The fact that something should not be a discussion says something about the state of the free word in a society.In a free society, you may have an opinion that differs from what others normally or the truth find. In A democracy the majority decides, so what is the problem?
Camps arise especially in socially serious subjects.Those camps are largely populated by people who follow, so napraters. This ensures that objectivity disappears, apparently also in some media.
What is fake news is a subject in itself.In many cases, something is not as ‘ hard ‘ as it seems, and sometimes scientists are also able to come to other insights. To make a ‘ stupid ‘ example, look at the scientific advice regarding food. The egg and whether it is healthy or not, is a classic example of that.
Remember that I do not give an opinion on climate change but about the refusal of nu.nl
Why?Even onzinige ideas still belong to the scientific discussion. Ever was vein leave an accepted Medicic act. Inasiids are shifted and renewed. By forcing an existing vision to be maintained, you are killing the scientific discussion and the progress is crackling.
In addition: evolution as such does not exist.There are numerous opinions within the evolution theories. So where are you going to drop criteria of what is and what is no longer acceptable? Just let science be practiced in the right way. By trial and falsification. No fake news fences are needed.
What the latest news is doing first on NU.nl is simply censorship and very bad in a free and democratic country where freedom of expression should be a great thing.
It’s not a ‘ news ‘, so no fake news either.It is sound-ready nonsense. Evolution and a globular earth are clearly detectable. Even the majority of the faithful people have no problem with accepting evolution and the globalism of the Earth. This is partly because the Bible leaves enough room for the adoption of evolution as a given when you have the biblical stories and eg. Also the biblical time duration does not take strictly literally. That is not the purpose of the Bible. The Bible comes to life much more when you read it symbolically, as a visual language, as inspiration for life, as inspiration for your relationship with God and as the bundling stories that tell about the love between God and humanity.
The Bible is the basis of all Christian faith currents.However, faith and science answer completely different questions. In short: Science explains the ‘ How ‘ of the world around us, believe it ‘ why ‘.
Let us look at article 10 of European human rights:
Just see what one writes (literal quote):
- Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.
This right includes the freedom to hold an opinion and the freedom to receive or provide information or ideas, without interference from any public authority and regardless of boundaries. This article shall not preclude States from subjecting radio broadcasting and cinema or television undertakings to a system of licences.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says something similar.
One important fact is that nowhere is it stated whether you have to approve or reject an opinion.Facebook and Twitter have taught us to liking things so that we get more of the same. In the end, one can get the idea that the whole world thinks exactly so, while it is the algorithm of Facebook and Twitter that you want to please so that you come back and thus keep their platform relevant.
An interesting thought to think about is the next.Suppose you want to rewrite all the written books in the world and remove any other image. How difficult is this to get this done? I think it takes some effort anyway. Now, suppose you offer the people a free browser and a search engine to find information. How easy is it now to discard information from irrelevant results?
I still remember the time in Belgium that one could comment on newspaper articles.Under the article was 90% against and 10% for. The journalist in question removed virtually all “against” views and who did not know what was removed, got the impression that the relationship was now 10 pro against 1 against the opinion of each one who had read the article.
Maybe the Fortis case?Well, the newspaper De time in Belgium decently all reactions in the downturn and the forpropriation of Fortis by the state. As to why, one got the answer “because this was unverified information”. BNP Paribas received Fortis with the insurances on top of it (Didier Reynders received from Sarkozy the Legion d’honeur for services to the homeland, i.e. France). BNP Paribas had every interest in the fact that no negative messages appeared on the website, the former Fortis and now Ageas and BNP Paribas are large advertisers on the website of the time. The CEO of Ageas gets excessive attention, even outside of the advertisements. There are still chat sessions (since the decline and the ascension of the Smet) with the CEO. The questions were always filtered, a spiky question about the Fortis past had no chance of getting the chat. Was censored In real time.
Freedom of expression is not a pretje.It means we have to read and undergo stupid, silly, even insulting opinions. No one who likes to read that. Only the alternative, the disappearance of comments and opinions without leaving a trace, is something that nobody wants, which also makes the human rights clear. Just because no one ever gets to know what is disappearing, by whom and how much, the door is open to censorship without any control on the matter. So, yes I believe the earth is round, no, I don’t want the flat earthers to be censored. It is imperative to know what their opinion is, how far they are capable of science and how much they are. Today have exactly the same as the good old age where Mr. Pastor told the church what we were allowed to think and what not. The neat men and ladies on the first row in full of Ornaat. But the baker on the first row ndid it with the butcher’s wife. Not very Ten Commandments compatible, but that was then no problem and now neither. Every society always strives for the neat people model, where it is tucked away which does not go well with the most recent definition of neat.
Another bouncer ivmn nuclear energy.Fossil fuels are only for humans and the environment. Solar panels and windmills do not yet have a sustainable storage of energy. Back to nuclear energy. Bijvooorimage Joe Biden, Democrat and candidate president in the USA:
Let us suppose that now point NL removed the wrong views on fossil fuels and nuclear energy in recent years, because solar panels and wind were the solution.And make no mistake, I have both thermal and solar panels, I am totally convinced, that is not the matter. I can best read and judge an opinion even if I’m not for. Question of the latest new information. Well, you wouldn’t get through it now. Until one raises the ban on nuclear power and a ban I know what is about the climate.
An opinion should not be consistent with what you already think.Today with automation, KI and robots, the one who adapts is the one who survives. And that cannot be without information. Even with the best of intentions, it’s never OK to censor information. This realization usually comes only when your own opinion is removed and you collide against the wall of the censorship commision, whoever or whatever it may be.
I am therefore completely in agreement with the answer of Quora user.
Regardless of whether it concerns fake news or fake facts, every medium has the right to refuse articles.
Freedom of expression does not imply a duty to provide a platform for every expression.
It seems reasonable to me that a news medium raises a certain threshold for messages in which the facts do not achieve a certain minimum standard.
Contrary to what is thought to be in the more extreme corners, facts are not dependent on political colouring.And most media in the Netherlands, or in the West, sincerely do their best to be as factual as possible.
When it comes to climate problems, the shape of the Earth, the emergence of the universe or the development of life on Earth, then there is ample consensus in the scientific world to hold on-as a reader and as an editorial.
The counter-argument is often that science also constantly restates its views-as if that were a bad thing.Of course, science does that. Only religions do not. But it is not that science as a clock constantly swings back and forth between a flat Earth or a round earth. No, science comes a step further with every new insight.
It is also not so dissident sounds in science are suppressed.Science is international, competitive and if you can really prove that the earth is flat, you can pick up your Nobel prize. But no one is going to burn to the knully arguments you can find on Youtube-because they are not correct.
It is very annoying for conspiracy thinkers and climate deniers, but the facts are fortunately still increasing.And it’s good to note that editorial actions are seriously worrying about what is and what is not.
It’s not a fake news.They are fake facts, unless you are an American, you hear as a man and as media a bit smarter than that
Know for sure.