Communicative Actions We Live By: The Problem with Fact-Checking, Tagging or Flagging Fake News - the case of Facebook
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Communicative Actions We Live By: The Problem with Fact-Checking, Tagging or Flagging Fake News - the case of Facebook. / Andersen, Jack; Søe, Sille Obelitz.
In: European Journal of Communication, Vol. 35, No. 2, 2020, p. 126-139.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Communicative Actions We Live By: The Problem with Fact-Checking, Tagging or Flagging Fake News - the case of Facebook
AU - Andersen, Jack
AU - Søe, Sille Obelitz
PY - 2020
Y1 - 2020
N2 - In this article, we question the efforts undertaken by Facebook in regard to fact-checking, tagging, and flagging instances or appearances of fake news. We argue that in a global world of communication, fake news is a form of communicative action, which we must learn to deal with rather than try to remove. The very existence of fake news is a political question inscribing itself in the history of political communication and thus in the long run a question about the democratic conversation. This conversation must and will always be a conversation where arguments (emotional or not) are discussed in a common place. In other words, there is no technical fix, such as automated flagging or tagging, to the ‘solution’ for democratic conversation. We must insist on the democratic value of listening to the other. The outcome can never be one of getting it right by algorithmic means.
AB - In this article, we question the efforts undertaken by Facebook in regard to fact-checking, tagging, and flagging instances or appearances of fake news. We argue that in a global world of communication, fake news is a form of communicative action, which we must learn to deal with rather than try to remove. The very existence of fake news is a political question inscribing itself in the history of political communication and thus in the long run a question about the democratic conversation. This conversation must and will always be a conversation where arguments (emotional or not) are discussed in a common place. In other words, there is no technical fix, such as automated flagging or tagging, to the ‘solution’ for democratic conversation. We must insist on the democratic value of listening to the other. The outcome can never be one of getting it right by algorithmic means.
U2 - 10.1177/0267323119894489
DO - 10.1177/0267323119894489
M3 - Journal article
VL - 35
SP - 126
EP - 139
JO - European Journal of Communication
JF - European Journal of Communication
SN - 0267-3231
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 228694653