Brazil to censor "fake" news.

Yesterday afternoon, the official Twitter account of Brazil’s Federal Police (its FBI equivalent) posted an extraordinary announcement. The bureaucratically nonchalant tone it used belied its significance. The tweet, at its core, purports to vest in the federal police and the federal government that oversees it the power to regulate, control, and outright censor political content on the internet that is assessed to be “false,” and to “punish” those who disseminate it. The new power would cover both social media posts and entire websites devoted to politics.

“In the next few days, the Federal Police will begin activities in Brasília [the nation’s capital] by a specially formed group to combat false news during the [upcoming 2018 presidential] election process,” the official police tweet stated. It added: “The measures are intended to identify and punish the authors of ‘fake news’ for or against candidates.” Top police officials told media outlets that their working group would include representatives of the judiciary’s election branch and leading prosecutors, though one of the key judicial figures involved is the highly controversial right-wing Supreme Court judge, Gilmar Mendes, who has long blurred judicial authority with his political activism.

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/10/first-france-now-brazil-unveils-plans-to-empower-the-government-to-censure-the-internet-in-the-name-of-stopping-fake-news/

This should be well received by some on here. I would consider the Intercept left leaning, but that's debatable. I also know that some people don't think they are very accurate. I also think they might be one of the outlets that Brazil would censor.

Fake news outlets publish false information and fail to correct the record.

Apparently being lied to is well received by some on here as well.

Ben Reilly wrote:Fake news outlets publish false information and fail to correct the record.

Apparently being lied to is well received by some on here as well.

So Brazil won't be censoring any real news?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Fake news outlets publish false information and fail to correct the record.

Apparently being lied to is well received by some on here as well.

So Brazil won't be censoring any real news?  

I don't know, I'll check and get back with you. Actually, it's probably going to come up in our Tuesday meeting for the Secret Liberal Fascists Conspiracy, so why don't I just wait until I'm out of the conference call?

"Worse, these new censorship proposals are centrally based on a newly concocted term that, from the start, never had any clear or consistent definition. In the wake of Donald Trump’s unexpected 2016 victory, U.S. media outlets produced a tidal wave of reports warning of the damage and pervasiveness of “fake news.” Seemingly overnight, every media outlet and commentator was casually using the term as though its meaning were clear and indisputable.

Yet, as many have long been warning, few people, if any, ever bothered to define what the term actually means. As a result, it’s incredibly vague, shifting, and devoid of consistent meaning. Do any news articles that contain false, significant assertions qualify? Is there some intent requirement, and if so, what is it and how is determined (does recklessness qualify)? Can large mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Globo be guilty of publishing “fake news” and thus subject to this censorship, or is it — as one expects — reserved only for small, independent blogs and outlets that lack a powerful corporate presence?"

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So Brazil won't be censoring any real news?  

I don't know, I'll check and get back with you. Actually, it's probably going to come up in our Tuesday meeting for the Secret Liberal Fascists Conspiracy, so why don't I just wait until I'm out of the conference call?

Liberal fascist?

That's a fake term.

Ben Reilly wrote:Fake news outlets publish false information and fail to correct the record.

Apparently being lied to is well received by some on here as well.

Still being a wally I see

Nobody likes being lied to and its why I constantly research articles and expose them if they are false. Where all you need do then is remove that article once evidence proves it false

The reality is many articles are opinion peices. So what you are effectivelly doing is banning a site where it does have many opinion articles because you do not agree with them. I do not agree with many and rise to the challenge and reason why I think they are poor or wrong.

What is even more insulting is how you seem to think we are all idiots and that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and only you. Where you have elevated yourself to some absurd deity status, can decide what is truthful.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Fake news outlets publish false information and fail to correct the record.

Apparently being lied to is well received by some on here as well.

Still being a wally I see

Nobody likes being lied to and its why I constantly research articles and expose them if they are false. Where all you need do then is remove that article once evidence proves it false

The reality is many articles are opinion peices. So what you are effectivelly doing is banning a site where it does have many opinion articles because you do not agree with them. I do not agree with many and rise to the challenge and reason why I think they are poor or wrong.

What is even more insulting is how you seem to think we are all idiots and that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and only you. Where you have elevated yourself to some absurd deity status, can decide what is truthful.

So would you like the position of Official NewsFix Fact Checker? It's low-paying ($0/year) and 60 hours per week.

Oh, and opinion is different, obviously. I mean, I don't think you should tell falsehoods even in opinion pieces, but I'm outside the mainstream on this subject.

Ben Reilly wrote:Fake news outlets publish false information and fail to correct the record.

Apparently being lied to is well received by some on here as well.

I don't think it's that "being lied to" is desired.  When it comes to states of mind, there are 'aggressive beliefs' and there are 'passive beliefs'.

Aggressive believers use confirmation bias to seek out ideas and arguments that confirm what they already believe.  Only passive beliefs are truly pure and uninfluenced.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Fake news outlets publish false information and fail to correct the record.

Apparently being lied to is well received by some on here as well.

Still being a wally I see

Nobody likes being lied to and its why I constantly research articles and expose them if they are false. Where all you need do then is remove that article once evidence proves it false

The reality is many articles are opinion peices. So what you are effectivelly doing is banning a site where it does have many opinion articles because you do not agree with them. I do not agree with many and rise to the challenge and reason why I think they are poor or wrong.

What is even more insulting is how you seem to think we are all idiots and that we cannot make decisions for ourselves and only you. Where you have elevated yourself to some absurd deity status, can decide what is truthful.

True, I post from Reason and Fee. Both take news stories and give their opinion. Now they cite their sources, but they are not really news organizations with journalists per se.

They are like Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity.

Ben Reilly wrote:Oh, and opinion is different, obviously. I mean, I don't think you should tell falsehoods even in opinion pieces, but I'm outside the mainstream on this subject.

Best you remove the religious section

I mean there is no evidence for any gods, clearly the Bible, the Quran are all fake news

Everyone is entittled to an opinion, even if wrong. What you do is challenge that and reason why its wrong. Not try poorly to brush it under the carpet. That has never worked in history