10 ms·

The market will sort out the real from the fake? The market is how we got where we are. The market favors clickbait, not necessarily truth. Don't get me wrong,

The market will sort out the real from the fake? The market is how we got where we are. The market favors clickbait, not necessarily truth. Don't get me wrong, I find all the calls for somebody to do something (i.e. restrict free speech) equally troublesome. I basically think there's no solution. Liars gonna lie.

drb91 9y ago
> The market favors clickbait, not necessarily truth. This seems super related to the lack of a decent way to pay for one-off articles and the need to show ads. If there were a medium between adware and a $10/month subscription, I firmly believe the articles would bulk up again. Gaming for page views necessarily trends towards zero content per page view. Competing for money itself would lead to some sort of qualitative difference in content--a huge win for consumers.
enitihas 9y ago
I understand your point, but in times of crisis, (like the Myanmar situation) I think the idea of no solution won't find much takers and people will be desperate to "do something".
- cat199 9y ago
  so, create a crisis like 'russian meddling' to do the same here, you are saying?
  - gizmo385 9y ago
    Want to expand on what you mean by "create a crisis" in relation to Russian meddling?
vinhboy 9y ago
> Liars gonna lie. And stupid people will continue to be stupid. > I basically think there's no solution. Agreed.
fhood 9y ago
> I basically think there's no solution. Which is unfortunate given that Democracy works a whole lot better with a (correctly) informed public.
- prolikewhoa 9y ago
  I'm surprised nobody has thought about putting more money into education.
  - AcerbicZero 9y ago
    I think there is a point of diminishing returns, and with our current educational system design, we're at that point. Without a redesign of some core parts of the system, no amount of money can be thrown at the problem to solve this issue.
lr4444lr 9y ago
Somehow, the National Enquirer existed for decades alongside the newspapers of record in every town of the United States, and we didn't degenerate into a know-nothing lawless society. Tastes changed, and though correlation is not causation, the slippage of America's educational performance comparative to other countries' can't be flat out ignored.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  This example doesn't survive even a shallow consideration. The National Enquirer isn't piped into our smartphones all day long, mixed in with notes from friends, repeated on local TV news stations, and broadcast over FM radio. They've never put the money into figuring out how to manipulate people into consuming their content as often as possible. As the whole anti-vaccination problem has clearly shown, people aren't equipped to sort out fact from fiction all on their own, despite (or maybe because of...) living in the most information-rich society in human history. However, a large enough group of ill-informed people is sufficient to force social change or even incite violence and stoke the fires of xenophobic hatred. So it is a problem that needs to be addressed; it's wrong and morally lazy for intellectuals to lean back and say, "well, free speech, and people will sort themselves out anyway." There is an imperative here to resolve this new problem our society has.
  - Varcht 9y ago
    The thing is, being well informed on vaccinations tells you that there are real risks. While on a societal level the risks are clearly well worth the outcome but at an individual level are they? For instance, if 1 in 100 will be harmed, 98 get the vaccine and are fine, 1 is harmed and the other forgoes the vaccine with zero risk from the vaccine and near zero risk of contracting the target of the vaccination.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      It took just 32 minutes for someone to show up and demonstrate my example of vaccinations and false information. Good job, HN.
beisner 9y ago
I mean, there's a long precedent of restricting free speech in the public interest. The classic example of shouting fire in a public theater comes to mind: the speech causes imminent danger to the theater occupants, and the courts have ruled that the rights of the public to safety outweigh the rights of the individual to say whatever they'd like. The question with fake news becomes: what is the damage that this type of speech causes to the public? This is a really difficult question to answer, especially since we're only starting to notice the effects on our political system. If this damage is too great, there would be justification to restrict it in the public interest. Of course, the people who end up making these determinations may also have conflicting political incentives, which makes this a very delicate situation to tackle in as broken of a political environment as we have in the US.
- jlbbellefeuille 9y ago
  There needs to be a substantial governmental reason to restrict any liberties granted in the constitution. For example, guns are not allowed in post offices for a substantial governmental reason.
- prolikewhoa 9y ago
  I agree with your second point. Who controls what's considered fake news? Very little is done in the interest of the citizens of the USA anymore [1], so why would we trust our government or media to show us what's in our best interest? [1] https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig (Fully Sourced in Description)
- friendlydude12 9y ago
  Being able to physically run your mouth in public has little to do with free speech, including shouting fire in a movie theatre. Free speech is the ability to express any opinion or idea, anti-government opinions included. This is why online posts and various non-verbal actions (like burning a flag) are protected under The First Amendment, even though nothing is being physically said. Additionally this is why threatening violence towards somebody isn’t protected: a threat of violence isn’t an opinion or an idea.
prolikewhoa 9y ago
Spend more on education and less on war. There's one solution.
- friendlydude12 9y ago
  It’s not clear that throwing money at the problem will fix it. I don’t know if critical thinking is even really taught in school.
Paul-ish 9y ago
I think John Dewey had the right idea. A well educated populace is necessary. But, public education is a mess right now.
alexilliamson 9y ago
> Liars gonna lie Agreed. As they always have since humans or our ancestors first stood to gain from deception. You'll never stop it. But I think the solution may still come from market forces. Not as in tech companies inventing showy systems for flagging and muting fake news. But I think people are slowly becoming smarter news consumers, more skeptical about what they take as fact. Who hasn’t become smarter about filtering out BS in the last two years? The problem for Trump and Fox with all their “fake news” tirades is that you can’t partially open people’s minds to skepticism. Once they begin questioning one news source, they begin developing general critical reasoning ability. Tribalism may keep them defending their bad news source for some time, but as they continue to tear apart other sources, they will become increasingly unable to turn a blind eye to their own. In the long run, Fox making accusations of fake news will cannibalize their own fake news. Whether that happens in the next 8 years or on a longer horizon? Who knows…
- s2g 9y ago
  > I think people are slowly becoming smarter news consumers, more skeptical about what they take as fact They really, really, really aren't. Look at the polls. > Once they begin questioning one news source, they begin developing general critical reasoning ability They don't question news sources. They write off anything that doesn't contribute to their happy little world (or very unhappy little world, whichever).
- csydas 9y ago
  > Once they begin questioning one news source, they begin developing general critical reasoning ability. I think this is being very generous to the idea of skepticism. Skepticism is a very difficult thing to learn properly, and more or less being a skeptic of modern media seems to be more heavily related to dismissing any information which contradicts you own paradigm of the world in favor of a more simplistic model that works for you. Dismissing all media except for "the one true source" is really no better than exposing yourself to all of it and believing it blindly. It's just substituting one absolute truth for another. I honestly don't think that what Fox does will cannibalize their own bad reporting; it will only strengthen it, because unless one is actively seeking to question the truths they hold dear, they will never really take the time to validate what they already "know". It's a very humbling thing to accept that what you know may be based on bad information, and to live in a constant fantasy since it's more convenient. I hope we will grow past this, but right now we're still working on learning to sort the vast amount of information we're exposed to daily.
friendlydude12 9y ago
The market isn’t static, it’s dynamic. The plethora of news sources will over time force consumers to think more critically about their information, since there is an inherent desire to not be a fool. The current situation is a temporary chaos before society renormalizes to the new conditions. It’s like the first few seconds of chaos when you mix red and blue water, before it settles to a calm purple.
man2525 9y ago
This is what happens when there are only major two political parties. After contributions to the right candidates on each side of the aisle, money left over to stand up astro turf political parties, buy TV stations, newspapers, and magazines. Plus they get it all back in tax breaks and approved contracts.
weberc2 9y ago
I would argue that the degree to which we value honesty and truth has slipped a lot in the last decade, or at least it has done in our epistemological institutions (journalism, academia, etc). I think it may be caused by ideological homogeneity (the folks who might call a social scientist on their ideological bias are too marginalized to matter). This is fortunately a tractable problem with a clear solution: promote viewpoint diversity.

drb91 9y ago

> The market favors clickbait, not necessarily truth. This seems super related to the lack of a decent way to pay for one-off articles and the need to show ads. If there were a medium between adware and a $10/month subscription, I firmly believe the articles would bulk up again. Gaming for page views necessarily trends towards zero content per page view. Competing for money itself would lead to some sort of qualitative difference in content--a huge win for consumers.

enitihas 9y ago

I understand your point, but in times of crisis, (like the Myanmar situation) I think the idea of no solution won't find much takers and people will be desperate to "do something".

cat199 9y ago
so, create a crisis like 'russian meddling' to do the same here, you are saying?
- gizmo385 9y ago
  Want to expand on what you mean by "create a crisis" in relation to Russian meddling?

vinhboy 9y ago

> Liars gonna lie. And stupid people will continue to be stupid. > I basically think there's no solution. Agreed.

fhood 9y ago

> I basically think there's no solution. Which is unfortunate given that Democracy works a whole lot better with a (correctly) informed public.

prolikewhoa 9y ago
I'm surprised nobody has thought about putting more money into education.
- AcerbicZero 9y ago
  I think there is a point of diminishing returns, and with our current educational system design, we're at that point. Without a redesign of some core parts of the system, no amount of money can be thrown at the problem to solve this issue.

lr4444lr 9y ago

Somehow, the National Enquirer existed for decades alongside the newspapers of record in every town of the United States, and we didn't degenerate into a know-nothing lawless society. Tastes changed, and though correlation is not causation, the slippage of America's educational performance comparative to other countries' can't be flat out ignored.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
This example doesn't survive even a shallow consideration. The National Enquirer isn't piped into our smartphones all day long, mixed in with notes from friends, repeated on local TV news stations, and broadcast over FM radio. They've never put the money into figuring out how to manipulate people into consuming their content as often as possible. As the whole anti-vaccination problem has clearly shown, people aren't equipped to sort out fact from fiction all on their own, despite (or maybe because of...) living in the most information-rich society in human history. However, a large enough group of ill-informed people is sufficient to force social change or even incite violence and stoke the fires of xenophobic hatred. So it is a problem that needs to be addressed; it's wrong and morally lazy for intellectuals to lean back and say, "well, free speech, and people will sort themselves out anyway." There is an imperative here to resolve this new problem our society has.
- Varcht 9y ago
  The thing is, being well informed on vaccinations tells you that there are real risks. While on a societal level the risks are clearly well worth the outcome but at an individual level are they? For instance, if 1 in 100 will be harmed, 98 get the vaccine and are fine, 1 is harmed and the other forgoes the vaccine with zero risk from the vaccine and near zero risk of contracting the target of the vaccination.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    It took just 32 minutes for someone to show up and demonstrate my example of vaccinations and false information. Good job, HN.

beisner 9y ago

I mean, there's a long precedent of restricting free speech in the public interest. The classic example of shouting fire in a public theater comes to mind: the speech causes imminent danger to the theater occupants, and the courts have ruled that the rights of the public to safety outweigh the rights of the individual to say whatever they'd like. The question with fake news becomes: what is the damage that this type of speech causes to the public? This is a really difficult question to answer, especially since we're only starting to notice the effects on our political system. If this damage is too great, there would be justification to restrict it in the public interest. Of course, the people who end up making these determinations may also have conflicting political incentives, which makes this a very delicate situation to tackle in as broken of a political environment as we have in the US.

jlbbellefeuille 9y ago
There needs to be a substantial governmental reason to restrict any liberties granted in the constitution. For example, guns are not allowed in post offices for a substantial governmental reason.
prolikewhoa 9y ago
I agree with your second point. Who controls what's considered fake news? Very little is done in the interest of the citizens of the USA anymore [1], so why would we trust our government or media to show us what's in our best interest? [1] https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig (Fully Sourced in Description)
friendlydude12 9y ago
Being able to physically run your mouth in public has little to do with free speech, including shouting fire in a movie theatre. Free speech is the ability to express any opinion or idea, anti-government opinions included. This is why online posts and various non-verbal actions (like burning a flag) are protected under The First Amendment, even though nothing is being physically said. Additionally this is why threatening violence towards somebody isn’t protected: a threat of violence isn’t an opinion or an idea.

prolikewhoa 9y ago

Spend more on education and less on war. There's one solution.

friendlydude12 9y ago
It’s not clear that throwing money at the problem will fix it. I don’t know if critical thinking is even really taught in school.

Paul-ish 9y ago

I think John Dewey had the right idea. A well educated populace is necessary. But, public education is a mess right now.

alexilliamson 9y ago

> Liars gonna lie Agreed. As they always have since humans or our ancestors first stood to gain from deception. You'll never stop it. But I think the solution may still come from market forces. Not as in tech companies inventing showy systems for flagging and muting fake news. But I think people are slowly becoming smarter news consumers, more skeptical about what they take as fact. Who hasn’t become smarter about filtering out BS in the last two years? The problem for Trump and Fox with all their “fake news” tirades is that you can’t partially open people’s minds to skepticism. Once they begin questioning one news source, they begin developing general critical reasoning ability. Tribalism may keep them defending their bad news source for some time, but as they continue to tear apart other sources, they will become increasingly unable to turn a blind eye to their own. In the long run, Fox making accusations of fake news will cannibalize their own fake news. Whether that happens in the next 8 years or on a longer horizon? Who knows…

s2g 9y ago
> I think people are slowly becoming smarter news consumers, more skeptical about what they take as fact They really, really, really aren't. Look at the polls. > Once they begin questioning one news source, they begin developing general critical reasoning ability They don't question news sources. They write off anything that doesn't contribute to their happy little world (or very unhappy little world, whichever).
csydas 9y ago
> Once they begin questioning one news source, they begin developing general critical reasoning ability. I think this is being very generous to the idea of skepticism. Skepticism is a very difficult thing to learn properly, and more or less being a skeptic of modern media seems to be more heavily related to dismissing any information which contradicts you own paradigm of the world in favor of a more simplistic model that works for you. Dismissing all media except for "the one true source" is really no better than exposing yourself to all of it and believing it blindly. It's just substituting one absolute truth for another. I honestly don't think that what Fox does will cannibalize their own bad reporting; it will only strengthen it, because unless one is actively seeking to question the truths they hold dear, they will never really take the time to validate what they already "know". It's a very humbling thing to accept that what you know may be based on bad information, and to live in a constant fantasy since it's more convenient. I hope we will grow past this, but right now we're still working on learning to sort the vast amount of information we're exposed to daily.

friendlydude12 9y ago

The market isn’t static, it’s dynamic. The plethora of news sources will over time force consumers to think more critically about their information, since there is an inherent desire to not be a fool. The current situation is a temporary chaos before society renormalizes to the new conditions. It’s like the first few seconds of chaos when you mix red and blue water, before it settles to a calm purple.

man2525 9y ago

This is what happens when there are only major two political parties. After contributions to the right candidates on each side of the aisle, money left over to stand up astro turf political parties, buy TV stations, newspapers, and magazines. Plus they get it all back in tax breaks and approved contracts.

weberc2 9y ago

I would argue that the degree to which we value honesty and truth has slipped a lot in the last decade, or at least it has done in our epistemological institutions (journalism, academia, etc). I think it may be caused by ideological homogeneity (the folks who might call a social scientist on their ideological bias are too marginalized to matter). This is fortunately a tractable problem with a clear solution: promote viewpoint diversity.