3 ms·

Speaking of the fake news, Internet and the social media are at the same time THE BEST way to verify information. How would one go to independently verify some

Speaking of the fake news, Internet and the social media are at the same time THE BEST way to verify information. How would one go to independently verify some news article in 80s? There was no quick way to do it, and consequently nobody did it, people just expected it's true if it's in the newspapers (and often it wasn't). Now you just need to google a little or google search the image and the problem solved - or even better, surround yourself with others paranoid enough to do the googling on every piece of info. There was no a single fake news in my feeds (and it's not just US news but our local, even more untrustworthy, ones), that within a few hours someone didn't reply with "fake" and a link to prove it. You just need to follow and friend with intelligent people from the both sides of political spectrum and let them filter out the noise for you. And also you need to discipline yourself not to over-emotionally jump to the conclusions - arguably this is the hardest part and also the main reason social networks are considered harmful: you can respond immediately, so responses are much more emotionally driven, people never bother thinking of all the angles.

makomk 9y ago
I think, fundamentally, this ability of people to get information from outside the traditional news media may be the whole reason the press are so alarmed. Previously, the press had huge sway over what people thought and that certainly hasn't been good for democracy over here in the UK (I'm not sure the last time a party managed to gain power here without Murdoch's backing). You don't see so much concern about that, or about mainstream publications repeating fake news, or journalists starting and spreading bullshit on social media - even though an awful lot of the successful viral fakes I've seen on Twitter lately were started and/or spread by reputable journalists. Their criticism is aimed squarely at the new technology undermining their established power base.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Absolutely this. The recent "fake news", "omg people are brainwashed by social media" hysteria is coming almost entirely from the parts of the traditional media that are keenest on having a monopoly over political influence. Observe that the Guardian burns money at a catastrophic rate and run begging boxes on every article ... because they prioritise influence over profit. They can't stand the idea of hiding their writing behind a paywall because they see their mission as to influence first, and make money second. What's more they always have, the Guardian has never made a profit (it was subsidised by unrelated businesses until recently). My trust in the media has steadily declined over the years and what's killed my trust has been the times I've fact checked articles and discovered they're lying to me. Sometimes I felt it was deliberate and other times it clearly represented colossal laziness on the part of the journalists.
  - intended 9y ago
    What the ....? Any good journalist worth their salt like any good teacher wants to make sure the most people are informed with good information and they do the best job to inform. How did that become “wanting influence”. And if being good Doesn’t make an impact - which it increasingly doesn’t- then only crap will remain.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      Hah! If that's true then why do rich billionaires so often buy money-losing newspapers? Because they like burning dollars? And why are there so often easily caught factual errors in news articles that just happen to fit the journalists agenda? Here's a good example from this weekend: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41521671/100-women-amy-cuddy-on-how-posture-can-boost-your-confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41521671/100-women-amy-cu... The BBC is running some vacuous "top 100 inspiring and aspirational women" series. They really like Amy Cuddy. She's typically described as a psychologist who shows people how to create changes in their own biochemistry by "power posing". Search her name and in the first page of results you'll find an article by Slate (written by scientists, not a journalist) that reveals her to be a fraud: her research doesn't replicate and she knows it doesn't. The effect she promotes doesn't exist at all. But she continues to milk the media and TED Talk circuit by promoting these feel-good ideas as if they were based in science. It takes all of 10 seconds to discover that Cuddy is a fraud. Yet the BBC is promoting her repeatedly. Why? Because the articles are written by a feminist who likes the idea of Cuddy as an example of a successful and inspiring female scientist. No desire to inform need intrude! Sorry, if you really believe journalist's priority is to neutrally inform with good information then you can't read many newspapers. I'll give you a tip: newspapers don't employ fact checkers.
      - amazingman 9y ago
        I did the recommended 10 seconds of Google-ing, and was completely unsurprised to find out that the example you draw is far more sophisticated and far less straightforward as you are attempting to make it. Given that fact, I’m left wondering what the motivations for your comment are. Especially given the nature of your target, and the thinly veiled usage of the word “feminist” as an epithet.
wz1000 9y ago
> Speaking of the fake news, Internet and the social media are at the same time THE BEST way to verify information. The problem is that Google results are often misleading or incorrect themselves. This is as expected. The sole purpose of Google is to maximize shareholder value. It would be silly to expect it to optimise for any other metric like the fairness or accuracy of results.
- ivanhoe 9y ago
  True, but there's a lot of people out there that have genuine knowledge about whatever the subject is, and if you wait a few days usually you'll be able to find multiple sources to verify or dismiss any claim. The main problem is how much time and effort one is willing to invest into debunking the fake news stories? For the most of people answer is: not any, if possible. Even I will look at maybe 2-3 pages of google results and twitter feeds and give up, presume it's true. It's the same problem as computer security: it's all about the balance between the goal and convenience. It's just not convenient to double-check every fact that you read, you'd just do that whole day long or go crazy, so we choose to trust them...

makomk 9y ago

I think, fundamentally, this ability of people to get information from outside the traditional news media may be the whole reason the press are so alarmed. Previously, the press had huge sway over what people thought and that certainly hasn't been good for democracy over here in the UK (I'm not sure the last time a party managed to gain power here without Murdoch's backing). You don't see so much concern about that, or about mainstream publications repeating fake news, or journalists starting and spreading bullshit on social media - even though an awful lot of the successful viral fakes I've seen on Twitter lately were started and/or spread by reputable journalists. Their criticism is aimed squarely at the new technology undermining their established power base.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Absolutely this. The recent "fake news", "omg people are brainwashed by social media" hysteria is coming almost entirely from the parts of the traditional media that are keenest on having a monopoly over political influence. Observe that the Guardian burns money at a catastrophic rate and run begging boxes on every article ... because they prioritise influence over profit. They can't stand the idea of hiding their writing behind a paywall because they see their mission as to influence first, and make money second. What's more they always have, the Guardian has never made a profit (it was subsidised by unrelated businesses until recently). My trust in the media has steadily declined over the years and what's killed my trust has been the times I've fact checked articles and discovered they're lying to me. Sometimes I felt it was deliberate and other times it clearly represented colossal laziness on the part of the journalists.
- intended 9y ago
  What the ....? Any good journalist worth their salt like any good teacher wants to make sure the most people are informed with good information and they do the best job to inform. How did that become “wanting influence”. And if being good Doesn’t make an impact - which it increasingly doesn’t- then only crap will remain.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    Hah! If that's true then why do rich billionaires so often buy money-losing newspapers? Because they like burning dollars? And why are there so often easily caught factual errors in news articles that just happen to fit the journalists agenda? Here's a good example from this weekend: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41521671/100-women-amy-cuddy-on-how-posture-can-boost-your-confidence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-41521671/100-women-amy-cu... The BBC is running some vacuous "top 100 inspiring and aspirational women" series. They really like Amy Cuddy. She's typically described as a psychologist who shows people how to create changes in their own biochemistry by "power posing". Search her name and in the first page of results you'll find an article by Slate (written by scientists, not a journalist) that reveals her to be a fraud: her research doesn't replicate and she knows it doesn't. The effect she promotes doesn't exist at all. But she continues to milk the media and TED Talk circuit by promoting these feel-good ideas as if they were based in science. It takes all of 10 seconds to discover that Cuddy is a fraud. Yet the BBC is promoting her repeatedly. Why? Because the articles are written by a feminist who likes the idea of Cuddy as an example of a successful and inspiring female scientist. No desire to inform need intrude! Sorry, if you really believe journalist's priority is to neutrally inform with good information then you can't read many newspapers. I'll give you a tip: newspapers don't employ fact checkers.
    - amazingman 9y ago
      I did the recommended 10 seconds of Google-ing, and was completely unsurprised to find out that the example you draw is far more sophisticated and far less straightforward as you are attempting to make it. Given that fact, I’m left wondering what the motivations for your comment are. Especially given the nature of your target, and the thinly veiled usage of the word “feminist” as an epithet.

wz1000 9y ago

> Speaking of the fake news, Internet and the social media are at the same time THE BEST way to verify information. The problem is that Google results are often misleading or incorrect themselves. This is as expected. The sole purpose of Google is to maximize shareholder value. It would be silly to expect it to optimise for any other metric like the fairness or accuracy of results.

ivanhoe 9y ago
True, but there's a lot of people out there that have genuine knowledge about whatever the subject is, and if you wait a few days usually you'll be able to find multiple sources to verify or dismiss any claim. The main problem is how much time and effort one is willing to invest into debunking the fake news stories? For the most of people answer is: not any, if possible. Even I will look at maybe 2-3 pages of google results and twitter feeds and give up, presume it's true. It's the same problem as computer security: it's all about the balance between the goal and convenience. It's just not convenient to double-check every fact that you read, you'd just do that whole day long or go crazy, so we choose to trust them...