3 ms·

I've been thinking of building a 'fake news' app to embarrass people like this who share fake news. The idea is to have a legitimate looking site. The link wo

I've been thinking of building a 'fake news' app to embarrass people like this who share fake news. The idea is to have a legitimate looking site. The link would be something like 'thebostonreporter.com' where it looks like a real news URL and the content ALSO looks like a legitimate news site. The site would create news stories that confirm the bias of people who tend to share fake news. For example, "Hillary Clinton Convicted of Money Laundering in Boston Court" or something like that... Then we push it on social media. Once the links has gone out and has been distributed across social media we flip the content of the link and say, basically: "You've been the victim of fake news!" and explain what they did wrong and how to be more critical of links they share. PART of this is going to have to be to shame them. Another part is to make it clear that the next link they share MIGHT be another "fake news time bomb" that could revert and embarrass them again - hopefully making them reconsider sharing fake links in the future.

brlewis 8y ago
From the article: "Another study found that relatively few people clicked on fake news links — but that their headlines likely traveled much further via the News Feed, making it difficult to quantify their true reach." Relying on people clicking through to see the content might not work.
snarf21 8y ago
This is a very interesting idea. This approach is similar to one the SEC did with ICOs to combat all the scam and fraud happening. I'm not sure how you determine when to do the flip. You would need a certain amount of people to see the fake news but these things cycle really quickly. If you wait one day, it may be too late as all that user's followers already saw the fake news and have moved on. I wonder if you could do a logarithmic decay for the fake new to shame page where there is an increasing percentage of people who get the "you've been had" page. You'd also have to be very careful to not run afoul of libel. You'll need lots of "a well-informed source..." and lots of "may" and "might" and "is expected to" language.
cgriswald 8y ago
A few things: First, you probably don’t have to flip the content. They read the headline and click share. If they click the content they read the first paragraph and skim. Just put a note at the end of the content. Second, I don’t think shaming works. I’ve seen people called out on obvious nonsense. If they’re embarrassed about it, it doesn’t stop them from sharing the next thing. Third, at best they’ll probably just learn they can’t trust your URL. I’ve got a friend from high school who is constantly sharing nonsense. I’ve also seen him be the victim of a scam. He just doesn’t have the capacity to think about what’s real or not, probably because of a combination of low IQ and high anxiety or paranoia. I can’t imagine any amount of shame helping him. Might make him worse. He may be a special case or he may not. But I’ve seen plenty of others be blasted for posting obvious nonsense and at best they are embarrassed but go with an “ends justifies the means” defense because the article talks negatively about some great right- or left-wing devil.
asdff 8y ago
When would it flip? The minute after they post? No one will revisit something they posted yesterday.

brlewis 8y ago

From the article: "Another study found that relatively few people clicked on fake news links — but that their headlines likely traveled much further via the News Feed, making it difficult to quantify their true reach." Relying on people clicking through to see the content might not work.

snarf21 8y ago

This is a very interesting idea. This approach is similar to one the SEC did with ICOs to combat all the scam and fraud happening. I'm not sure how you determine when to do the flip. You would need a certain amount of people to see the fake news but these things cycle really quickly. If you wait one day, it may be too late as all that user's followers already saw the fake news and have moved on. I wonder if you could do a logarithmic decay for the fake new to shame page where there is an increasing percentage of people who get the "you've been had" page. You'd also have to be very careful to not run afoul of libel. You'll need lots of "a well-informed source..." and lots of "may" and "might" and "is expected to" language.

cgriswald 8y ago

A few things: First, you probably don’t have to flip the content. They read the headline and click share. If they click the content they read the first paragraph and skim. Just put a note at the end of the content. Second, I don’t think shaming works. I’ve seen people called out on obvious nonsense. If they’re embarrassed about it, it doesn’t stop them from sharing the next thing. Third, at best they’ll probably just learn they can’t trust your URL. I’ve got a friend from high school who is constantly sharing nonsense. I’ve also seen him be the victim of a scam. He just doesn’t have the capacity to think about what’s real or not, probably because of a combination of low IQ and high anxiety or paranoia. I can’t imagine any amount of shame helping him. Might make him worse. He may be a special case or he may not. But I’ve seen plenty of others be blasted for posting obvious nonsense and at best they are embarrassed but go with an “ends justifies the means” defense because the article talks negatively about some great right- or left-wing devil.

asdff 8y ago

When would it flip? The minute after they post? No one will revisit something they posted yesterday.