3 ms·

I think false conclusions are the problem. For example: "Trump approved an oil pipe.". This is no fake news. But the conclusion most outlets made was: "See, Tr

by pasta 10y ago

I think false conclusions are the problem. For example: "Trump approved an oil pipe.". This is no fake news. But the conclusion most outlets made was: "See, Trump is working with the Russians because it's Russian steel.". And even one part of the conclusion is true: it is partly Russian steel. But the steel was already bought years ago. So my questions is: how could Google and Facebook do reliable fact checking on this? So yes, maybe they can't make fake news disapear.

camillomiller 10y ago
They shouldn't. This is a byproduct of the failure of journalistic filtering. However biased, journalistic outlets used to have a role and a purpose: apply a filter to the enormous amount of information the new media society generates; stick by the truth coming from facts. What tipped it all over is the advent of three things: 24h news channels, demanding a spectacularization of news to fill an entire day of broadcasting; the Web, of course; the need to find a way for monetizing news on the Web, that led to dancing with the devil of online advertisement. We're currently in a phase where the shortcomings of the ad based business model for media are clear to everyone. How many previously respectable outlets have already burnt their integrity at the altar of clickbait and ads for the sake of keeping the lights on? What we are witnessing with fake news is what happens when a balancing power of society (media) is losing its grip and importance. The problem here being that the actors who are actively weakening that power (Google and Facebook) don't want to affirm a different flavor of that power. It's only about the money.
BearGoesChirp 10y ago
True facts can be presented in such a way to lead to fake conclusions. With only a small amount of knowledge and almost no investments I can do this on a number of topics, often presenting groups of facts that lead readers to assume opposing false conclusions. Now imagine groups that have vast amounts of resources to spend doing the same. Doing studies and only paying attention to the ones that agree with a certain view point. Scanning through other studies and statistics to find plenty of statistics that back their point even when relative to the whole body of statistics on the issue the findings are in the minority. Using psychology to find the best way to present facts with the goal of causing false conclusions to be drawn. Find legitimate critiques of opposing research but not uniformly applying them. One example is the effect of listing crime rates by grouping based on total vs per capita rates. Group X is 10% of the population but commits 20% of the crime. You can list the data as they only commit 20% of the crime, or that their crime rate per capita is double that of group Y which is 40% of the population and commits 40% of the crime. And even this might not be correct is treatment of Group's X and Y by the police are not equal. Perhaps Group Y commits more crime, but isn't as likely to be investigated? How can someone trust the facts they are being given when there are groups whose purposefully work to be able to give true facts in a way that encourages wrong conclusions?

by pasta 10y ago

camillomiller 10y ago

They shouldn't. This is a byproduct of the failure of journalistic filtering. However biased, journalistic outlets used to have a role and a purpose: apply a filter to the enormous amount of information the new media society generates; stick by the truth coming from facts. What tipped it all over is the advent of three things: 24h news channels, demanding a spectacularization of news to fill an entire day of broadcasting; the Web, of course; the need to find a way for monetizing news on the Web, that led to dancing with the devil of online advertisement. We're currently in a phase where the shortcomings of the ad based business model for media are clear to everyone. How many previously respectable outlets have already burnt their integrity at the altar of clickbait and ads for the sake of keeping the lights on? What we are witnessing with fake news is what happens when a balancing power of society (media) is losing its grip and importance. The problem here being that the actors who are actively weakening that power (Google and Facebook) don't want to affirm a different flavor of that power. It's only about the money.

BearGoesChirp 10y ago

True facts can be presented in such a way to lead to fake conclusions. With only a small amount of knowledge and almost no investments I can do this on a number of topics, often presenting groups of facts that lead readers to assume opposing false conclusions. Now imagine groups that have vast amounts of resources to spend doing the same. Doing studies and only paying attention to the ones that agree with a certain view point. Scanning through other studies and statistics to find plenty of statistics that back their point even when relative to the whole body of statistics on the issue the findings are in the minority. Using psychology to find the best way to present facts with the goal of causing false conclusions to be drawn. Find legitimate critiques of opposing research but not uniformly applying them. One example is the effect of listing crime rates by grouping based on total vs per capita rates. Group X is 10% of the population but commits 20% of the crime. You can list the data as they only commit 20% of the crime, or that their crime rate per capita is double that of group Y which is 40% of the population and commits 40% of the crime. And even this might not be correct is treatment of Group's X and Y by the police are not equal. Perhaps Group Y commits more crime, but isn't as likely to be investigated? How can someone trust the facts they are being given when there are groups whose purposefully work to be able to give true facts in a way that encourages wrong conclusions?