What I found most interesting about Cory Doctorow’s claim that fake news is much like science fiction composed of unfalsifiable statements as to his comparison. I found it interesting how he compared the concept of fake news to an Ouija Board stating, “Ouija’s planchette and invite the spirits into the room, the movement of the planchette is driven by tiny, subconscious nerve impulses that cause you and your friends to move it around the board, picking out messages.” He then transitions this and relates to fake news, “that both of these concepts would fall under the genre of science fiction, ‘fake news’ is useful in one regard: the spread of a given hoax, or unfalsifiable statement, or truth delivered under color of falsehood, or conspiracy, or objectionable idea undeniably tell you that the idea has caught the public imagination.” I find it fascinated how he took very two different things, yet made them both of the same. He claims that we should understand “fake news” just as much as we do of falsified-creative imaginations. He then uses the anti-vax movement as an example, not that he necessarily disagrees with it, but he agrees with their process, as there has been tremendous controversy within the realm of the big-pharma industry. However, he believes “ Fake news is an instrument for measuring trauma, and the epistemological incoherence that trauma creates …” I believe this is a really interesting point because he believes it’s scary to think about half-truths taking over our beliefs and lives to a point where we’re scared about the table we put on our food. He desires to fight fake news as it spreads like an epidemic and cautions to not live in a world where evidence cannot be trusted. If I had to change anything, he ends off and blames Trump for pushing the agenda of fake news, I felt like he should’ve expanded more on this because the transition is not exactly there when reading this. First, ouija board, then fake news, then anti-vax, then Trump. I understand what he’s trying to do but I wish the transition were more clear and expanded.
Danah Boyd talks about epistemology explaining how we know what we know. She uses the agenda of conservatives who push their agendas and control the content. I found it interesting how though she doesn’t explicitly say it, but compare fake news to a virus that has spread, using technology to systematically tear at the social fabric of life. To Boyd, this is how we should understand it “it’s to create a world of content and then to push the term through to the news media at the right time so that people search for that term and receive specific content.” This text explains fake news in the essence of politicians and students wanted to learn more through sites and sources that may or may not be credible. If I had to change anything with Boyd, it would be to add a possible and explicit solution to this. Along with this, I usually am not convinced with articles that target one side in politics whether it’d be strictly conservatives or liberals, in this case, conservatives. I believe as a college student, I am forcefully fed with content that sometimes contradicts what the author is talking about, as it can apply to their articles easily. However, I am not saying she’s wrong about what she is writing about, just cherry-picking content that she wants her readers to believe as this applies to her coined phrase, “it’s to create a world of content and then to push the term through to the news media at the right time so that people search for that term and receive specific content.” Both sides of politics are relatively corrupt and this easily applies to the entire realm of politics, not just one side or the other. I think it’s interesting to use her definition of epistemology and agnotology and apply to politics in a larger sense.
