By this standard, if authoritarians start using “fabricated” to slander opponent claims, we should drop the term.
If they accuse dissidents of “lies”, we should stop talking about their lies. This strategy of constant retreat will just end up with self-censorship, and no gain.https://twitter.com/accessnow/status/1049995044860690432 …
-
Show this thread
-
If people can’t keep terms from being misused, that’s a function of power and effective opposition. Abandoning terms and concepts is just a sign of weakness. On what planet do people think if we stop using the term, somehow, it ends up with less censorship by authoritarians?
4 replies 23 retweets 107 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
i don't think that's a fair reading of how (current iteration of) 'fake news' went from US election glitch to rapidly being appropriated by states wanting to subvert it to clamp down on media freedom. this happened very fast, and we warned about this from day one.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @brodiegal
Warning about it isn't the issue. This constant ceding ground is basically a symptom of how weak dissidents are against authoritarians, and how little most NGOs understand the politics of their own space.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
i think the weakness is valid – but not specific to an NGO space (or media). + these have been far stronger than 'NGO warnings' – for me, the media (and i work in the media too) failed to consider the impact of not changing its lazy hyperbolic language, and now it bites us all.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The obvious issue is that these concepts are contested on political ground. Of coruse! Meanwhile, NGO space argues over terminology, as if there's a path out. I *constantly* hear calls to drop the term "fake news" as if that will solve anything. Politics isn't a classroom. 
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.