3 ms·

People learn. I still believe more in people than algorithms to debunk fake news. This election was step 1 in people's learning curve about it. Of course, if t

People learn. I still believe more in people than algorithms to debunk fake news. This election was step 1 in people's learning curve about it. Of course, if they don't want to learn, they won't. But no algorithm or laws will change that anyway.

danso 10y ago
> Of course, if they don't want to learn, they won't. But no algorithm or laws will change that anyway. Hasn't the recent cycle shown the power of algorithms, whether we recognize their work? If fake news was less back in the "good ol days" of the Internet, it was because Google's PageRank was inherently biased towards sites maintained by organizations with the resources and brand names to have popular sites, e.g. news organizations. If Facebook prioritizes shared stories in your news feed based by how many people shared it, then that makes it much easier for randomnewssite.biz to make it to your eyeballs via FB's ranking and filtering algorithm.
- quickConclusion 10y ago
  Agree. But my point is that people adapt and learn. They assumed PageRank was still ruling and could be somewhat trusted, and now they're learning -a little late- that FB's popular randomnewssite.biz should be challenged. Maybe something new will happen at the next election, but it will be harder to convince people with this type of fake news.
  - danso 10y ago
    I think you give users too much credit. I don't use Facebook often, but this "Related Articles" caught my eye when it popped up in the newsfeed: http://imgur.com/a/83kzS http://imgur.com/a/83kzS There's no differentiation between the 3 items in terms of visual layout, and the domains of the respective news items are visually deprioritized by Facebook's design. If you don't actually click through to "bigbluevision.org" -- and studies claim that 50-60%+ people just read a headline before sharing/moving on -- the claim that "Obama's Lawyers Official Admit Birth Certificate is Fake" has as much cognitive impression as ABC News's "Obama Calls Conversation With Trump'Excellent'". Seeing a bunch of fake headlines, over time, would seem to have the same effect as watching advertisements. The viewer doesn't have to do anything, but are affected nonetheless.

danso 10y ago

> Of course, if they don't want to learn, they won't. But no algorithm or laws will change that anyway. Hasn't the recent cycle shown the power of algorithms, whether we recognize their work? If fake news was less back in the "good ol days" of the Internet, it was because Google's PageRank was inherently biased towards sites maintained by organizations with the resources and brand names to have popular sites, e.g. news organizations. If Facebook prioritizes shared stories in your news feed based by how many people shared it, then that makes it much easier for randomnewssite.biz to make it to your eyeballs via FB's ranking and filtering algorithm.

quickConclusion 10y ago
Agree. But my point is that people adapt and learn. They assumed PageRank was still ruling and could be somewhat trusted, and now they're learning -a little late- that FB's popular randomnewssite.biz should be challenged. Maybe something new will happen at the next election, but it will be harder to convince people with this type of fake news.
- danso 10y ago
  I think you give users too much credit. I don't use Facebook often, but this "Related Articles" caught my eye when it popped up in the newsfeed: http://imgur.com/a/83kzS http://imgur.com/a/83kzS There's no differentiation between the 3 items in terms of visual layout, and the domains of the respective news items are visually deprioritized by Facebook's design. If you don't actually click through to "bigbluevision.org" -- and studies claim that 50-60%+ people just read a headline before sharing/moving on -- the claim that "Obama's Lawyers Official Admit Birth Certificate is Fake" has as much cognitive impression as ABC News's "Obama Calls Conversation With Trump'Excellent'". Seeing a bunch of fake headlines, over time, would seem to have the same effect as watching advertisements. The viewer doesn't have to do anything, but are affected nonetheless.