this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2025
2 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

77902 readers
2766 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A government ... only in theory does. Like a church represents God, because humans are too dumb to understand him directly.

"Fact-checking" is preserving a certain model of censorship and propaganda. "No fact-checking" is moving to a new model of censorship and propaganda.

Both sides of this fight prefer it being called such, so that one seems against misinformation, and the other seems against censorship, but they are not really different in this dimension. They are different in strategy and structure and interests, but neither is good for the average person.

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

“Fact-checking” is preserving a certain model of censorship and propaganda. “No fact-checking” is moving to a new model of censorship and propaganda.

Dude, facts are facts or they are not. There is no rejection of fact checking that will result in more truths being exposed to the world, only less.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

You give authority to define "facts" to a fact checking institution. That institution may not be sufficiently independent. Because of meddling the institution spreads lies under the claim they would be facts and declares actual facts as lies.

Just think about a fact checking under the authority of Trump, Musk, Zuckerberg, AIPAC...

[–] octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

That's a solvable problem, not a reason to reject fact checking as a concept.

[–] pupbiru@aussie.zone 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

this is mostly an american take, and most of the rest of the world tends to disagree with this “free speech absolutism”

it’s the slippery slope fallacy