5 ms·

That original, pure form of "fake news" held onto the label for about 24 hours before the definition started expanding to include all this true-but-deceptive st

by Banthum 10y ago

That original, pure form of "fake news" held onto the label for about 24 hours before the definition started expanding to include all this true-but-deceptive stuff we're talking about. Nobody's defending "true" fake news like that, but I think that kind of fake news is actually a very small part of the picture. The much bigger problem is the subtler dishonesties we're discussing here. Because they're more widespread, harder to catch, come from sources that are regarded as reputable, and thus ensnare smarter people in their falsehoods. Honest question - has there been any research on how much reach and effect "true" fake news actually has? How big is that particular sub-problem, in reality?

learc83 10y ago
>fake news is actually a very small part of the picture I'm not sure that's true. Before the election at least a 3rd of news articles shared by family members on Facebook were completely falsified. Pictures of "Bernie Sanders" driving a sports car. Stories about Obama's mother in law collecting a lifetime pension for babysitting the kids etc...
- smsm42 10y ago
  You are assuming everybody who shared those memes actually believes they are factually true, as opposed to just feeling good trash-talking somebody the (re-)poster hates.
  - jnordwick 10y ago
    Or people sharing them saying "look how fake this is"
    - learc83 10y ago
      Not the case in my situation. Unless my Facebook circle is a complete outlier full of morons, fake news is a huge problem among older conservatives.
      - jnordwick 10y ago
        Yes, because we can generalize off of your specific example. It clearly is representative of all sharing.
        learc83 10y ago
        Since you're responding to a thread about my specific example... I'm also willing to donate $100 to a charity of your choice if you can find evidence that a significant portion, (let's say more than 25%) of fake news being shared on Facebook is just people doing it to say "look how fake this is."
        jnordwick 10y ago
        What you are asking is impossible to my knowledge. I don't know of any tracking for why people share or the political affiliation of those that shared it. This also means you argument is purely conjecture too.
        learc83 10y ago
        Of course my argument is conjecture. I based it solely on my sample size of a few hundred Facebook friends--clearly stated. Absent other evidence to the contrary, that is enough to convince me that people sharing fake news mostly believe it. If you have some other evidence to present--please go ahead. Do the majority of your over 45, conservative Facebook friends and family regularly share fake news just to point out that it's fake?
  - learc83 10y ago
    If someone says they believe a story and spreads the story as factual news to their friends, it doesn't really matter whether they actually believed it in the first place. Eventually the story spreads to people who actually believe it and will take action based on it. A large percentage of my family truly believes Bernie Sanders drives a $100k sports car because they read it on Facebook. They believe that Obama's mother-in-law is getting a pension for acting as the White House babysitter. Some of them even believe that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. They believe these things because of they read fake news stories on Facebook. It's self reinforcing. They vaguely dislike someone; they read a fake negative story on facebook about the person; they believe it because they already dislike them; they dislike the person more because of the fake news story; they read more outrageous fake news; they believe it because it fits their now more biased opinion of the person. It's keeps going like this until they hate the person and will believe almost anything negative you say about them.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      How do you know they "spread it as factual news"? As far as I know, Facebook doesn't have separate setting for "spreading as factual news" vs "spreading as funny meme trash-talking that idiot I hate". It looks exactly the same. > It's keeps going like this until they hate the person and will believe almost anything negative you say about them. Like that "Trump is afraid of stairs" story that CNN featured recently? ;)
      - learc83 10y ago
        It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference if you're a human and not a computer program. If I say "smsm42's mom is fat", or "smsm42 is an idiot" that's trash talking. If I say "smsm42 defrauded the US government by awarding his mother-in-law a pension for watching his kids", or "smsm42 passed a law that give Muslims free health insurance because their religion prevents them from paying for it", or "smsm42 wasn't born in the country he says he was born in and I have proof that his birth certificate is fake"--that's fake news.
        smsm42 10y ago
- gdulli 10y ago
  A guy fired three shots in the pizzagate restaurant because he thought it was true and wanted to "investigate." Fortunately no one was hurt.
  - cat199 10y ago
    I see your 3 shots and raise you 60 cruise missiles
scribu 10y ago
It seems like there was a study from Stanford, regarding effect on the latest USA ellection: > Gentzkow and Allcott find that the most widely circulated hoaxes were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. And only about half of those who saw a false news story believed it. http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-...
realbarack 10y ago
The subtle dishonesties you speak of have existed as long as rhetoric. The true fake news is new, and a product of the internet. Solving the first one is, in my opinion, pretty much impossible on a large scale—it requires critical reading, original research and a great deal of trust in fact sourcing. Solving the second one is Google's goal here, and it's an important one. The Comet Pizza incident [1] was emblematic of how blatantly fake news can affect real people. Moreover fake news is engaging: it legitimately competes with real news [2]. So yeah, I think the sub-problem is large and efforts to solve it are a big deal. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Ping_Pong#Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory_and_2016_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Ping_Pong#Pizzagate_cons... [2]: http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/16/13659840/facebook-fake-news-chart http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/16/13659840/facebook-fa...
gdulli 10y ago
> The much bigger problem is the subtler dishonesties Maybe it's a bigger problem, but you're not going to solve dishonesty and you're not going to solve all the cognitive bias and intellectual unsophistication that lets it work. The best you can do is nudge society in a good direction that pays off maybe a generation down the road. Let's focus on stopping our elections from being manipulated since that's a significant easy win in the short term. > Honest question - has there been any research on how much reach and effect "true" fake news actually has? How big is that particular sub-problem, in reality? You should watch the open hearing from the Senate intelligence committee from 3/30. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings

by Banthum 10y ago

learc83 10y ago

>fake news is actually a very small part of the picture I'm not sure that's true. Before the election at least a 3rd of news articles shared by family members on Facebook were completely falsified. Pictures of "Bernie Sanders" driving a sports car. Stories about Obama's mother in law collecting a lifetime pension for babysitting the kids etc...

smsm42 10y ago
You are assuming everybody who shared those memes actually believes they are factually true, as opposed to just feeling good trash-talking somebody the (re-)poster hates.
- jnordwick 10y ago
  Or people sharing them saying "look how fake this is"
  - learc83 10y ago
    Not the case in my situation. Unless my Facebook circle is a complete outlier full of morons, fake news is a huge problem among older conservatives.
    - jnordwick 10y ago
      Yes, because we can generalize off of your specific example. It clearly is representative of all sharing.
      - learc83 10y ago
        Since you're responding to a thread about my specific example... I'm also willing to donate $100 to a charity of your choice if you can find evidence that a significant portion, (let's say more than 25%) of fake news being shared on Facebook is just people doing it to say "look how fake this is."
        jnordwick 10y ago
        What you are asking is impossible to my knowledge. I don't know of any tracking for why people share or the political affiliation of those that shared it. This also means you argument is purely conjecture too.
        learc83 10y ago
        Of course my argument is conjecture. I based it solely on my sample size of a few hundred Facebook friends--clearly stated. Absent other evidence to the contrary, that is enough to convince me that people sharing fake news mostly believe it. If you have some other evidence to present--please go ahead. Do the majority of your over 45, conservative Facebook friends and family regularly share fake news just to point out that it's fake?
- learc83 10y ago
  If someone says they believe a story and spreads the story as factual news to their friends, it doesn't really matter whether they actually believed it in the first place. Eventually the story spreads to people who actually believe it and will take action based on it. A large percentage of my family truly believes Bernie Sanders drives a $100k sports car because they read it on Facebook. They believe that Obama's mother-in-law is getting a pension for acting as the White House babysitter. Some of them even believe that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya. They believe these things because of they read fake news stories on Facebook. It's self reinforcing. They vaguely dislike someone; they read a fake negative story on facebook about the person; they believe it because they already dislike them; they dislike the person more because of the fake news story; they read more outrageous fake news; they believe it because it fits their now more biased opinion of the person. It's keeps going like this until they hate the person and will believe almost anything negative you say about them.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    How do you know they "spread it as factual news"? As far as I know, Facebook doesn't have separate setting for "spreading as factual news" vs "spreading as funny meme trash-talking that idiot I hate". It looks exactly the same. > It's keeps going like this until they hate the person and will believe almost anything negative you say about them. Like that "Trump is afraid of stairs" story that CNN featured recently? ;)
    - learc83 10y ago
      It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference if you're a human and not a computer program. If I say "smsm42's mom is fat", or "smsm42 is an idiot" that's trash talking. If I say "smsm42 defrauded the US government by awarding his mother-in-law a pension for watching his kids", or "smsm42 passed a law that give Muslims free health insurance because their religion prevents them from paying for it", or "smsm42 wasn't born in the country he says he was born in and I have proof that his birth certificate is fake"--that's fake news.
      - smsm42 10y ago
gdulli 10y ago
A guy fired three shots in the pizzagate restaurant because he thought it was true and wanted to "investigate." Fortunately no one was hurt.
- cat199 10y ago
  I see your 3 shots and raise you 60 cruise missiles

scribu 10y ago

It seems like there was a study from Stanford, regarding effect on the latest USA ellection: > Gentzkow and Allcott find that the most widely circulated hoaxes were seen by only a small fraction of Americans. And only about half of those who saw a false news story believed it. http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-fake-news-2016-presidential-election/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/01/18/stanford-study-examines-...

realbarack 10y ago

The subtle dishonesties you speak of have existed as long as rhetoric. The true fake news is new, and a product of the internet. Solving the first one is, in my opinion, pretty much impossible on a large scale—it requires critical reading, original research and a great deal of trust in fact sourcing. Solving the second one is Google's goal here, and it's an important one. The Comet Pizza incident [1] was emblematic of how blatantly fake news can affect real people. Moreover fake news is engaging: it legitimately competes with real news [2]. So yeah, I think the sub-problem is large and efforts to solve it are a big deal. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Ping_Pong#Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory_and_2016_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Ping_Pong#Pizzagate_cons... [2]: http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/16/13659840/facebook-fake-news-chart http://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/11/16/13659840/facebook-fa...

gdulli 10y ago

> The much bigger problem is the subtler dishonesties Maybe it's a bigger problem, but you're not going to solve dishonesty and you're not going to solve all the cognitive bias and intellectual unsophistication that lets it work. The best you can do is nudge society in a good direction that pays off maybe a generation down the road. Let's focus on stopping our elections from being manipulated since that's a significant easy win in the short term. > Honest question - has there been any research on how much reach and effect "true" fake news actually has? How big is that particular sub-problem, in reality? You should watch the open hearing from the Senate intelligence committee from 3/30. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/hearings