Fake news is a type of yellow journalism or propaganda that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media. This false information is mainly distributed by social media, but is periodically circulated through mainstream media. Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or gain financially or politically, often using sensationalist, dishonest, or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online sharing, and Internet click revenue. (
I'd add that readers have the additional problem of needing to adjust the reliability they infer from a given bond amount by the current political situation. For instance, right before a presidential election it might be worth $50 million to one of the candidates to plant a trusted story accusing their opponent of some awful impropriety (counting on verification/restitution to happen after the election) and I bet a few billionaires would be willing to part with a full billion if they thought they could swing the election singlehandedly.
On the other hand the real, reliable news organizations may not be able to endure even a single such payout and it's doubtful anyone will sell insurance given the massive moral hazard it creates for every covered journalist (conspire with friend to sell insurer short and then publish falsehood). That sounds like we might be net worse off.
I'd add that what is really needed is a background market/practice of using bonds and designated arbitrators to enforce commitments. If we were already using these in a bunch of contexts and some bond arbitration companies had established high trustworthiness then sure I suspect this could work.
However, we first need to establish that market in some context where paying off a bond doesn't signal some undesirable quality (poor journalism) so it can happen frequently enough for companies to offer dedicated bond arbitration services and the public to gain confidence in them.
But journalism is a bad place to start because we need trust in high quality service which, if working correctly, guarantees we almost never get evidence of that quality.
Yes, that system offers some advantages but notice that the incentives favor existing publications NOT adopt such a system. The incumbents, after all, have a hard earned reputation that new competitors can't duplicate quickly or cheaply. Adopting the bond system shoots themselves in the foot by giving up their greatest competitive advantage.
Also, (esp w/o NYT etc.. support) it will be very hard to establish the needed reputation for standard bond icons given that we either don't see them work correctly or learn to associate them with low quality publications.
I'm still not convinced it is really a net benefit. After all, I suspect that many politicians and market participants would be willing to pay out really massive amounts to plant a trusted story. So much that it's likely beyond what reliable journalism companies could afford to pay out.
So tm has arranged matters so that it can never learn that its charges against me are bogus. It is actually the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Its wild accusations are pure psychological projection.
[Notice that tm didn't bother to say what his comparison between Obama and Clinton was in fact designed to show. Why did he bring in Obama and compare him to Clinton if not for this reason?]
"You compare Obama to Clinton to show that Clinton isn't uniquely hypocritical"
No, that's not what I did, asshole. Of course Clinton and Obama are hypocritical, although I don't think theirs can match yours. For changing the subject, failing to address my actual argument, and displaying extreme intellectual dishonesty, I'm blocking you (again).
You compare Obama to Clinton to show that Clinton isn't uniquely hypocritical, but Obama is truly the quintessential hypocritical Democrat. The father of the drone attack on civilians, after all, won a Nobel Peace Prize. The Democratic Party positions itself as favorable to migrants, yet Obama deported record numbers. Etc. Yes, I'm prejudiced against Clinton, not so against Obama, because Clinton is so bad at the hypocrisy game--because she plays it too avidly. [I have a visceral revulsion toward her transparently hypocritical oratorical style, much as I have to Trump's for other reasons. Obama at least I can sort of listen to.]
Do Republican politicians typically have two positions? I don't think so. Only on occasional issues. Hillary systematized the process. Republican politicians, at least more so than Democratic ones, really believe the garbage they spout. They come out and tell us they are for the "job creators." The pro-capitalism of the Democrats is more covert - that is, hypocritical. They are a party based on big donors but, unlike the Republicans, they must conceal that reality.
There is one respect in which Republicans are more hypocritical--on the issue of race. The opposition to federal spending was based on racism, as the current readiness to balloon the deficit shows. In this respect, I'll say my oversimplification about the parties is misleading.
Do the smart guys like you vote strategically? I think strategic voting would be endorsed by a plurality on this site; from what I understand, Hanson advocates voting strategically. I take the idiotic position: vote on express program and subjective commitment to it. I think the symbolic significance of a vote is more important than the kind of short-term strategic considerations that are calculable. Showing unpredictable effects of "strategizing," the reactionary character of the Supreme Court in the 20s helped bring about the radicalization of the 30s. [For more on court-based strategy, see Rights, Reinterpretation, and Reform - http://juridicalcoherence.b... ] There's no substitute for leaders with the correct "internal states."
This is a blog where professed purposes are often given short shrift :)I was thinking in simple cost benefit terms, if the costs were particularly high, that would justify the dismissal as foolish, but if they aren't it would be more a matter of indifference and viable for a publication that wanted to try something novel. In terms of evolutionary biology, lots of de novo mutations are "deleterious" and subject to negative selection so they are unlikely to persist into later generations, whereas others are neutral and subject to genetic drift (a stronger force in smaller populations), and novel genes which increase fitness are rare but the source of what we normally think of as evolution. If people think this is a terrible idea, that would suggest some strong negative selection, and I'm asking why it isn't closer to neutral.
I wouldn't hesitate to call a proposal that is useless for its professed purpose "foolish." At least if I wasn't sympathetic to begin with. Nobody is expected to know whether a proposal might have some hidden worth.
Robin justifies his proposal along those lines, but in practice this could just be a way for a publication to stand out without costing much because the bonded stories are accurate and/or people don't actually care enough to challenge them. It doesn't seem "foolish" for publications to have sections which publish fact-checks of claims by public figures, even though that doesn't solve the problem of such people making false statements.
My problem with the whole "real news" vs "fake news" is that the current system as you and others have stated is based upon reputation on a given topic. The reputation system is for the most part very opaque except in the few instances where someone decides to sample a few topics and publishes statistics of such an outlet on the accuracy (which most end up ingoring at the time, and heavily discounting in the future if such was not in favor of an organization). On top this, it allows high reputation organizations the capacity to launder a few "fake news" in a way the new upstarts cannot since they do not have any reputation. Now a bond system that Hanson proposes might have its own unique set of set backs, however if there was a transparent system that we could quantify falsity amongst outlets on a variety of topics, it would even the playing field.
Existing high reputation organizations have more to lose by adopting such a system now, and low reputation organizations have more to gain as long as high reputation organizations continue to have an edge over the resources they are able to allocate to maintain their high reputation and/or spotlight other organizations low reputation. IMO the biggest problem with the bonds is that news organizations with high reputation (assuming these ones will attract the largest amounts of people willing to collect on such bonds) now have no incentive put money up for others to potentially profit off the other side of the trade, and orgnaizations with low reputation bonds wont be worth the time to try to falisfy and collect since they probably wont have as many resources.
As of now, people who want to profit off of relatively false news must do so directly on companies/commodities/currencies who they think will lose in the future after such false news gets priced into on existing markets which now favor overall bottom line over some period of time compared favoring profiting off the direction/maginitude of every single line item on the balance sheet.
I think existing markets would love to profit off such (the direction of every single line item on the balance sheet), however the level of transparency this would required is only available to those who have technical pipelines monitoring transaction flows now (like the google + mastercard deal most were made recenlty aware of, though perhaps on the margins, with psuedopublic transactions from venmo to blockchains this might be changing).
If we can agree that news organizations now are actors in an informal reputation market, whose line items are their articles, then it seems makes sense to me that people would increasingly want such organizations to have more skin in the game on every article or at least the ones that will matter the most to people. Because as of now, the only possible financial downsides for news organization on this reputation market (since every successful organization can find a group to pander and collect funds from), either comes in the form of TCP/IP blocks from CCP like government organizations, or informal bans by some large private organizations on dissemination of news from some outlets over others.
I didn't understand "certified" as "certified by the news organization". If that's what you meant, then, it is the same thing. Else, the barriers to entry make it much less fluid.
Also, for most use cases (private news and commitments), it isn't the same thing.
Given the prominence of fake new is the buildup, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the proposal is motivated primarily as trying to significantly mitigate the fake news problem.
That's a relief! Little things matter as signals of intellectual honesty.
But you're wrong on the other point too, although it's a judgment call. "Should" is significantly ambiguous here, as meaning "will" or "ought." "Will," on the other hand, is a harmlessly imprecise abbreviation for "probably will."
If you choose a news organization to publish your article, and they choose a judging organization to judge their bonds, that's basically the same thing.
I'd add that readers have the additional problem of needing to adjust the reliability they infer from a given bond amount by the current political situation. For instance, right before a presidential election it might be worth $50 million to one of the candidates to plant a trusted story accusing their opponent of some awful impropriety (counting on verification/restitution to happen after the election) and I bet a few billionaires would be willing to part with a full billion if they thought they could swing the election singlehandedly.
On the other hand the real, reliable news organizations may not be able to endure even a single such payout and it's doubtful anyone will sell insurance given the massive moral hazard it creates for every covered journalist (conspire with friend to sell insurer short and then publish falsehood). That sounds like we might be net worse off.
I'd add that what is really needed is a background market/practice of using bonds and designated arbitrators to enforce commitments. If we were already using these in a bunch of contexts and some bond arbitration companies had established high trustworthiness then sure I suspect this could work.
However, we first need to establish that market in some context where paying off a bond doesn't signal some undesirable quality (poor journalism) so it can happen frequently enough for companies to offer dedicated bond arbitration services and the public to gain confidence in them.
But journalism is a bad place to start because we need trust in high quality service which, if working correctly, guarantees we almost never get evidence of that quality.
Yes, that system offers some advantages but notice that the incentives favor existing publications NOT adopt such a system. The incumbents, after all, have a hard earned reputation that new competitors can't duplicate quickly or cheaply. Adopting the bond system shoots themselves in the foot by giving up their greatest competitive advantage.
Also, (esp w/o NYT etc.. support) it will be very hard to establish the needed reputation for standard bond icons given that we either don't see them work correctly or learn to associate them with low quality publications.
I'm still not convinced it is really a net benefit. After all, I suspect that many politicians and market participants would be willing to pay out really massive amounts to plant a trusted story. So much that it's likely beyond what reliable journalism companies could afford to pay out.
So tm has arranged matters so that it can never learn that its charges against me are bogus. It is actually the epitome of intellectual dishonesty. Its wild accusations are pure psychological projection.
[Notice that tm didn't bother to say what his comparison between Obama and Clinton was in fact designed to show. Why did he bring in Obama and compare him to Clinton if not for this reason?]
"You compare Obama to Clinton to show that Clinton isn't uniquely hypocritical"
No, that's not what I did, asshole. Of course Clinton and Obama are hypocritical, although I don't think theirs can match yours. For changing the subject, failing to address my actual argument, and displaying extreme intellectual dishonesty, I'm blocking you (again).
You compare Obama to Clinton to show that Clinton isn't uniquely hypocritical, but Obama is truly the quintessential hypocritical Democrat. The father of the drone attack on civilians, after all, won a Nobel Peace Prize. The Democratic Party positions itself as favorable to migrants, yet Obama deported record numbers. Etc. Yes, I'm prejudiced against Clinton, not so against Obama, because Clinton is so bad at the hypocrisy game--because she plays it too avidly. [I have a visceral revulsion toward her transparently hypocritical oratorical style, much as I have to Trump's for other reasons. Obama at least I can sort of listen to.]
Do Republican politicians typically have two positions? I don't think so. Only on occasional issues. Hillary systematized the process. Republican politicians, at least more so than Democratic ones, really believe the garbage they spout. They come out and tell us they are for the "job creators." The pro-capitalism of the Democrats is more covert - that is, hypocritical. They are a party based on big donors but, unlike the Republicans, they must conceal that reality.
There is one respect in which Republicans are more hypocritical--on the issue of race. The opposition to federal spending was based on racism, as the current readiness to balloon the deficit shows. In this respect, I'll say my oversimplification about the parties is misleading.
Do the smart guys like you vote strategically? I think strategic voting would be endorsed by a plurality on this site; from what I understand, Hanson advocates voting strategically. I take the idiotic position: vote on express program and subjective commitment to it. I think the symbolic significance of a vote is more important than the kind of short-term strategic considerations that are calculable. Showing unpredictable effects of "strategizing," the reactionary character of the Supreme Court in the 20s helped bring about the radicalization of the 30s. [For more on court-based strategy, see Rights, Reinterpretation, and Reform - http://juridicalcoherence.b... ] There's no substitute for leaders with the correct "internal states."
This is a blog where professed purposes are often given short shrift :)I was thinking in simple cost benefit terms, if the costs were particularly high, that would justify the dismissal as foolish, but if they aren't it would be more a matter of indifference and viable for a publication that wanted to try something novel. In terms of evolutionary biology, lots of de novo mutations are "deleterious" and subject to negative selection so they are unlikely to persist into later generations, whereas others are neutral and subject to genetic drift (a stronger force in smaller populations), and novel genes which increase fitness are rare but the source of what we normally think of as evolution. If people think this is a terrible idea, that would suggest some strong negative selection, and I'm asking why it isn't closer to neutral.
I wouldn't hesitate to call a proposal that is useless for its professed purpose "foolish." At least if I wasn't sympathetic to begin with. Nobody is expected to know whether a proposal might have some hidden worth.
Robin justifies his proposal along those lines, but in practice this could just be a way for a publication to stand out without costing much because the bonded stories are accurate and/or people don't actually care enough to challenge them. It doesn't seem "foolish" for publications to have sections which publish fact-checks of claims by public figures, even though that doesn't solve the problem of such people making false statements.
My problem with the whole "real news" vs "fake news" is that the current system as you and others have stated is based upon reputation on a given topic. The reputation system is for the most part very opaque except in the few instances where someone decides to sample a few topics and publishes statistics of such an outlet on the accuracy (which most end up ingoring at the time, and heavily discounting in the future if such was not in favor of an organization). On top this, it allows high reputation organizations the capacity to launder a few "fake news" in a way the new upstarts cannot since they do not have any reputation. Now a bond system that Hanson proposes might have its own unique set of set backs, however if there was a transparent system that we could quantify falsity amongst outlets on a variety of topics, it would even the playing field.
Existing high reputation organizations have more to lose by adopting such a system now, and low reputation organizations have more to gain as long as high reputation organizations continue to have an edge over the resources they are able to allocate to maintain their high reputation and/or spotlight other organizations low reputation. IMO the biggest problem with the bonds is that news organizations with high reputation (assuming these ones will attract the largest amounts of people willing to collect on such bonds) now have no incentive put money up for others to potentially profit off the other side of the trade, and orgnaizations with low reputation bonds wont be worth the time to try to falisfy and collect since they probably wont have as many resources.
As of now, people who want to profit off of relatively false news must do so directly on companies/commodities/currencies who they think will lose in the future after such false news gets priced into on existing markets which now favor overall bottom line over some period of time compared favoring profiting off the direction/maginitude of every single line item on the balance sheet.
I think existing markets would love to profit off such (the direction of every single line item on the balance sheet), however the level of transparency this would required is only available to those who have technical pipelines monitoring transaction flows now (like the google + mastercard deal most were made recenlty aware of, though perhaps on the margins, with psuedopublic transactions from venmo to blockchains this might be changing).
If we can agree that news organizations now are actors in an informal reputation market, whose line items are their articles, then it seems makes sense to me that people would increasingly want such organizations to have more skin in the game on every article or at least the ones that will matter the most to people. Because as of now, the only possible financial downsides for news organization on this reputation market (since every successful organization can find a group to pander and collect funds from), either comes in the form of TCP/IP blocks from CCP like government organizations, or informal bans by some large private organizations on dissemination of news from some outlets over others.
I didn't understand "certified" as "certified by the news organization". If that's what you meant, then, it is the same thing. Else, the barriers to entry make it much less fluid.
Also, for most use cases (private news and commitments), it isn't the same thing.
Given the prominence of fake new is the buildup, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that the proposal is motivated primarily as trying to significantly mitigate the fake news problem.
Would it be "foolish" to implement this merely because it won't solve the "fake news" problem?
That's a relief! Little things matter as signals of intellectual honesty.
But you're wrong on the other point too, although it's a judgment call. "Should" is significantly ambiguous here, as meaning "will" or "ought." "Will," on the other hand, is a harmlessly imprecise abbreviation for "probably will."
Correction: I accept the 2nd change but not the 1st.
If you choose a news organization to publish your article, and they choose a judging organization to judge their bonds, that's basically the same thing.