![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() the fourth most visited website in the US, and eighth in the world, as of this month." This web was one of the most virulent incubators of fake news stories about the US election. He takes a look at Reddit, which with "around 300 million monthly users globally. As the number of online users who get their news from social media increases, the Internet has become a dumping ground for hogwash and gobbledygook, "where truth is drowned in a sea of irrelevance," as well as "a cesspool of hate speech, anger, and trolls." The author says "the future needs not be the dystopia that the present seems to suggest." Instead of urging the public to be critical and vigilant, he demands the public be protected from these platforms. Steven Rosenbaum sheds light on the "fake-news infrastructure" that spawns websites and networks, enabling millions of "anonymous political hobbyists and social hackers" to indulge in nefarious activities - spreading vicious lies and propaganda. To answer those questions, we need to examine the fake-news infrastructure. But while “fake news” is a useful label for a very real problem, it does not tell us if we are in fact living in a “post-truth” world and, if so, whom we should hold responsible. Much of what arrives on our digital doorstep these days is best described as “fake news”: hoax stories, propaganda, and other forms of misinformation. And yet, according to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, media, academic, technology, and publishing professionals have increasingly come to view the Internet as a cesspool of hate speech, anger, and trolls. The share of Americans who get their news from social media has grown rapidly in recent years, to 62% as of 2016. But the future need not be the dystopia that the present seems to suggest. We seem to be living in a version of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, where truth is drowned in a sea of irrelevance. The spokesman for the Ministry of External Affairs, Arindam Bagchi, decried the film as a “propaganda piece designed to push a particular discredited narrative.NEW YORK – Today’s digital devices and social networks deliver so much information that even the savviest consumer cannot evaluate all of it. The government’s response has shown it at its most belligerent, as well as its most defensive.Īnxious to shield Modi from the damning charges, government ministers and officials attempted to discredit the BBC, suggesting that the documentary was a politically motivated attempt to tarnish India’s image just when it had assumed the G20’s rotating presidency. The most recent incident began when the BBC aired a documentary called “ India: The Modi Question,” which explored the prime minister’s culpability for the anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat in 2002, when over a thousand people were killed. But in three recent instances, the attention was less than flattering – and the BJP government responded like prickly adolescents. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party likes to claim that India receives more international accolades now that Modi is in charge than it did under his predecessors. NEW DELHI – Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has long been overly sensitive to world opinion, partly because Modi himself craves outside approval. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |