backfired, and has established a system that demanded general skepticism of information and seeking to deepen. The lessons are clear. In democracy, the true resistance to fake news comes from critically media literacy citizens, not the billionaire's gatekeeper.

Is it a bipartisan problem?

HIGDON's above observation is almost accurate. Nevertheless, he seems to be selling something called incorrect information (or at least bad inference). In other words, he speaks as if the censorship cartel was a superbable effort. This is the opposite of the mystery. He also claims that he must be afraid of the major technical bias of the protramp lamp, or at least hints.

The strange thing is confessing that Higdon's warning has been born after 2016. And what happened at that time to pray?

Donald Trump has taken power (executive department) power.

Nevertheless, censorship was not his favor. Rather, it was very clearly designed to fight against what he thought was probably a harmful lie. So questions:

If there was no problem when the major technical censorship of the protramp lamp had a power, why should he think that it would be a problem when he is now holding his power?

Of course, this question may have a good answer. But Higudon does not provide it.

In fact, it was Biden's officials to apply pressure to a major technical organization to censor to censorship of Americans and use them as a proxy to do the illegal government. Trump officials did not do this during his first term, so they will not try it now. And if so, the media is all of it.

Higudon may oppose. But this is because, as he puts it, he believes that many of the previous critics of the fake news have been strangely concerned about fake information and matched (Trump). 。 Many? HIGDON gives only one or two entrepreneurs, the founder of Facebook, and only one or two entrepreneurs. He further claimed that the mask had entered a political struggle, and eventually grabbed himself in the Trump wagon for personal benefits. This is a strange conclusion.

How to lose friends and alienate people

The translated Higudon papers are as follows. You are the wealthy man in the world, led a successful business, and enjoys the main news. You are a “man of an electric car” and you are suffering from facilities because you are SpaceX Visionary. You are respected from most Americans, left, right, and center. After that, you have a capital idea:

“Hey, I walk around politics and disagree with the establishment and intentions. I completely apologize to the political party and the population. I lose the money to buy a social media platform (X) and use it. Then, I will end up with a politician (Trump) who is inconvenienced around the world. “

“It really supports my business fate!”

Is it your theory, Higudon?

Musuk was able to stay politically neutral, and yesterday and today's trampistist, remained in Biden Rock. Instead, he chose the conviction of cash.

Regarding Zuckerberg, there are no signs he will go to Trump. He simply decided to stop the left censorship (preferably) to stop the left censorship. In fact, he states that X's “Community Note” system will be duplicated.

This does not mean that a powerful person does not see what is on the wall. But the difference is not the rise of Trump. Rather, they may recognize the Americans, the market, are finally awakened (for now) and cultural changes that are rebelled against political parties that enable them.

Just a fact, your wife?

Speaking of will, we bring us to the beasts mentioned above. The normalization of these entities means they care about the facts. Obviously, we are satisfied with our fiction. But questions:

Do you say, or “I don't care about the facts. My business is a lie”?

I am a fact checker. If you investigate the claims you have heard, you are a factor. Many Americans are a checker for facts, and all good people are interested in learning facts. Oh, we are not good at identifying them. Humans are often rationalized and defective creatures.

But this can be applied to everyone -especially the employment of “Professional Facts Check Org”. And everyone has prejudice. The question is whether we agree or lies.

A specialized checker is a de facto registrant and a de facto truth that is bidding for a true powerful negative. That is also a problem with the “content model rate”. Professor Thomas Sewell observes his life and generally says, “There is no solution … there is only trade -off.” Fake news can spread through information democracy of open social media platforms. But rather, there is an alternative today. Is it a fake news that is consistently implemented by removing the information approved by the government?