6 ms·

I feel like there's a big push to blame "fake news" and related phenomena on tech companies right now. Fake news is created and shared by people. Tech is just

by beaner 9y ago

I feel like there's a big push to blame "fake news" and related phenomena on tech companies right now. Fake news is created and shared by people. Tech is just one of the vehicles through which we share it. The problem isn't tech, it's people. Fix the root cause with education and the tech will reflect it.

runesoerensen 9y ago
"The problem isn't tech, it's people" This sounds remarkably like an argument I've heard before, but there will always be destructive people and people seeking to profit from events like this. In this case certain features created by tech companies perpetuate and amplify the destructiveness of those people, and that's a problem tech needs to solve quickly. Education could definitely help people filter information better, and in turn tech companies can leverage that curation to deliver better products. The short term fix? Perhaps Google should just disable their tweet carousel (at least during certain events) until it works reliably and doesn't contribute to misinformation on this scale.
- beaner 9y ago
  I would say that certain technologies perpetuate and amplify the voice of people, but not necessarily their destructiveness. Correct information is equally perpetuated and amplified. The ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected. For this reason I am not convinced there's an actual problem.
  - runesoerensen 9y ago
    I think the problem here is that Google's tweet results actually have been shown to display a fairly high ratio of incorrect information at some particularly critical times. I don't know why you'd say "the ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected" - clearly the number of people exposed to incorrect information would be lower if Google did not show those tweets? That's not surprising since they're essentially scraping Twitter. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have a voice, but perhaps leave it to Twitter to rank tweets until Google's SNR ratio is better. Twitter just have a lot more signals to rank their users' tweets by (and for instance better assess whether tweets are being promoted by a botnet/voting ring).
    - beaner 9y ago
      Does Google not also display counter claims from tweets in its results? If it can't discern fact from fake, it's hard to see how it wouldn't.
      - ubernostrum 9y ago
        Do you remember the bad old days of website SEO, way back at the dawn of time? Back then someone could have just asserted that "good" sites will obviously appear as often as "bad" ones in results, if the search engine is unable to tell them apart. But of course that presumes either the "bad" sites aren't doing anything to game the search rankings, or that the "good" sites are just as effective at gaming the rankings, and we know for a fact that neither of these was the case. It took serious effort on the part of search engines to weed out the "bad" results, promote the "good" ones and close off the most effective ways to game the system. We are going through that all over again now. Social media -- and yes, this includes important parts of Google search now, since they've decided to include social-media platforms prominently in results -- can be gamed the same way SERPs got gamed. And instead of just being gamed by people who want to sell you things (as in the bad old days of SEO), now they're also being gamed by political entities for the express purpose of swaying the course of nations. These platforms wield enormous influence; it's not out of the question that, say, Twitter could literally be in a position to prevent or allow a major war. But the people who own and run these platforms are absolutely convinced of their own brilliance, and absolutely convinced that they could only be beaten by someone who has better tech skills than they do, when they're currently being played like a fiddle by people who have old-fashioned media and PR skills.
      - makomk 9y ago
        One of the fundamental social problems with Twitter is that counterclaims and retractions don't generally go viral in the same way that bullshit does. It's probably not one that you'll hear journalists talking about much, because it would make their own screw-ups look a lot more harmful and destructive.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- bryanrasmussen 9y ago
  it sounds sort of like guns don't kill people, people do. doesn't it.
  - PeachPlum 9y ago
    Does that make it false ?
    - SiempreViernes 9y ago
      It certainly makes it suspect by being so clearly related to a phrase created to distract and confuse. (Guns kill people, many people, in accidents.)
      - talmand 9y ago
        I don't find it distracting or confusing. It's a rather simple statement. If you are worried over accidental deaths then we should consider discussing what we're going to do about the car accident problem before gun accidents.
        PeachPlum 9y ago
        If you are concerned about death then obesity kills 100x more people than guns. And abortion kills 2x as many as obesity.
        SiempreViernes 9y ago
        I mean, I understand this is your interpretation, but I feel that you exemplifying how the statement completely derails a discussion just proves my point.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
    Unfortunately not a brilliant analogy until guns start algorithmically deciding who to shoot at.
akira2501 9y ago
> Tech is just one of the vehicles through which we share it. It's the fastest, most powerful, and most virulent vehicle we've found for it yet. This seems to be worthy of independent consideration, as we may have unknowingly crossed some sort of threshold.
- beaner 9y ago
  As powerful as it is for sharing misinformation, it is equally powerful for sharing correct information. When involved in a debate, if someone says the wrong thing, the audience does not interrupt and say "Moderator, you let the wrong thing be said. The debate must cease and you are fired." The correct thing is simply allowed to be said afterward. There is a subtle draconian undertone to this anti-fake news rhetoric. We want tech to be responsible for our own actions, to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice the natural flow of point/cointer-point of human discussion. Something about it just smells.
  - nl 9y ago
    It’s not as powerful for sharing correct information. There are plenty of credible studies showing how people have a bias to believe things which confirm their beliefs. That means it takes more information to convince someone something they believe is wrong. So base fears of “the other” are always going to be easy targets for fake news purveyors.
  - runesoerensen 9y ago
    Right, but this isn't about point/counter-point or any kind of civil debate, it's about straight-up constructed lies and actual information. Also, debate moderators have increasingly been calling out falsehoods during debates. There's a difference between being "wrong" and intentionally lying. I think it's great if the audience and moderators shut down verifiable lies, but of course wouldn't want them to shut down people I just disagree with.
  - mekkkkkk 9y ago
    The "algorithm" takes that kind of meaningful exchange and extracts the parts that are controversial (as judged by other users behavior). Those parts of the exchange is what will be presented to you, in hopes of an emotional response. In the end, I suppose the human condition is to blame. After all, the "algorithm" is based on the collective actions of its users. But the tech companies facilitating this race to the bottom share some responsibility as well. Profiting (intentionally or otherwise) on the darker aspects of human psychology isn't unproblematic.
dx034 9y ago
The problem is that people trust Google. If we go down the path you suggest, it means no one should ever trust what they find on Google. That throws it back 10 years to where it was just a collection of links and would potentially harm Google more than enforcing higher standards.
- beaner 9y ago
  I trust google to return things that are relevant to my searches. Whether those things are true or false is up to me to determine after clickthrough. This expectation that search results equal truth seems like a very recent assumption closely linked to this fake news development. I've never personally had that assumption myself and I am surprised to suddenly hear that it is apparently so common.
- nitwit005 9y ago
  But, that's correct, people shouldn't trust what they find on Google. There are plenty of topics you can search in Google and get mostly false claims in the top results. Even if Google was perfect, the problem is that behavior is desirable sometimes for users. Most people searching about bigfoot probably want a bunch of bigfoot sightings or conspiracy theory stuff, not "no, there probably isn't a bigfoot".
lkrubner 9y ago
> The problem isn't tech, it's people. Can you imagine if, circa 1900, we had taken this attitude toward workers getting injured in factories? Blame the worker for allowing their arm to be crushed, rather than the machine for having no safe guards? If we'd gone that route, then industrial accidents would still be one of the leading causes of death, rather than the minor cause of death that it is now. Of course, some business leaders did blame the workers, but leading companies, prodded by the government, looked to make safer procedures as well as safer machines. And so the accident rate came down dramatically. What's happening right now with the tech companies is similar, though it is social in nature. Over the last 20 years people have allowed tech to play a central role in their lives, and they've learned this can have costs and benefits, and now they are looking for ways to reduce those costs. And the costs are social in nature, and the tech can be altered to reduce those costs.
- alehul 9y ago
  Although I agree with the solution of creating safeguards for the machine, I'm sure the accident rate would've also went down over time as people learned how to avoid them (though not as drastically). There's a huge difference between making a machine safer and filtering news, however. The only downside to safeguarding the machine is the economic cost. With filtering news, it could end up rather dystopian and filter to fit a more complex agenda. We're very cautious in America of any power we designate to a company or especially the government, as every power we assign is only beneficial situationally. When the situation changes, that power will likely stay with that entity, however. Our avoidance of giving away power could be classified as a bend-but-don't-break strategy, in regards to everything from news censorship to constitutional limitations (i.e. gun control).
PostOnce 9y ago
The problem is that tech companies aren't just showing you everything everyone says... they're picking and choosing what to show you. The 10,000ft overview is that they show you whatever keeps you coming back or staying on-site longer. This gives them more ad impressions and makes them more money. Therefore, if their algorithms determine that showing you fake news, lies, and other socially-destructive and false propaganda is more profitable... they can and will do that. So the question is, how do we regulate what the tech-utilities get to filter from your view? Should we regulate? It's not the regulation of speech, but rather the regulation of the willful filtration of speech for profit. i.e., "dont show this guy dissenting views to his position or he'll stop coming back", where does that fit into our needs as a society and how should our laws tackle it, if at all?
- opportune 9y ago
  I just wish people were able to collectively give up social media. I completely abhor the stranglehold its placed on culture and media, especially for the younger generation. It has dumbed everything down into what will get clicks, and is extremely invasive to boot. The only thing we "gain" from having social media as a society is advertisement.... which is essentially a way to get us to consume goods we wouldn't be consuming otherwise (i.e. waste). I don't see anything good coming from replacing the more or less natural human social structure that evolved over millions of years increasingly with an app designed to get us to buy goods we don't want, or get just 5 more minutes of attention. Such a waste of humanity's minds and effort. Ultimately I really don't think you can say that Google/FB's dominance is a net positive for humanity. Sure we get to enjoy a lot of "free" goods, but those goods are merely a vector through which advertisements can learn more about us. Google/FB wouldn't be rolling in it if advertisers weren't making money off from advertising through them. I see it almost as a maladaptive coping mechanism adopted by our society at large. We have a completely self-destructive reliance on perpetual inflation-beating growth, and at this point some of the most important mechanisms driving this growth are highly sophisticated advertisements designed to squeeze every last bit of consumer spending out of the economy as is possible. Not only that, but they've collectively convinced almost all of humanity to whore out all of their own personal information just so they can browse meme pages or check up on old high school acquaintances. It's absolutely disgusting behavior that to me resembles the informed preying on the ignorant.
wvh 9y ago
I don't blame Google for fake news. However, modern mass media amplifies fake information in near real-time, so it would make sense to also limit fake news from spreading so rapidly and possibly trigger consequences from those whose emotional capacity clearly exceeds their rational capacity. In other words, idiots going vigilante before the facts are known. In one way, it's a good thing news can come from anywhere and reporting is more "democratic", but clearly we also need to find solutions to filter misinformation while at the same time safeguarding freedom of information in general. And that means cooperation of those companies that enable (any) news to spread without reality checks. Note that it is also in (particulary) Google's best interest to provide facts and not to rapidly propagate misinformation. Who is interested in using a search engine that provides false or fake information?
- tonypace 9y ago
  People who can reliably be convinced to buy advertisers' goods when presented with fake information in response to a search. 'Cure cancer with one easy pill' and that sort of thing.
opportune 9y ago
Fake news will always be profitable to publish because it thrives on exploiting our biases for profit. You can't just fix "people," there's something in English we call the "human condition" and people have been writing about it for thousands and thousands of years. It's unavoidable. Rather than relying on Average Joe to simply not spread fake news, we need to shame these companies for actively profiting off of spreading fake information solely because of its huge impact on people on a psychological level. You wouldn't be ok with your local newspaper publishing an entire page on why "black on black crime is the only reason people advocate for gun control" so why are you ok with a global publisher publishing this information to millions of people across the planet?
_rpd 9y ago
News brands are in a losing battle to give people a reason to go to their web site first before facebook, google, twitter, etc. They are practically obligated to take every chance they can to persuade people. Failing that, getting some news brands banned will at least reduce competition and free up some eyeballs.
nl 9y ago
What do you do when education is confirming the fake news? This is happening now in everything from misinformation on the causes of the civil war, to global warming misinformation, to evolution etc etc. What’s more, the people promoting these misinformation campaigns are getting better organised and more effective at it.
m_ke 9y ago
It's 100% a tech problem. Optimizing for clicks pushes users into echo chambers. Try watching a few breitbart or fox news videos on youtube in incognito mode and see what happens to the main feed. You'll end up with recommendations for info wars, roger stone and a bunch of conspiracy theories. You'll even start getting targeted ads for fake educational content like PragerU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1jdBmQcwnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1jdBmQcwnw) Facebook / Twitter / Google are happy to keep feeding you this crap because it leads to more clicks, engagement and ad views. With recommenders and social graphs shaping most of what we see on the web a lot of less tech savvy people end up being exposed to a more radical looking side of the internet.
makomk 9y ago
A surprising amount of the actual viral bullshit I've seen out there, especially on Twitter, has been started and spread by journalists working for respectable publications. (Just recently they got a bunch of viral attention by misdescribing what Trump did at a public press op that was videoed, for example.)
ksk 9y ago
But they claim to use their tech to do things like deliver news, ban fake news, control misinformation, etc. If they themselves are claiming this, do you want to hold them accountable? Its the same thing as why people are upset with Fox News. ITs because they call themselves a news organization and are supposed to be fair and balanced. So obviously people are going to try to hold them to their own words. If they had just called their channel Fox's "made up crazy shit", I don't think there would be as big of a backlash against them.

by beaner 9y ago

runesoerensen 9y ago

"The problem isn't tech, it's people" This sounds remarkably like an argument I've heard before, but there will always be destructive people and people seeking to profit from events like this. In this case certain features created by tech companies perpetuate and amplify the destructiveness of those people, and that's a problem tech needs to solve quickly. Education could definitely help people filter information better, and in turn tech companies can leverage that curation to deliver better products. The short term fix? Perhaps Google should just disable their tweet carousel (at least during certain events) until it works reliably and doesn't contribute to misinformation on this scale.

beaner 9y ago
I would say that certain technologies perpetuate and amplify the voice of people, but not necessarily their destructiveness. Correct information is equally perpetuated and amplified. The ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected. For this reason I am not convinced there's an actual problem.
- runesoerensen 9y ago
  I think the problem here is that Google's tweet results actually have been shown to display a fairly high ratio of incorrect information at some particularly critical times. I don't know why you'd say "the ratio of correct to incorrect information seems unaffected" - clearly the number of people exposed to incorrect information would be lower if Google did not show those tweets? That's not surprising since they're essentially scraping Twitter. I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have a voice, but perhaps leave it to Twitter to rank tweets until Google's SNR ratio is better. Twitter just have a lot more signals to rank their users' tweets by (and for instance better assess whether tweets are being promoted by a botnet/voting ring).
  - beaner 9y ago
    Does Google not also display counter claims from tweets in its results? If it can't discern fact from fake, it's hard to see how it wouldn't.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Do you remember the bad old days of website SEO, way back at the dawn of time? Back then someone could have just asserted that "good" sites will obviously appear as often as "bad" ones in results, if the search engine is unable to tell them apart. But of course that presumes either the "bad" sites aren't doing anything to game the search rankings, or that the "good" sites are just as effective at gaming the rankings, and we know for a fact that neither of these was the case. It took serious effort on the part of search engines to weed out the "bad" results, promote the "good" ones and close off the most effective ways to game the system. We are going through that all over again now. Social media -- and yes, this includes important parts of Google search now, since they've decided to include social-media platforms prominently in results -- can be gamed the same way SERPs got gamed. And instead of just being gamed by people who want to sell you things (as in the bad old days of SEO), now they're also being gamed by political entities for the express purpose of swaying the course of nations. These platforms wield enormous influence; it's not out of the question that, say, Twitter could literally be in a position to prevent or allow a major war. But the people who own and run these platforms are absolutely convinced of their own brilliance, and absolutely convinced that they could only be beaten by someone who has better tech skills than they do, when they're currently being played like a fiddle by people who have old-fashioned media and PR skills.
    - makomk 9y ago
      One of the fundamental social problems with Twitter is that counterclaims and retractions don't generally go viral in the same way that bullshit does. It's probably not one that you'll hear journalists talking about much, because it would make their own screw-ups look a lot more harmful and destructive.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bryanrasmussen 9y ago
it sounds sort of like guns don't kill people, people do. doesn't it.
- PeachPlum 9y ago
  Does that make it false ?
  - SiempreViernes 9y ago
    It certainly makes it suspect by being so clearly related to a phrase created to distract and confuse. (Guns kill people, many people, in accidents.)
    - talmand 9y ago
      I don't find it distracting or confusing. It's a rather simple statement. If you are worried over accidental deaths then we should consider discussing what we're going to do about the car accident problem before gun accidents.
      - PeachPlum 9y ago
        If you are concerned about death then obesity kills 100x more people than guns. And abortion kills 2x as many as obesity.
      - SiempreViernes 9y ago
        I mean, I understand this is your interpretation, but I feel that you exemplifying how the statement completely derails a discussion just proves my point.
- SmellyGeekBoy 9y ago
  Unfortunately not a brilliant analogy until guns start algorithmically deciding who to shoot at.

akira2501 9y ago

> Tech is just one of the vehicles through which we share it. It's the fastest, most powerful, and most virulent vehicle we've found for it yet. This seems to be worthy of independent consideration, as we may have unknowingly crossed some sort of threshold.

beaner 9y ago
As powerful as it is for sharing misinformation, it is equally powerful for sharing correct information. When involved in a debate, if someone says the wrong thing, the audience does not interrupt and say "Moderator, you let the wrong thing be said. The debate must cease and you are fired." The correct thing is simply allowed to be said afterward. There is a subtle draconian undertone to this anti-fake news rhetoric. We want tech to be responsible for our own actions, to such an extent that we are willing to sacrifice the natural flow of point/cointer-point of human discussion. Something about it just smells.
- nl 9y ago
  It’s not as powerful for sharing correct information. There are plenty of credible studies showing how people have a bias to believe things which confirm their beliefs. That means it takes more information to convince someone something they believe is wrong. So base fears of “the other” are always going to be easy targets for fake news purveyors.
- runesoerensen 9y ago
  Right, but this isn't about point/counter-point or any kind of civil debate, it's about straight-up constructed lies and actual information. Also, debate moderators have increasingly been calling out falsehoods during debates. There's a difference between being "wrong" and intentionally lying. I think it's great if the audience and moderators shut down verifiable lies, but of course wouldn't want them to shut down people I just disagree with.
- mekkkkkk 9y ago
  The "algorithm" takes that kind of meaningful exchange and extracts the parts that are controversial (as judged by other users behavior). Those parts of the exchange is what will be presented to you, in hopes of an emotional response. In the end, I suppose the human condition is to blame. After all, the "algorithm" is based on the collective actions of its users. But the tech companies facilitating this race to the bottom share some responsibility as well. Profiting (intentionally or otherwise) on the darker aspects of human psychology isn't unproblematic.

dx034 9y ago

The problem is that people trust Google. If we go down the path you suggest, it means no one should ever trust what they find on Google. That throws it back 10 years to where it was just a collection of links and would potentially harm Google more than enforcing higher standards.

beaner 9y ago
I trust google to return things that are relevant to my searches. Whether those things are true or false is up to me to determine after clickthrough. This expectation that search results equal truth seems like a very recent assumption closely linked to this fake news development. I've never personally had that assumption myself and I am surprised to suddenly hear that it is apparently so common.
nitwit005 9y ago
But, that's correct, people shouldn't trust what they find on Google. There are plenty of topics you can search in Google and get mostly false claims in the top results. Even if Google was perfect, the problem is that behavior is desirable sometimes for users. Most people searching about bigfoot probably want a bunch of bigfoot sightings or conspiracy theory stuff, not "no, there probably isn't a bigfoot".

lkrubner 9y ago

> The problem isn't tech, it's people. Can you imagine if, circa 1900, we had taken this attitude toward workers getting injured in factories? Blame the worker for allowing their arm to be crushed, rather than the machine for having no safe guards? If we'd gone that route, then industrial accidents would still be one of the leading causes of death, rather than the minor cause of death that it is now. Of course, some business leaders did blame the workers, but leading companies, prodded by the government, looked to make safer procedures as well as safer machines. And so the accident rate came down dramatically. What's happening right now with the tech companies is similar, though it is social in nature. Over the last 20 years people have allowed tech to play a central role in their lives, and they've learned this can have costs and benefits, and now they are looking for ways to reduce those costs. And the costs are social in nature, and the tech can be altered to reduce those costs.

alehul 9y ago
Although I agree with the solution of creating safeguards for the machine, I'm sure the accident rate would've also went down over time as people learned how to avoid them (though not as drastically). There's a huge difference between making a machine safer and filtering news, however. The only downside to safeguarding the machine is the economic cost. With filtering news, it could end up rather dystopian and filter to fit a more complex agenda. We're very cautious in America of any power we designate to a company or especially the government, as every power we assign is only beneficial situationally. When the situation changes, that power will likely stay with that entity, however. Our avoidance of giving away power could be classified as a bend-but-don't-break strategy, in regards to everything from news censorship to constitutional limitations (i.e. gun control).

PostOnce 9y ago

The problem is that tech companies aren't just showing you everything everyone says... they're picking and choosing what to show you. The 10,000ft overview is that they show you whatever keeps you coming back or staying on-site longer. This gives them more ad impressions and makes them more money. Therefore, if their algorithms determine that showing you fake news, lies, and other socially-destructive and false propaganda is more profitable... they can and will do that. So the question is, how do we regulate what the tech-utilities get to filter from your view? Should we regulate? It's not the regulation of speech, but rather the regulation of the willful filtration of speech for profit. i.e., "dont show this guy dissenting views to his position or he'll stop coming back", where does that fit into our needs as a society and how should our laws tackle it, if at all?

opportune 9y ago
I just wish people were able to collectively give up social media. I completely abhor the stranglehold its placed on culture and media, especially for the younger generation. It has dumbed everything down into what will get clicks, and is extremely invasive to boot. The only thing we "gain" from having social media as a society is advertisement.... which is essentially a way to get us to consume goods we wouldn't be consuming otherwise (i.e. waste). I don't see anything good coming from replacing the more or less natural human social structure that evolved over millions of years increasingly with an app designed to get us to buy goods we don't want, or get just 5 more minutes of attention. Such a waste of humanity's minds and effort. Ultimately I really don't think you can say that Google/FB's dominance is a net positive for humanity. Sure we get to enjoy a lot of "free" goods, but those goods are merely a vector through which advertisements can learn more about us. Google/FB wouldn't be rolling in it if advertisers weren't making money off from advertising through them. I see it almost as a maladaptive coping mechanism adopted by our society at large. We have a completely self-destructive reliance on perpetual inflation-beating growth, and at this point some of the most important mechanisms driving this growth are highly sophisticated advertisements designed to squeeze every last bit of consumer spending out of the economy as is possible. Not only that, but they've collectively convinced almost all of humanity to whore out all of their own personal information just so they can browse meme pages or check up on old high school acquaintances. It's absolutely disgusting behavior that to me resembles the informed preying on the ignorant.

wvh 9y ago

I don't blame Google for fake news. However, modern mass media amplifies fake information in near real-time, so it would make sense to also limit fake news from spreading so rapidly and possibly trigger consequences from those whose emotional capacity clearly exceeds their rational capacity. In other words, idiots going vigilante before the facts are known. In one way, it's a good thing news can come from anywhere and reporting is more "democratic", but clearly we also need to find solutions to filter misinformation while at the same time safeguarding freedom of information in general. And that means cooperation of those companies that enable (any) news to spread without reality checks. Note that it is also in (particulary) Google's best interest to provide facts and not to rapidly propagate misinformation. Who is interested in using a search engine that provides false or fake information?

tonypace 9y ago
People who can reliably be convinced to buy advertisers' goods when presented with fake information in response to a search. 'Cure cancer with one easy pill' and that sort of thing.

opportune 9y ago

Fake news will always be profitable to publish because it thrives on exploiting our biases for profit. You can't just fix "people," there's something in English we call the "human condition" and people have been writing about it for thousands and thousands of years. It's unavoidable. Rather than relying on Average Joe to simply not spread fake news, we need to shame these companies for actively profiting off of spreading fake information solely because of its huge impact on people on a psychological level. You wouldn't be ok with your local newspaper publishing an entire page on why "black on black crime is the only reason people advocate for gun control" so why are you ok with a global publisher publishing this information to millions of people across the planet?

_rpd 9y ago

News brands are in a losing battle to give people a reason to go to their web site first before facebook, google, twitter, etc. They are practically obligated to take every chance they can to persuade people. Failing that, getting some news brands banned will at least reduce competition and free up some eyeballs.

nl 9y ago

What do you do when education is confirming the fake news? This is happening now in everything from misinformation on the causes of the civil war, to global warming misinformation, to evolution etc etc. What’s more, the people promoting these misinformation campaigns are getting better organised and more effective at it.

m_ke 9y ago

It's 100% a tech problem. Optimizing for clicks pushes users into echo chambers. Try watching a few breitbart or fox news videos on youtube in incognito mode and see what happens to the main feed. You'll end up with recommendations for info wars, roger stone and a bunch of conspiracy theories. You'll even start getting targeted ads for fake educational content like PragerU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1jdBmQcwnw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1jdBmQcwnw) Facebook / Twitter / Google are happy to keep feeding you this crap because it leads to more clicks, engagement and ad views. With recommenders and social graphs shaping most of what we see on the web a lot of less tech savvy people end up being exposed to a more radical looking side of the internet.

makomk 9y ago

A surprising amount of the actual viral bullshit I've seen out there, especially on Twitter, has been started and spread by journalists working for respectable publications. (Just recently they got a bunch of viral attention by misdescribing what Trump did at a public press op that was videoed, for example.)

ksk 9y ago

But they claim to use their tech to do things like deliver news, ban fake news, control misinformation, etc. If they themselves are claiming this, do you want to hold them accountable? Its the same thing as why people are upset with Fox News. ITs because they call themselves a news organization and are supposed to be fair and balanced. So obviously people are going to try to hold them to their own words. If they had just called their channel Fox's "made up crazy shit", I don't think there would be as big of a backlash against them.