7 ms·

I gave a talk at Denver startup week last year about the underlying profit incentives tied to fake news and how industry reforms in the way media companies do b

by jsonne 8y ago

I gave a talk at Denver startup week last year about the underlying profit incentives tied to fake news and how industry reforms in the way media companies do business could not only benefit the advertisers but also stop Fake news. At the end of the talk I had 3 people ask how they could make fake news to promote their startups. That this has turned into a booming industry surprises me 0%, though it is depressing.

adamnemecek 8y ago
Can you recommend some material on this and how to design the incentives properly?
- jsonne 8y ago
  Yeah let me try and find some good articles. As for my talk, the tl;dr is that the lack of inventory transparency by ad networks coupled with the way that the CPM pricing model is currently administered incentivizes a system where the only that matters is clicks and not context or outcomes. Fake news is an extreme example, but a less sinister one is the Buzzfeeds and Upworthys of the world.
mattferderer 8y ago
Is your talk or similar online anywhere?
- jsonne 8y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't believe it was recorded. That said I've been submitting it to some local TedXs so hopefully, I can get a recording in the near future.
  - guachesuedehack 8y ago
    Would you happen to have a slides or transcripts then ?
whyaduck 8y ago
My thought experiment for considering the moral limits of capitalism: If producing Soylent Green were legal and profitable, would there be actors willing to produce and sell it? If you answer no, see: Philip Morris, Lockheed, Beretta, etc.
- smt88 8y ago
  Coca-Cola will likely kill more people than guns and organized crime, honestly. But I see your point. There is a lot of evidence that organized crime is a substitute for opportunities in legitimate society, so that example is perhaps not applicable. The opioid crisis caused by US pharma may be a bigger and better example.
  - whyaduck 8y ago
    "Organized crime" is an exceptionally poor example since the premise involves the legality of the activity/product. Edited. Regarding Coca-Cola vs guns - the list wasn't comprehensive :).
  - notatcomputer68 8y ago
    Organized crime is a huge problem. Like just take Mexico. Really poor and that's because of organized crime. If they were richer they could probably save a lot of lives. I think that's a bigger factor than the number of people shot dead.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  You're being downvoted for some reason, but the point on morality and capitalism is sound. For examples you might have been better choosing cases where the production rather than use by customers is problematic. Radium paint and dials, asbestos, prior to 20th century regulations food and medicine fraud and adulteration so endemic that finding just the correct product was almost impossible. Which is what led those regulations in the first place.
  - whyaduck 8y ago
    Allowing businesses to divorce themselves from responsibility for the effects of what they produce, regardless of consumer choice, is too easy. I have no idea what the equivalent of "Saturday morning cartoons" is today, but 20 years ago, that slot was filled with commercials for sugary foods, targeted at children. Now we have payday loans, "buy here pay here" and a host of other services that capitalize on unsophisticated consumers in precarious economic conditions. Capitalism is what it is - an utterly amoral engine of profit. Without regulation and legal frameworks it will create slaves, destroy the environment, kill and maim people - there's almost no limit. What the OP's anecdote illustrates is that there's also a deep cultural issue at play.
honestlyidk 8y ago
Is this something that requires government oversight or is it just a business plan/strategy. If the latter then the free market should tell you that your plan is right or wrong. If it requires government overshight I would say its inherently flawed. "Fake news" isnt a problem the problem is a lazy populace that take any word for granted as long as the production value is good enough. Fake news is how free speech is supposed to work. People get to say what they want and the populace decides for themselves what is right or wrong. Liable and slander are still in effect.
- kartan 8y ago
  > Fake news is how free speech is supposed to work. I can't agree with your statement. Game news is the contrary of what free speach stands for. Free speach is about being able to express your opinions. Fake news are intentionally misleading and hurt other people's well-being. > Fake news" isnt a problem the problem is a lazy populace that take any word for granted as long as the production value is good enough. Blame the victim. If you cheat me, it is my fault to not see thru your lie, if you rob me it's my fault for not being more vigilant. If I lie about my products, or about other things for economical gain. Shouldn't the state make sure that I'm punished for that? Should not be the same case that for breaking a contract?
  - Kalium 8y ago
    > Free speach is about being able to express your opinions. Fake news are intentionally misleading and hurt other people's well-being. As fake news is a form of expression, how do you propose to draw a meaningful distinction between protected speech and speech that may hurt the well-being of others? Especially one that does not risk chilling effects or becoming prior restraint, and is thus compatible with freedom of speech.
  - utternerd 8y ago
    I wonder if we'll look back at the Bloomberg "chip implant" story as fake news, and if that's the case, can you imagine the police breaking into their offices with a warrant because of it? Fraud is one thing, but hiring some e-celeb to pitch your product isn't something we need jack-booted thugs kicking in doors for. We don't even have an objective definition of "fake news", and you'll never convince me the State should be the one defining or enforcing that.
duxup 8y ago
I went to a local tech event. A few folks gave talks about their products / services and their marketing. A few included people straight up talking about paying "influencers" or pod casters, or youtubers, to mention their product or service and so forth. Nobody seemed to note anything about disclosing that it was an advertisement or not. I liked to think that maybe they just assumed the influencer was going to mention it was paid or everyone understood that was the case but me .... but it never was actually spoken about. I couldn't help but wonder if the people paying for these services think that they are ever exposed to other companies doing the same? Do they care?
- TomMarius 8y ago
  > I liked to think that maybe they just assumed the influencer was going to mention it was paid or everyone understood that was the case but me .... but it never was actually spoken about. All major social media (Instagram, Youtube, ...) require you to disclose any promotions. It's absolutely normal in "old" media. I think that it's assumed if the audience was composed of actual business people.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    A lot of "influencers" (I hate that phrase so much) like to play the vague game. "Thanks, Club Med, for a great week!" and consider that "disclosing the paid nature of the item".
- freehunter 8y ago
  I'm a local "influencer" [1] and am part of a local group of other influencers for the city I live in and marking a promotion as such just goes without saying. The FTC even has rules on influencer promotions [2]. I see a lot of sponsored posts from other bloggers and influencers I'm friends with and they're all marked as "#ad" or "#sponsored" or something along those lines. No one is saying "I'm running an AdSense campaign but forgot to tell Google that they need to mark it as an advertisement!" It goes without saying. These people are professionals same as anyone else and know the rules of their trade same as anyone else. [1] "influencer" meaning someone with a significant presence on social media, blogs, podcasts, YouTube, etc. [2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...
tyingq 8y ago
It's been pretty pervasive in certain niches for a long time. Homeopathic health products, for example. You can find lots of ads disguised as news reports that are more than a decade old. Dr Oz has been slinging crap for a similar time period.
kradroy 8y ago
8 years ago I used NLP to generate fake user profile bios for a social media company (not one you've heard of). The SEO/marketing guys went nuts over it and started using it for everything. It was super effective and they had the money to scale it. Eventually Panda came out and hosed the rankings on the blogs/domains they used it for. Around the same time I discovered https://narrativescience.com/ https://narrativescience.com/ and read about how they accomplished the same task. It was essentially similar to what I had done - write tons of templates, like Mad Libs, and then algorithmically fill in the blanks. Mine sometimes generated nonsense (e.g. "I love Mozart! I saw him in concert last year."). But for our purposes, or rather the purposes the marketing people came up with, it didn't matter much. I saw the list of Narrative Science's investors and noted that In-Q-Tel was on there. Then I asked myself why the CIA's R&D funding arm would want that. The answer was obvious - to generate misinformation to spread to adversary orgs/states. Drown the real message in a sea of lies and your foes will waste more resources trying to find the truth.
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  This is a stab in the dark but the pattern fits: did the social media company no one has heard of happen to be TuneWiki?
- acct1771 8y ago
  Hate to be the one to tell you this...they're doing it domestically (in their own country) as well.
marmadukester39 8y ago
I’d love to see/read that talk. Any way to get hold of it?

by jsonne 8y ago

adamnemecek 8y ago

Can you recommend some material on this and how to design the incentives properly?

jsonne 8y ago
Yeah let me try and find some good articles. As for my talk, the tl;dr is that the lack of inventory transparency by ad networks coupled with the way that the CPM pricing model is currently administered incentivizes a system where the only that matters is clicks and not context or outcomes. Fake news is an extreme example, but a less sinister one is the Buzzfeeds and Upworthys of the world.

mattferderer 8y ago

Is your talk or similar online anywhere?

jsonne 8y ago
Unfortunately, I don't believe it was recorded. That said I've been submitting it to some local TedXs so hopefully, I can get a recording in the near future.
- guachesuedehack 8y ago
  Would you happen to have a slides or transcripts then ?

whyaduck 8y ago

My thought experiment for considering the moral limits of capitalism: If producing Soylent Green were legal and profitable, would there be actors willing to produce and sell it? If you answer no, see: Philip Morris, Lockheed, Beretta, etc.

smt88 8y ago
Coca-Cola will likely kill more people than guns and organized crime, honestly. But I see your point. There is a lot of evidence that organized crime is a substitute for opportunities in legitimate society, so that example is perhaps not applicable. The opioid crisis caused by US pharma may be a bigger and better example.
- whyaduck 8y ago
  "Organized crime" is an exceptionally poor example since the premise involves the legality of the activity/product. Edited. Regarding Coca-Cola vs guns - the list wasn't comprehensive :).
- notatcomputer68 8y ago
  Organized crime is a huge problem. Like just take Mexico. Really poor and that's because of organized crime. If they were richer they could probably save a lot of lives. I think that's a bigger factor than the number of people shot dead.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
You're being downvoted for some reason, but the point on morality and capitalism is sound. For examples you might have been better choosing cases where the production rather than use by customers is problematic. Radium paint and dials, asbestos, prior to 20th century regulations food and medicine fraud and adulteration so endemic that finding just the correct product was almost impossible. Which is what led those regulations in the first place.
- whyaduck 8y ago
  Allowing businesses to divorce themselves from responsibility for the effects of what they produce, regardless of consumer choice, is too easy. I have no idea what the equivalent of "Saturday morning cartoons" is today, but 20 years ago, that slot was filled with commercials for sugary foods, targeted at children. Now we have payday loans, "buy here pay here" and a host of other services that capitalize on unsophisticated consumers in precarious economic conditions. Capitalism is what it is - an utterly amoral engine of profit. Without regulation and legal frameworks it will create slaves, destroy the environment, kill and maim people - there's almost no limit. What the OP's anecdote illustrates is that there's also a deep cultural issue at play.

honestlyidk 8y ago

Is this something that requires government oversight or is it just a business plan/strategy. If the latter then the free market should tell you that your plan is right or wrong. If it requires government overshight I would say its inherently flawed. "Fake news" isnt a problem the problem is a lazy populace that take any word for granted as long as the production value is good enough. Fake news is how free speech is supposed to work. People get to say what they want and the populace decides for themselves what is right or wrong. Liable and slander are still in effect.

kartan 8y ago
> Fake news is how free speech is supposed to work. I can't agree with your statement. Game news is the contrary of what free speach stands for. Free speach is about being able to express your opinions. Fake news are intentionally misleading and hurt other people's well-being. > Fake news" isnt a problem the problem is a lazy populace that take any word for granted as long as the production value is good enough. Blame the victim. If you cheat me, it is my fault to not see thru your lie, if you rob me it's my fault for not being more vigilant. If I lie about my products, or about other things for economical gain. Shouldn't the state make sure that I'm punished for that? Should not be the same case that for breaking a contract?
- Kalium 8y ago
  > Free speach is about being able to express your opinions. Fake news are intentionally misleading and hurt other people's well-being. As fake news is a form of expression, how do you propose to draw a meaningful distinction between protected speech and speech that may hurt the well-being of others? Especially one that does not risk chilling effects or becoming prior restraint, and is thus compatible with freedom of speech.
- utternerd 8y ago
  I wonder if we'll look back at the Bloomberg "chip implant" story as fake news, and if that's the case, can you imagine the police breaking into their offices with a warrant because of it? Fraud is one thing, but hiring some e-celeb to pitch your product isn't something we need jack-booted thugs kicking in doors for. We don't even have an objective definition of "fake news", and you'll never convince me the State should be the one defining or enforcing that.

duxup 8y ago

I went to a local tech event. A few folks gave talks about their products / services and their marketing. A few included people straight up talking about paying "influencers" or pod casters, or youtubers, to mention their product or service and so forth. Nobody seemed to note anything about disclosing that it was an advertisement or not. I liked to think that maybe they just assumed the influencer was going to mention it was paid or everyone understood that was the case but me .... but it never was actually spoken about. I couldn't help but wonder if the people paying for these services think that they are ever exposed to other companies doing the same? Do they care?

TomMarius 8y ago
> I liked to think that maybe they just assumed the influencer was going to mention it was paid or everyone understood that was the case but me .... but it never was actually spoken about. All major social media (Instagram, Youtube, ...) require you to disclose any promotions. It's absolutely normal in "old" media. I think that it's assumed if the audience was composed of actual business people.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  A lot of "influencers" (I hate that phrase so much) like to play the vague game. "Thanks, Club Med, for a great week!" and consider that "disclosing the paid nature of the item".
freehunter 8y ago
I'm a local "influencer" [1] and am part of a local group of other influencers for the city I live in and marking a promotion as such just goes without saying. The FTC even has rules on influencer promotions [2]. I see a lot of sponsored posts from other bloggers and influencers I'm friends with and they're all marked as "#ad" or "#sponsored" or something along those lines. No one is saying "I'm running an AdSense campaign but forgot to tell Google that they need to mark it as an advertisement!" It goes without saying. These people are professionals same as anyone else and know the rules of their trade same as anyone else. [1] "influencer" meaning someone with a significant presence on social media, blogs, podcasts, YouTube, etc. [2] https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

tyingq 8y ago

It's been pretty pervasive in certain niches for a long time. Homeopathic health products, for example. You can find lots of ads disguised as news reports that are more than a decade old. Dr Oz has been slinging crap for a similar time period.

kradroy 8y ago

8 years ago I used NLP to generate fake user profile bios for a social media company (not one you've heard of). The SEO/marketing guys went nuts over it and started using it for everything. It was super effective and they had the money to scale it. Eventually Panda came out and hosed the rankings on the blogs/domains they used it for. Around the same time I discovered https://narrativescience.com/ https://narrativescience.com/ and read about how they accomplished the same task. It was essentially similar to what I had done - write tons of templates, like Mad Libs, and then algorithmically fill in the blanks. Mine sometimes generated nonsense (e.g. "I love Mozart! I saw him in concert last year."). But for our purposes, or rather the purposes the marketing people came up with, it didn't matter much. I saw the list of Narrative Science's investors and noted that In-Q-Tel was on there. Then I asked myself why the CIA's R&D funding arm would want that. The answer was obvious - to generate misinformation to spread to adversary orgs/states. Drown the real message in a sea of lies and your foes will waste more resources trying to find the truth.

tomjakubowski 8y ago
This is a stab in the dark but the pattern fits: did the social media company no one has heard of happen to be TuneWiki?
acct1771 8y ago
Hate to be the one to tell you this...they're doing it domestically (in their own country) as well.

marmadukester39 8y ago

I’d love to see/read that talk. Any way to get hold of it?