Now Italy Wants To Make 'Fake News' Illegal

from the but-can-you-define-it? dept

Over and over again, we’ve talked about the ridiculousness of the moral panic around so-called “fake news” — a broad and somewhat meaningless term now used to describe just about anything from actual made-up stories, to news articles that have a small factual error, to those with a “spin” that someone disagrees with. And, as we warned, the panic of “fake news” is leading to widespread calls for censorship. A few weeks ago, we wrote about how German officials were supporting a plan to criminalize “fake news” and now Italy wants to join in on the fun. In an interview with the country’s antitrust chief, Giovanni Pitruzzella, he argued that it’s really time to crack down on the internet, with government wielding the censorship power over whatever it calls “fake news.”

?Post-truth in politics is one of the drivers of populism and it is one of the threats to our democracies,? Pitruzzella said. ?We have reached a fork in the road: we have to choose whether to leave the internet like it is, the wild west, or whether it needs rules that appreciate the way communication has changed. I think we need to set those rules and this is the role of the public sector.?

Pitruzzella argued tackling fake news should not be left up to social media companies, but instead be tackled by the state through independent authorities with the power to remove fake news and impose fines, coordinated by Brussels, similar to the way the EU regulates competition.

Any time you hear of a plan for the government to be able to remove news stories or impose fines for reporting, you should get very, very worried. That is a recipe for censorship. Yes, blatantly made-up stories are a problem — but not one that should be dealt with by expanding the tools of censorship in a way that will be abused. We need to teach better media literacy and get more people to understand how to read critically and to do research. Putting tools to censor and fine journalists in the hands of government will inevitably lead to that power being abused. Someone will report on something that makes a politician look bad, and suddenly it will be declared “fake news.” We’re seeing that happen already — even without the threat of fines and censorship.

This focus on “fake news” is becoming increasingly dangerous and many of the people screaming loudest about it — including lots of journalists — don’t seem to realize where it will end. You can worry about truly made-up stories all you want, but if you think the solution to it is to increase the powers to censor and stifle and chill expression, you’re not going to be happy with how it boomerangs back on legitimate expression.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Now Italy Wants To Make 'Fake News' Illegal”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
54 Comments
Dingledore the Mildly Uncomfortable When Seated says:

It's not ridiculous, but....

ridiculousness of the moral panic around so-called “fake news”

Fake news, as in made up stories that purport to be informative, is news that is fake. Demeaning it as “so called” because you don’t believe it’s a big issue feels a bit hypocritical from someone whose country has just elected Donald “Pathological Liar” Trump to be their leader.

It is a problem and needs to be dealt with. However, you’re right that censorship is not the solution. The real solution is for the real journals to rebuild the trust with their readers by reporting the news accurately, fairly, impartially, and clearly. And it that news happens to be detailing why fake news stories are wrong, then so be it.

I can’t help feeling that the mainstream news websites are really not helping the cause when they’re plastered with clickbait stories and intrusive adverts. If you want someone to read something, you really have to give it to them in a format that can be easily read.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: It's not ridiculous, but....

Fake news will be the term used to describe anything that does meet your narrative and it will be abused in a fashion similar to the word terrorism which as you probably are already aware is used to describe anyone who does not meet your expectations in regard to race, skin color, religion, sexual orientation, social position and/or politics.

“The real solution is for the real journals to rebuild the trust with their readers”

I doubt this will solve the problem of corruption within the media industry.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: It's not ridiculous, but....

Within ten years we saw the term terrorist go from being applied to people like Mcveigh exclusively, to now being used to discuss the average armed gang member. Nothing physically changed, but now police are much more likely to use deadly force, due to terrorists deserving the lack of reserve and restraint.

I always that the Milgram Experiment was a warning, not a guideline.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: It's not ridiculous, but....

Within ten years we saw the term terrorist go from being applied to people like Mcveigh exclusively, to now being used to discuss the average armed gang member.

Not really – the phrase "one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter" has been around for a while.

What has happened is that terrorism has become much more commonplace across the world – where previously it was confined to certain hotspots – and therefore people are much more twitchy about it.

Having said that I do wonder if you would consider it comforting to be told "don’t worry he’s not a terrorist, he’s just an armed gang member" if someone was pointing a machine gun at you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 It's not ridiculous, but....

I guess if you can’t address the issue send up a smokescreen. The MSM focus on fake news is to take attention off themselves. The fact that you excuse their behavior because they were playing for your team speaks poorly of you. Off they ate to remain the 4th estate, they not choose up sides.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Can we call this what it is?

Calling it fake news masks that history and leads me to wonder why someone chose to differentiate the two.
Well "yellow journalism" doesn’t mean anything unless you know that history (and given that the history is US based that pretty much exludes everyone else).

"Fake news" on the other hand pretty much "does what it says on the tin" (UK cultural reference).

Normally I’m against the idea of coming up with a new name for an old concept – but this time there may be a point – unless you think that the old term "propaganda" covers it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Can we call this what it is?

Yellow Journalism does not exclude all nations other than the us. Not sure where you get that.

Now propaganda would certainly be an appropriate term to describe what has recently been called fake news, much of same could also be considered yellow journalism, both of which have been around since the dawn of human existence.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Can we call this what it is?

It excludes them because even if they know english, the term “yellow journalism” is distinctly american in origin, history, and common usage. So, to say “we” already have a term for it is incorrect if by “we” you mean all countries commonly using english. Not everyone had a term for it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Can we call this what it is?

But propaganda isn’t necessarily lies. It may just be framing facts in favorable light or lie by omission.

Usually the best propaganda aren’t lies, they’re just misleading or actually useless information if you look at what’s really being said. Like all those phrases in advertising: “Up to 80% off!”

only applies to one product which will probably be sold out by the time you get here. everything else is normal price.

Where if they really wanted to be helpful and not deceptive, they would tell you everything is at least x% off.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Can we call this what it is?

It’s not lying.
lie n.
1.
an intentionally false statement.

If you’ve said nothing false, you’ve not lied.

But it is deceptive. It feels like a lie because people are so ingrained with the the cooperative principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle

You generally assume people are being cooperative when speaking to you which leads you to all sorts of conclusions that are not necessarily sound because you’ve made an incorrect assumption (that the person was being cooperative).
http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-1298.png

It’s deceptive, it’s arguably reprehensible, but it’s not a lie.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Look on the bright side...

Yes, that is indeed the point of these laws.

Every law on the books has the potential for good or evil use. Considering how most governments think they are above the law what are the chances that the good application of the law is likely to outweigh the evil? We might as well start searching for unicorns because there is usually something incorrect where a human is involved.

GEMont (profile) says:

You can fool most of the people all of the time.

“You can worry about truly made-up stories all you want, but if you think the solution to it is to increase the powers to censor and stifle and chill expression, you’re not going to be happy with how it boomerangs back on legitimate expression.”

… you’re not going to be happy …

Unless of course, increasing the powers to censor and stifle and chill expression, just happens to be you’re heart’s desire, in which case;

“… you’re going to sing tidings of comfort and joy …”

might be a better choice of words.

Sigh. Someday, folks will realise that manufacturing crisis in order to create public demand for “protective” legislation, is nothing more than a business model… one that really works, and is thus used repeatedly to generate wealth by reverse interpretation, through precise wording that allows easy re-purposing.

One of the most common topics seen in these forums is the recognition of “loose” wording in new laws pertaining to copyright, innovation, and censorship, that can be used to do the opposite of what the law purports to be for.

It amazes me how this process by governments slides right past everyone, no matter how often its used.

Instead, the Grand Public Response is – a sigh, followed by the old adage of;

“Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.”

This is not a statement of what is.
Its an instruction taught by the 1% and learned by the rest.

Ah well, Hope Springs Eternal.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...