This chapter shows why defining “fake news” is worthwhile and what a suitable definition of “fake news” might look like. It begins by introducing the authors’ definition of “fake news” (§2) and employs it to set fake news apart from related phenomena that are often conflated with it (§3). It then extracts seven potential dimensions of the concept of fake news from the literature (§4) and compares the most representative definitions that have been proposed so far along those dimensions (§5). The chapter’s primary aims are (i) to enable a systematic evaluation of prevalent definitions with respect to their extensional scope, practical utility, and conceptual transparency, (ii) to demonstrate that there is more widespread agreement than one would think at the outset, and (iii) to show (in §6) that defining “fake news” is not only far from futile, but of vital importance to confront the epistemic threats posed by fake news.
Das Funktionieren moderner Demokratien hängt von der Informiertheit der Öffentlichkeit ab. Durch den Erfolg von »Fake News« und postfaktischer Politik ist diese jedoch in Gefahr, zumal parallele Öffentlichkeiten zunehmend sogenannte alternative analoge und digitale Medienangebote nutzen. In diesem Beitrag untersuchen wir, wie sich »Fake News« verbreiten und Einfluss auf Öffentlichkeit und Politik gewinnen. Dazu analysieren wir das Zusammenspiel einer Reihe kognitiver Verzerrungen mit der Funktionsweise sozialer Medien sowie die strukturellen Anreize, die der digitalisierte Medienkapitalismus setzt. Beides spielt der Verbreitung von »Fake News« in die Hände, was einige politische Akteure auszunutzen wissen. »Fake News« werden in diesem Fall als Propaganda eingesetzt. Wir unterscheiden vier Funktionen von »Fake News«-Propaganda: (1) die Täuschung der Öffentlichkeit, (2) die Stärkung von Gruppenidentitäten, (3) die Demonstration von Macht und (4) die Destabilisierung der politischen oder öffentlichen Ordnung. Einleitung Das Funktionieren moderner Demokratien hängt von der Informiertheit der Öffentlichkeit ab (Lippmann, 1922; Sproule, 2005). Durch den Erfolg von »Fake News« und postfaktischer Politik ist diese jedoch in Gefahr, zumal parallele Öffentlichkeiten zunehmend sogenannte alternative analoge und digitale Medienangebote nutzen (Benkler, Faris & Roberts, 2018). Mit dem Brexit und der Präsidentschaft Donald Trumps als politische Konstanten der letzten zwei Jahre sowie dem zunehmenden Einfluss rechtspopulistischer Parteien und russischer Staatsmedien in immer mehr Ländern der Welt 1 Der Beitrag stammt in gleichen Teilen von beiden Autoren.
Indeterminacy in legal texts is pervasive.At the same time, there is a widespread misunderstanding about what indeterminacy is - especially in the law. Legal texts are particularly interesting insofar as they address a heterogeneous audience, are applied in a variety of unforeseeable circumstances and must, at the same time, lay down clear and unambiguous standards.Sometimes they fail to do so, either by accident or by intention.While many have claimed that indeterminacy facilitates flexibility and can be strategically used, few have even recognized that there are more forms of indeterminacy than vagueness and ambiguity. A comprehensive account of legal indeterminacy is called for. This book is a contribution to lift the puzzle about the role of indeterminacy in in the law andaims to answer three, related, questions. First, what are the sources of indeterminacy in law? Second, what effects do the different forms of indeterminacy have? Third, how can and should they be intentionally used?Based on an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the different forms of indeterminacy in the wording of laws, contracts, and verdicts, this book argues for the claim that semantic vagueness is less relevant than commonly supposed in the debate, while other forms of indeterminacy (in particular, polysemy and standard-relativity) are underrated or even entirely ignored. This misconception is due to a systematic confusion between semantic vagueness and these other forms of indeterminacy. Once it is resolved, the value and functions of linguistic indeterminacy in the law can be clearly shown.
This position paper of Working Group 2 of the European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy Analysis (COST Action CA17132; https://publicpolicyargument.eu) reviews goals and functions of public argumentation. Drawing on a variety of disciplines, the paper introduces basic distinctions and charts out options. It is meant to guide reflection on the conceptual basis for the Action’s subsequent research regarding the analysis, evaluation, and design of public argumentation.
The last chapter identifies five basic functions of indeterminacyin laws, verdicts, and contracts.First, indeterminacy can facilitate the finding of compromise in the light of conflicting interests and beliefs. Second, indeterminacy can be used to counter the over- and under-inclusiveness due to an unforeseeable and complex world by delegating power or deferring decisions to better informed parties. Third, indeterminacy can be used to reduce drafting costs.Fourth, indeterminacy can be used as double talk, for example, to save face or gain deniability. Fifth, indeterminacy can be used to improve compliance, for instance, by exploiting asymmetrical information. The results of this chapter also confirm the main argument that semantic vagueness is overrated. While there are numerous functions of indeterminacy, there is no evidence that semantic vagueness has any value in the law. The forms of indeterminacy identifiable as valuable in the law are polysemy, conversational vagueness, and pragmatic indeterminacy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.