4 ms·

Fake news has always existed, and society builds up an immunity whenever it evolves into a new medium. I don't see the illegitimate Wordpress-based sites that p

Fake news has always existed, and society builds up an immunity whenever it evolves into a new medium. I don't see the illegitimate Wordpress-based sites that peddle lies as any different than the National Enquirer-esque print tabloids or radio conspiracy theorists of yesteryear. Folks who didn't grow up with the internet may have trouble telling the difference, and even Millennials constantly fall for biased social media outlets, but there is already proof that the next generation is seeing through the most flagrant of cheap tricks. I'm not saying society is immune to propaganda, but the most blatant offenders are a bit like a temporary illness until media consumers wise up. EDIT: Added context from my original comment.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
Do you have evidence that historical forms of fake news and propaganda became less effective over time?
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  I don't have evidence either way, but one would expect that looking at the history surrounding the introduction of the printing press, the introduction of newspapers, of radio, and television would be a good starting point.
- schnevets 7y ago
  Outside of looking at history and saying "everything seems to work out", I don't have much. However, there is the phenomenon of Banner Blindness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness) in frequent web users.
dgudkov 7y ago
>a temporary illness until media consumers wise up Not exactly. Media consumers do need to wise up. However expecting the consumers to bear the entire burden of verification is naive. Consumers want someone to do the verification for them (at least partially) because it's tedious and time consuming. That's why reputation paid off back then. That's why before the internet the mechanism of information propagation was built in a way to amplify proved, respectable media. The social media on the internet have created a mechanism that can amplify any information. Even worse than that - it amplifies poor quality information with sensationalist clickbaity headlines significantly better that good quality but not so sensationalist information. Add to the picture the proliferation of click-based advertisement and you will see why sensationalism nowadays pays off more than reputation.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

Do you have evidence that historical forms of fake news and propaganda became less effective over time?

vanderZwan 7y ago
I don't have evidence either way, but one would expect that looking at the history surrounding the introduction of the printing press, the introduction of newspapers, of radio, and television would be a good starting point.
schnevets 7y ago
Outside of looking at history and saying "everything seems to work out", I don't have much. However, there is the phenomenon of Banner Blindness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness) in frequent web users.

dgudkov 7y ago

>a temporary illness until media consumers wise up Not exactly. Media consumers do need to wise up. However expecting the consumers to bear the entire burden of verification is naive. Consumers want someone to do the verification for them (at least partially) because it's tedious and time consuming. That's why reputation paid off back then. That's why before the internet the mechanism of information propagation was built in a way to amplify proved, respectable media. The social media on the internet have created a mechanism that can amplify any information. Even worse than that - it amplifies poor quality information with sensationalist clickbaity headlines significantly better that good quality but not so sensationalist information. Add to the picture the proliferation of click-based advertisement and you will see why sensationalism nowadays pays off more than reputation.