• AdelleChattre
    +3

    I don’t know that I am countering an argument. To me, ‘fake news’ isn’t just a useless concept for the honest inquirer, it’s a sure sign of a poisoned conversation. If ever you find yourself trying to reason with an expression as fatally flawed as that, or as ‘secret evidence’ or ‘secret laws’ or ‘enemy propaganda’ or ‘conspiracy theories’ or ‘savage lies’ or ‘unthinkable suggestion’ and so on and so on, it’s probably not going to be a fruitful dialogue. To me it seems like, and I could very easily be wrong about this, you think ‘fake news’ means news that’s fake. Like Trump saying his electoral landslide was stolen by millions of votes from illegitimate voters.

    I’m saying that as often ‘fake news’ is used to refer to the truth. Like it’s ‘fake news’ that the Syrian government hadn’t invited a NATO invasion by using chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhun. Upshot here is, beware anyone saying they’re going to save you from ‘fake news,’ and whatever you do, don’t make the mistake of assuming that ‘fake news’ magically only ever refers to other people being wrong.

    If you find yourself using that phrase, it seems to me there’s a very good chance you’re the one that’s been propagandized.

    • leweb
      +3

      My point is that there are no fake news, only stupid readers. I guess we're sort of saying the same thing.