2 ms·

It's an interesting demo, but I think it's still a bit complex for the future of 'fake news'. Remember, most people's standards for proof are not 'video require

by CM30 9y ago

It's an interesting demo, but I think it's still a bit complex for the future of 'fake news'. Remember, most people's standards for proof are not 'video required or get out'. They're quite willing to believe simple text and image based stories if it backs their preconceptions and the source looks semi plausible. Those who are prone to believing fake news (an audience which likely consists of about 80% of the population, many intelligent people and journalists included) will believe it without fancy video evidence. Those who aren't prone to believing it will likely realise it's on a website with questionable credibility and not give it the time of day based on that. A government may use this for propaganda, but it seems too expensive and too complicated for your typical fake news site to use.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
>Remember, most people's standards for proof are not 'video required or get out'. They're quite willing to believe simple text and image based stories if it backs their preconceptions and the source looks semi plausible. The shift to video won't be over a high standard of truth, it'll be chasing the higher ad revenue available on TV/YouTube. It's just the more popular medium
- CM30 9y ago
  That's a good point, though again, I'm not sure their standards for video would be much higher than their standards for text. For many people, merely telling them 'Obama said X' or 'Trump said Y' would be convincing enough. As would mere quote mining or what not.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    If their goal is to convince people of something false that would be enough. Their goal is usually ratings, and this kind of stuff makes for a better show.
Kenji 9y ago
> Those who are prone to believing fake news (an audience which likely consists of about 80% of the population, many intelligent people and journalists included) Citation needed. I am certain you made that number up on the spot.

by CM30 9y ago

boomboomsubban 9y ago

>Remember, most people's standards for proof are not 'video required or get out'. They're quite willing to believe simple text and image based stories if it backs their preconceptions and the source looks semi plausible. The shift to video won't be over a high standard of truth, it'll be chasing the higher ad revenue available on TV/YouTube. It's just the more popular medium

CM30 9y ago
That's a good point, though again, I'm not sure their standards for video would be much higher than their standards for text. For many people, merely telling them 'Obama said X' or 'Trump said Y' would be convincing enough. As would mere quote mining or what not.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  If their goal is to convince people of something false that would be enough. Their goal is usually ratings, and this kind of stuff makes for a better show.

Kenji 9y ago

> Those who are prone to believing fake news (an audience which likely consists of about 80% of the population, many intelligent people and journalists included) Citation needed. I am certain you made that number up on the spot.