> What is 'fake news' for one person is truth to another.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence.

There are some things that are demonstrably true and untrue. Society gains nothing, and loses much, by simply throwing up our hands and saying "well, nothing to be done!" in the face of this.

> who decides what is the truth and whether they have the right to censor everything and everybody else

That is one heck of a leap.

Screaming the cries of censorship when faced with people who disagree--either on your point, your presentation of your point, or the facts underlying your point--is escaping to a place where your position is no longer the one being debated, it's the "terms of the debate." Thus, one no longer needs to defend their position; they can simply stand to the side and feign being the actual aggrieved party.

> I definitely don't like this trend of censorship, it's not what our western democracy is built upon.

It is not censorship. Censorship is not saying "you are incorrect about this and I am calling you out for it and encouraging others to take note of your being incorrect." Heck, censorship is not even being shouted down for one's beliefs. If you say something and other people yell at--or praise!--you for it, that's not censorship.

This article alone says there is no active censorship since people can, and do, merrily spread incorrect statements and half-baked "just asking questions" that even the Weekly World News would have found too preposterous to print.

> "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Everyone from Daniel Patrick Moynihan all the way through to Mike Pence.

Is there any evidence either of them believe that view to be a fact? Politicians routinely make up their own facts. In practice people are actually entitled to their own facts. There are mechanisms to mediate disagreements as best we can but we rely on a certain amount of goodwill rather than an ability to determine the truth.

Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts.

Certain demagogues are fond of nonstop lying, but in U.S. politics that hasn’t been the dominant approach until recently. It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.

> Historically I would argue politicians interpreted facts in their favor more than they created their own facts.

Different pronunciations of the same word; what they do is a juvenile ritual on top of lying. They don't observe facts neutrally or build a solid argument that they test against reality, they start with the conclusion and work out what they need to say to get other people there. And I'm not saying it is a failing on the part of politicians - the voters demand that sort of behaviour from them. But if that is acceptable, flat lying is acceptable. The intent and outcome aren't different as long as bargains are honoured.

> It’s dramatically harder to compromise on governance when Congress stops agreeing on facts, instead of how to interpret facts and what conclusions to draw from them.

I don't know if there is any particular evidence that is a bad thing. The main lesson from the 2000s and 2010s was if Congress is united on a course of action it is probably going to be a disaster.

The US still hasn't managed to shake off the PATRIOT act or clean out the secret law court that was established. We seem to be well into a trend where every president will be subject to a spying campaign before entering office. The US economy has been out-capitaled by literal communists in China. It seems like an excellent time to have someone challenging the basic facts that the congress has been agreeing on.

It is not censorship to point out and correct falsehoods. Without a common understanding of the world around us, at least in terms of what is true or not, what hope can we have to come to a political consensus?

Except for when it's very obviously bullshit, like the number of vatniks who insisted that the russians weren't going to invade Ukraine, or that insisted the russians hadn't invaded Ukraine even after tanks were halfway to Kyiv.

The fact is, there are many bullshitters, and their bullshit isn't up for interpretation as you suggest.

Even in that case, the people posting those statements probably believed that at the time.

Really? You think the foreign minister of the russian federation — the longest serving since the Tsarist era — doesn't know what's happening in his own country?

Obviously political appointees are going to be unreliable, I was more talking about the hordes of plebs on social media.

Where do you think they get their misinformation?

No these superspreaders know what they’re writing is lies. I don’t really understand how holding people accountable for their actions is censorship, unaccountability is just censoring the victims.

The problem is that if applied rigourously, this would also mean banning all mainstream outlets.

What a ridiculous false equivalence.

Before the russians invaded, Western mainstream media reported that the russians were preparing to invade Ukraine.

Mainstream media [kremlin propaganda] in the russian federation mocked Western mainstream media and insisted that the russians weren't about to invade.

The two are not the same.

It's news that's untrue and made up, rather than mistaken reporting. I know we can never know real truth in all circumstances, and there'll always be situations of vagueness and ambiguity. But there's still the things that did happen, to some level of veracity, and the things that people made up. The dissemination of shit people have made up while also lying and saying it's the truth does seem to present a problem.

Unless people are caught red-handed fabricating those, how can you know it's fake? You think that cross-referencing or having "reliable sources" like Wikipedia will help you know what's going on on the other side of world (e.g Ukraine/Russia)? It's probable even the people in the involved countries don't truly know what's going on.

The only facts are what I can perceive with my own senses and what comes directly from people I know enough to have a judgment I consider reliable on their trustworthiness.

Fact is that entities using the expression fake news are often not better than the ones they accuse.

I'm well aware that Western media aren't necessarily reporting the ground truth about that war. But it's an interesting one in that there's so much camera footage, mostly from Ukrainians, but also from Russian soldiers with smartphones. So, while current events are always skewed in reporting, osint has been able to piece together a more accurate picture afterwards.

>The only facts are what I can perceive with my own senses and what comes directly from people I know enough to have a judgment I consider reliable on their trustworthiness.

"My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush!" - The Waterboy

If the Waterboy trusts Mama does this make it a fact?

I don't see your point, you can judge you own mother untrustworthy. The point is that you need to have an extended and real life contact with someone before deciding to trust them.

Ultimately, the word "fact" in this context means "what someone considers a fact". You can be wrong, but if you can't trust your own senses or judgment, how can you live in this world? Well, rhetorical question, since there are no sincere solipsists.

> The only facts are what I can perceive with my own senses

Our perception and memories are known to be very unreliable.

The russian federation have repeatedly been shown to produce fake news.

Massive amounts of fake news.

Suggesting that nobody can really know the difference between fantasy and reality is a misinformation tactic used by the kremlin to create more useful idiots who suggest the same.

Can you imagine that "the kremlin" says the same to its population? Why do you think your own powers that be are any different?

Reading your comments in this thread, I know beforehand that my replying will be useless, but I'm bored.

The kremlin said that Ukraine invaded russia. The rest of the world said russia invaded Ukraine.

If you can’t see which one is right and which one is wrong, then yes, there’s no point in you replying, to anyone, about anything.

> The dissemination of shit people have made up while also lying and saying it's the truth does seem to present a problem.

The problem is that what you think of as "made up shit" and "lying" can be manipulated without you knowing.

For example, Covid lab leak theory was deliberately made to look like fake news by some guys who would lose money if it were true: https://web.archive.org/web/20210709212358id_/https://www.bm...

There is no need to be a conspiracist to simply understand that with 100% likelihood at any time there is something true that you think is fake news, no matter which side you are on.

I followed that news story at the time. There was plenty of speculation in the media, but the facts were laid out - there was a lab in the city, they were studying these types of viruses, that type of virus was also present in local wildlife that was traded.

Then it became clear that the Chinese govt wasn't going to investigate or admit if it was a leak, accidental or not. At which point I file as we'll never know + who cares at this point.

And then after that it blew up as a political football in the US. It's not fake news, it's just pointless opinions.

Fake news is saying it was a lab leak, or it wasn't a lab leak. Neither is a true statement. Both are polarising and ill informed positions.

In any case, I don't disagree with your premise that we can be manipulated quite easily.

Saying it was a lab leak, or it wasn't a lab leak is not fake news. It's just an opinion, anyone can have one.

But reputable media reporting on people saying "it may be a lab leak" as conspiracists is manipulation and "fake news". I didn't know it was so widely believed on US left but apparently it was.

> At which point I file as we'll never know + who cares at this point

We just went through a pandemic with pretty bad effects, so... everyone?

> so... everyone?

Yes you misunderstood because I worded that badly and glibly. We can't know and the issue is so muddied and we had a lot to deal with. The virus was already out, knowing wouldn't put it back. The best reaction is to reconsider all these labs anyway.

1+1=17122