Yes, it's easy to imagine, because at least OpIndia publish fake news very regularly, so much so that most 'wokes' have given up fact checking them other than in particularly egregious cases (and the ones that do, like AltNews or Newslaundry, get systematically trolled and worse for it...)

https://www.altnews.in/?s=opindia

https://www.altnews.in/?s=swarajya

https://www.newslaundry.com/search?q=opindia

https://www.newslaundry.com/search?q=swarajya

A legit criticism with AltNews, however, is that they rarely if ever fact-check the left-leaning media, and haven't covered the Wire story (yet?). Two possible reasons for that: 1) their mission / bias is to keep a check on right-wing fake news (which is arguably much more organised and successful at spreading its message in India), or 2) most mainstream left wing media does not publish fake news as often?

Newslaundry tries to be fairly balanced on both sides of the spectrum and has covered the Wire story extensively and in a balanced manner: https://www.newslaundry.com/search?q=wire and also covers for instance NDTV and other mainstream stories where they get it wrong https://www.newslaundry.com/search?q=ndtv

But on point 2, honest question: if you feel like The Wire or others are regularly publishing fake news, then are there any serious 'right-of-spectrum' fact checking websites, that actually do credible research on wrong stories and have made it their mission to do so? If not, why not?

Which rock have you been hiding under? By most yardsticks, as an activist campaign / meme, MeToo was extraordinarily successful, since even you seem to be aware that there is such a thing as #MeToo. You must agree that MeToo resulted in prison sentences (like Harvey Weinstein), a huge number of firings from jobs and public positions as entertainers and politicians, and an incremental improvement in awareness and implementation of POSH laws, and arguably a little bit less public mysoginy online (or at least, when you are making such comments online, you know you might risk a backlash and also potentially lose your job, which would have been nearly unimaginable 20 years ago, say)?

Sure, there is arguably a little more MeToo / Wokeness fatigue now, but none of these things are expected to last forever.

Thread / exodus continues here (comment moved to separate thread): https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/241104-luthra-s-william-john-joins-snr-sumithra-suresh-to-cipla

FYI, your comment was marked trollish because of the last two lines.

The (intentionally) disingenuous thing in the Wire trolling has been that it was never about this specific story (which had just enough elements of truth based on previous whistleblower leaks on Facebook to be almost believable), but is gleefully used by opponents of The Wire to denigrate ALL their past and future coverage.

However, if the Wire was a "fake news" outlet (or even "Fake News", as you call it), the Wire would not have issued this retraction and have been investigating and responding to the criticisms. As it's traditionally understood (rather than being used by trolls as a term to denigrate publications they disagree with), a news outlet does not become 'Fake News' (tm) as soon as it has made a mistake in a story. Mistakes happen in journalism, because journalism is complicated.

However, it appears that they were misled and fell for a relatively sophisticated scam (which yes, they should have spotted and can be criticsed for), and did unintentionally publish incorrect / false news (in this instance), or at least news which was not sufficiently sourced. That is arguably one of the worst nightmare of any journalist.

Who duped them and for what reasons will therefore likely be the more interesting story in the long run.

Also, wanted to point out the irony that the word of Facebook has finally bcome trusted again after so long :)



https://www.gawker.com/5636765/facebook-ceo-admits-to-calling-users-dumb-fucks

It is not a far stretch by any means: Facebook (and other social media companies, Twitter included) have routinely courted governments and given them special access to data, their advertisement targeting algorithms or looked the other way while others exploited their algorithms (already forgotten about the Cambridge Analytica scandal, for which FB was literally fined billions? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal )

The Wire may have been got it wrong or they may have been the victim of an elaborate fake news campaign themselves or they may have got it right.

What is surprising though is 'everyone' suddenly having forgotten that Facebook does NOT deal in shady dealings. 😂

The question OP asked was literally, "who is giving fake news". Well, asked and answered, Facebook / Meta "gives" a lot more fake news than anyone else. Even if they don't produce it themselves, they certainly disseminate a lot of it and profit from it, that sure sounds like they're "giving" quite a bit of it.

See also: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/07/facebooks-role-in-myanmar-and-ethiopia-under-new-scrutiny

Quote:

In her testimony Haugen blamed engagement-based ranking for “literally fanning ethnic violence” in countries like Ethiopia. “Facebook … knows, they have admitted in public, that engagement-based ranking is dangerous without integrity and security systems, but then not rolled out those integrity and security systems to most of the languages in the world,” Haugen said. And that’s what is causing things like ethnic violence in Ethiopia.”

Considering the amount of noise and info- / culture-wars out there about this story, responses may be moderated strictly to stick to factual analysis only, rather than propaganda.

But suffice it to stay, if you're really looking for the only literally correct answer to your question of "who is giving fake news", it's obviously Meta: the amount of fake news that has been shared globally on its platform over the last decade (and the lies it has told in pursuit of its agenda and erosion of user privacy) surely dwarfs the fake news output of all the printing presses in the world...

Agree, we are mindful of the responsibility that comes with moderation. Regarding FM, the man, as anyone else, is unlikely to be without flaws, but in historical threads about him genuine criticism often is intermingled with what looks like a concerted effort against him, often in language that would likely be criminal if allowed to be published. As such, it is sometimes hard to pick apart actual interest of his students in discussing his legacy, qualities and lack thereof, against the real and nasty trolling attempts that also takes place. In light of the latter, we therefore err on the side of caution on this specific topic and will marking comments contested that do not supply any evidence is one way of doing so.

From what we've seen, it does not appear to be bona fide or in good faith: to the best of our knowledge, the central government's law minister has never before interfered in such a manner in NLU affairs, even in egregious purported cases of 'discrepancies'. And do the advocates' original claims have any evidence attached to them?

The articles shared are not really news (they're originally posted from January 2022) and seem mostly about manufacturing outrage and not entirely balanced, in that they don't paint a full picture and are clearly intended to rile up their target audience (as this post seems possibly likely to).

The basic facts of the story seem to check out, i.e., she appears to be the person referred to and had a conviction for rape of a three-year old in 1994: https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/SomsSUBDirectory/offenderDetails.jsp?offenderid=40993&lang=EN

However, the dog-whistly articles suggest that she was in prison as a convicted child rapist, where she changed her gender therefore became a 'woke icon'. The truth seems more complicated, in that after her release she seems to have come out as trans, and was arrested in 2014 on a misdemeanour, and spent time in a men's prison where she was allegedly sexually abused by prison guards: https://news.yahoo.com/innocent-rikers-120039502.html

Sure, there can be a valid discussion around whether reform of child sexual offenders is possible or whether all of them should be locked up and the keys be thrown away forever (as the article seems to be implying), but her speaking engagements seem to have little to do with her history as a child sexual abuser but are about prison reform and sexual abuse in prisons, which she seems prima facie qualified to opine on.

How else are you academics supposed to investigate the prison system if you do not invite former prisoners to talk? As heinous as her crime was, there is no real evidence of what views she currently holds or whether her contribution to prison reform and trans sexual abuse in prison (which is a real issue) are legitimate.

This clutching of pearls and 'oh the outrage' in those articles and perhaps those tweets is frankly not much different (albeit still somewhat less successful in popular culture) than wokism and cancel culture in its more extreme forms.

Thanks for your detailed comment. Comments were / are featured because they cite sources. Generally 'dogshit' does not qualify as a source :)

The debate is age-old and not very authoritative for the most part but based on common useage, though many judges seem to use most interchangeably and in line with fashions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/judgment-or-judgement/

https://www.legalcheek.com/2016/11/is-it-judgment-or-judgement/

We're not sure there's an 100% authoritative answer, but your argument that judgment is the thing a court renders, is one well made, dogshit aside.