
Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts - jimschley
http://blog.mass.gov/masslawlib/legal-history/the-law-against-lying-and-false-news-in-colonial-massachusetts/
======
rsync
"Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts"

Thankfully, we've learned a few things since then and liberal (classic
definition, not American definition), democratic minded people know how
dangerous government defined truth (no matter how simple or well accepted) is.

There is a cost to this, of course - the citizenry is required to have a level
of sophistication and erudition and they will be forced to make nuanced and
complicated judgements about the state of their world.

If you find that too high a bar to cross, a "ministry of truth" may sound
attractive. Please grow up and resist that urge. It may help to read about
twentieth century dictatorships and the history of modern, repressive regimes
in general.

~~~
da_chicken
Citizenry will do what they always have: accept the narrative that benefits
them the most or that they've been indoctrinated to accept without
questioning. The Internet isn't going to magically change human nature.

That doesn't mean that we need a Ministry of Truth a la Brazil or 1984, but
this isn't an either-or issue. The Fairness Doctrine[0] was a fairly nice
compromise. We have long required advertisers to be truthful, even using the
extremely broad standard of "truth" set by the FTC. Why shouldn't news
organizations be held to a similar ethical or moral standard? Does it benefit
society if the only opinions broadcast as fact are filtered by corporate
interests? That may be better than being filtered by government interests, but
it's still not in the best interests of the public, is it?

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine)

~~~
testvox
How would you apply the fairness doctrine to the web though. Will I have to
host opposing viewpoints on my blog or face fines? The fairness doctrine made
sense back when your ability to broadcast your opinions was limited by the
shared medium of the radio spectrum. But now that anyone with any viewpoint
can broadcast to everyone via the Internet the fairness doctrine doesn't make
sense.

~~~
solarkraft
Why? You're still spreading information and view points ...

~~~
CrystalLangUser
Why? Why would some random blog be held at the same standard at all as a
newspaper?

~~~
pavlov
Paradoxically there are many people who are conditioned to believe the random
blog over the newspaper. People have been told to "think for themselves" and
"do their own research", and so when they stumble on a conspiracy-minded blog,
it feels like a more authentic voice than mainstream media.

I don't know what the solution is. It's impossible and unreasonable to expect
individual bloggers to hold the same standard as newspapers traditionally did.
Maybe social networks could do something to educate readers?

------
ralusek
This whole "fake news" thing is absolutely ridiculous. What's interesting to
me is that I very very rarely hear a fact touted by the left OR right that is
just outright incorrect. The problem is much less to do with facts, and much
more to do with implications or conclusions, which many news sources dish out
handily.

~~~
ixtli
Its a concerted effort to discredit expert opinion which the shorter term goal
of allowing people to equate their own laymen's understanding with that of
someone versed in a subject.

~~~
patrickg_zill
Nate Silver = election expert

Me = not an expert on elections

Yet, at almost every turn along the path of the 2016 election, I was far more
accurate than Nate Silver.

Is Nate Silver's expert opinion still more valuable than mine? Is expert
opinion valuable even if it is right no more often than coin flipping?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Nate Silver = election expert

Nate Silver is a statistical analysis expert, not particularly an election
expert.

> Yet, at almost every turn along the path of the 2016 election, I was far
> more accurate than Nate Silver.

Really, for all the elections that year? What about 2008, 2010, 2012, and
2014?

> Is Nate Silver's expert opinion still more valuable than mine?

Where can we see your historical set of outcome predictions to validate their
superiority?

> Is expert opinion valuable even if it is right no more often than coin
> flipping?

Nate Silver has been right more often than coin flipping.

~~~
ixtli
Further if you were "more accurate" can you produce evidence that you were
right for the right reasons that would pass muster among your peers?

~~~
Can_Not
This is one of my pet peeves, people who boast about stumbling upon the
correct solution and/or being first to something, but can't justify or backup
their claim. Even worse is when they do the research afterwards to attempt to
retrofit an answer. A derivative of this is when you have/know only one thing,
but can't justify it in the absence of knowledge of the alternatives, but you
still rally for it as if you were knowledgeable.

In math, if you only write the correct answer, you'll get a zero for not
showing your work. In debate and discussions, there can zero, one, or more
than one correct solution to a topic, and "showing your work" is often more
valuable than having an answer, and answers can be right or wrong explicitly
depending on your work.

~~~
ixtli
Totally! I was one of these people in high school math! I remember clearly
thinking "but i got the right answer >:(" and now as a professional engineer i
reminisce about people who want to know _why_ you are right.

------
jfoutz
I'm really happy to have my freedom of speech. I don't think i would do well
under the classic Puritan model.

I do sometimes wonder if there's room for a special class of formal speech for
journalism. Grant rights perhaps formalizing protecting a source. But also
require some responsibilities. Not sure what the standard should be, but we do
the same thing for lawyers and doctors.

Also "pernicious to the publick weal" is an amusing phrase.

~~~
jadedhacker
For what its worth, we did do this though it is in part a sort of detente
between prosecutors and journalists.

This wall has been eroded, with some of the most striking erosion happening
around the threatened prosecution of James Risen for refusing to disclose a
source.

[https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-
ti...](https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-
reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/)

------
protomyth
I wonder where the government of Massachusetts stance on witches and their
accusers fits into the "Fake news was illegal" narrative.

~~~
frabbit
That was the first thing that popped into my mind. Now you could subsitute
"The Russians" or "Paedophiles" or "Terrorists" for that part in the
narrative.

------
ixtli
This is cool and interesting however I believe it's worth noting that the more
pernicious issue is that the phrase "fake news" is used to discredit expert
opinion that doesn't line up with one's preconceived notions. We replicate
this by using the term at our own peril.

~~~
gowld
That perils applies to every single synonym for "false", including "level",
"slander", "lie", "troll", etc. You can't police the dictionary as strategy to
stop falsehood and false claims about falsehood.

~~~
ixtli
"You can't police the dictionary as strategy to stop falsehood and false
claims about falsehood." This is a beautiful way to explain this that I'm
going to appropriate :)

------
TangoTrotFox
This bit is so ironic to the point that I feel they must be trying to convey a
message that is not directly stated. 17th century colonial Massachusetts.
Doesn't that ring a bell for anybody else? Salem Witch Trials.

In 17th century Massachusetts the just arbiters of truth, naturally being the
Massachusetts Government, would soon fall to frenzied lust in pursuit and
prosecution of 'witches' for which they tried, convicted, and executed
numerous individuals. The same body behind this is the one that was also
responsible for judging what was true and what was false and doling out
punishment accordingly...

------
jccalhoun
Interestingly enough in the 18th century Benjamin Franklin wrote tons of fake
news stories [https://www.hudson.org/research/13133-benjamin-franklin-
and-...](https://www.hudson.org/research/13133-benjamin-franklin-and-fake-
news)

~~~
throwawayjava
I suppose if you consider The Onion fake news...

~~~
jccalhoun
One of the sites I love to visit every few months is
[http://literallyunbelievable.org/](http://literallyunbelievable.org/) which
has screen caps of people that don't know what The Onion is.

------
lopmotr
The term only became popular after Trump's win [1], not while it was
happening, which is forever (I once read in a real paper newspaper about an
amputee who had donkey's legs attached in place of his own). This suggests
people don't like it because they went looking for something to blame for his
winning. It's entirely a partisan political concern, not a fundamental one.

[1]
[https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...](https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=fake%20news)

~~~
wilsonnb
It became popular after he won because he started using the term incorrectly
and labeling everything he disagrees with as fake news.

People weren't looking for something to blame his winning on. That's a loaded
statement. They were looking for reasons that he won. That's a reasonable
thing to do. We've never had a President like him. Our polling methods in the
2016 election didn't predict him winning. Obviously people missed something
that was a factor in this election and fake news is one of the things they
looked into.

Had Trump not butchered the term I doubt we would still be talking about it
much in the public forum.

~~~
ixtli
I'm not sure why either of these comments is being downvoted. They're both
true at the same time, though I agree with you that the parent comment
overstates what Trump actually did which was weaponize the critique into
something to generally dismiss expert opinion.

~~~
frabbit
I think you're seeing liberals and conservatives being even-handedly
"triggered". Or maybe people are telling themselve that they are sick of
politics being discussed, yet they keep coming back to it and lapping it up.

------
dsfyu404ed
In case anyone forgot, the other five states in New England don't exist
because MA was a welcoming place where the powers that be kept it's nose out
of the business of the people. MA has always been the kind of place where you
need to watch what you say about the people/groups in charge. It doesn't
surprise me at all that speaking out in a provably false way was on the books
as a crime in colonial MA.

------
CompanionCuuube
As was witchcraft.

Social scapegoating as an American institution.

------
threepipeproblm
They also banned Christmas, and most sports.

~~~
frabbit
And committed genocide against the original inhabitants and wiped out vast
numbers of species. So, yeah, laws against Fake News as defined by a bunch of
religious maniacs are great.

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
[citation needed]

The "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not
barbarism.[1] As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to
claim this was intentional.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_epidemics#Impact_on_population_numbers)

~~~
threepipeproblm
Well that's an oversimplification. Diseases wiped out 90% before they ever saw
a soldier. BUT...

'Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our
regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the
Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."' \--
[http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.c...](http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.cfm)

More commonly rumored to be used by British against Americans, though.

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
How is it an oversimplification if 90% of the population decrease was because
of initial contact, not overt actions by the Europeans against the natives?

~~~
threepipeproblm
Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the
genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally
wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing.
Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of
that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American
soldier admits to attempting to infect natives with small pox, despite his
lack of germ theory. This also explicitly contradicts your account.

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
Yes, the number killed by warfare is a rounding error in this context. And
finding a single instance where someone suggested (there is no proof it was
carried out) trying to infect the natives is an anecdote, not proof of a
systematic program of biological warfare.

~~~
threepipeproblm
I just provided the historical evidence. It was written in the past tense. Do
you think he fictionalized his account so that hundreds of years later you'd
have a stronger argument on HN lol? Can you think of another reason to
fictionalize such an account? Will be be ignoring the fact that just a few
posts ago you maintained with equal confidence that this could not have
happened at all?

More importantly, the argument that American settlers and later government
policies deliberately exterminated large populations of natives does not even
remotely rest on this. Are you really conflating them? Are you that ignorant
of the history?

You also don't seem to understand the concept of genocide, the whole point of
which is that it's extra bad to kill off a population as it gets smaller.

What a disgusting excuse for a thought process. What is it do you think that's
wrong with you that gives you such a deep need to ensure that your ancestors
were morally pure?

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
Calling something an anecdote is not saying it is untrue. Anecdotes can be
entirely true yet still tell us nothing about the prevalence or significance
of the described activity. And I never stated that the kind of activity
described in your anecdote never happened. (Please provide a citation for this
assertion.) I stated such activity was not the reason for the reduction in the
population of indigenous Americans. Who do you think my ancestors are and why
do you think this? My ancestors had nothing to do with any of this. And there
is no such thing as moral purity, not that I would care about it if there
were. What we like we call good (moral) and what we don't like we call bad
(immoral) and that's the entire scope of what "morality" is. You should engage
in some self-reflection and evaluation regarding your own poor reasoning
abilities before criticizing those of others.

~~~
threepipeproblm
"As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was
intentional."

~~~
Andre_Wanglin
What is the subject that intentional modifies in that sentence? That would be
the 90% reduction in the native population, right? You aren't going to win any
attempt at verbal/logical gamesmanship with me.

------
_emacsomancer_
I've been reading a lot about pamphleteering in the 1600s. 'Mass media' fake
news has been around for quite a while; Cromwell and the Puritans were
particularly adept at it.

------
ppod
Thou shalt not bear false witness

------
myf01d
But fake news didn't mean "news that liberals and leftists don't like" back
then

------
geggam
People also used to do duels over insults and this was considered OK.

We should bring that back. Get triggered demand a duel :)

Enough PC

~~~
ixtli
I find that the phrase "political correctness" can almost always be replaced
with "treating people with respect."

~~~
geggam
Respect is earned, not given. Giving something away demeans it and makes it
worthless.

~~~
mabramo
Disagree. Respect is given and removed if proven undeserving.

~~~
geggam
That is your choice.

To force it on society is to remove freedom from society.

That is not a choice. That is a consequence and it has consequences.

~~~
Frondo
You're not going to be jailed for being disrespectful (or "un-pc" if you
like); but other people might not want to spend time around you anymore...

~~~
geggam
I find more people are sick of PC than are a fan of it. You might have
different peers though.

~~~
mabramo
I can only speak for myself here, but I never found being "PC" to be
incongruent with how I normally treat people. Never in my every day
interactions have I considered whether or not what I do or say is PC.

Treating people with respect without expecting anything in return gets you
far.

