why?

i struggle to see how this problem transfers to fake news regulation

transparency is precisely what can make regulations not be censorship, or I should hope so.

of course, but its easier said than done

the whole world depends on doing business with china

When a judge decides to convict someone of murder, we all know they might be wrong. The judge is not entitled to decide what objective reality is, he just decides how the judiciary system sees and treats the situation, as someone has to do it.

The same thing should be applied to fake news, which is sharing (dis)information with the false appearance of some verified news piece to influence people into making certain decisions.

Of course, there’s a big potential for censorship in how we treat fake news. So this treatment should follow clear objective criteria and be absolutely transparent.

who knows… but the us has softer means to pressure europe

Pointing that A is like B regarding the aspect X is often treated as a “comparison” between A and B, but it doesnt imply that A is as great, as important, or as bad as B. It doesnt imply that A is like B in any way other than in the aspect X.

Why not focus on the point that is being made instead of freaking out over the angles from which the analogy breaks down. Every analogy breaks down from some angle.

thats different from fake news, still

who is talking about thought crime? spreading fake news can be dangerous in a way that results in actual deaths.

people being offended by comparisons is something that puzzles me every time i see it.

One common trait between two things is enough to make an analogy. The differences between the objects being compared doesnt hinder the argument as it is based on the similarities alone.

to not piss off computer scientists and mathematicians with their dear word “algorithm”, you may want to narrow it down with the expression recommendation algorithms.

he folded to brazilian courts last year. but now, with trump in power, he may have more means to pressure back.