Slashdot Mirror


Americans Don't Think the Platforms Are Doing Enough To Fight Fake News (poynter.org)

Journalists regularly weigh in on what platforms like Facebook and Google are and aren't doing to stop the spread of viral misinformation. But what do Americans at large think? From a report: Nothing good, according to a new survey published by Gallup and the Knight Foundation on Wednesday. The report, based on web surveys from a random sample of 1,203 U.S. adults, found that 85 percent of Americans don't think the platforms are doing enough to stop the spread of fake news. Additionally, 88 percent want tech companies to be transparent about how they surface content, while 79 percent think those companies should be regulated like other media organizations -- a common trope among journalists. That's despite the fact that the majority of people surveyed (54 percent) said social media platforms help keep them informed and that they're concerned about those companies making editorial judgments.

27 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. "Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" by wiggles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think we haven't done enough to separate these two concepts. We're confusing manipulative lies with opinions incompatible with the worldview of a segment of the population, and it will destroy us.

    1. Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the current state is preferable to the prior one, where news organizations hid behind their reputations while manipulating the truth.

    2. Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The title is too long. It should be "Americans don't think". That is enough and informative.

    3. Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The mixing of the two concepts is a deliberate ploy on the part of those telling manipulative lies. They're trying to reframe it from "truth vs lies" to "freedom of speech".

    4. Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even better would be if people learned to think for themselves and/or check up on stories before reposting them.

      Trying to pass laws to regulate the news feeds to prevent "fake news" is putting the cart before the horse.

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Part of the problem is we used to largely achieve this separation (imperfectly, of course) by paying intelligent adults reasonable salaries to do things like verify sources, check facts, and more or less make the news more reasonable. I believe this once somewhat honorable profession was called "journalism". It had its flaws (Hearst, et al) but by and large it worked.

      Now that journalism has collapsed or been sucked into "the infotainment content business" nobody's willing to pay for that or they expect an algorithm that can automate the cost of doing down to zero.

      It's also complicated somewhat by the increase in diversity. Part of the effectiveness (and flaw) of journalism was that, yes, some of what made it through the journalism filters was "fake news" but it was more or less fake news built off of shared assumptions and biases of a more homogeneous population.

      Now that we have fewer shared assumptions and biases, it's getting more and more difficult even to decide on what's "fake news" unless the fakeness can be determined by physical science and mathematics.

      My money is on all of this getting worse before it gets better.

  2. propaganda by Bodhammer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    propaganda
    noun propaganda \ prä-p-gan-d , pr- \

    1) : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
    2) : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect


    “That the existential realm of man could be taken over by pseudorealities whose fictitious nature threatens to become indiscernible is truly a depressing thought. And yet, the Platonic nightmare, I hold, possesses an alarming contemporary relevance. For the general public is being reduced to a state where people are not only unable to find out about the truth but also become unable even to search for the truth because they are satisfied with deception and trickery that have determined their convictions, satisfied with a fictitious reality created by design through the abuse of language.”

    --Josef Pieper

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  3. The title of this is wrong. by forkfail · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Americans Don't Think the Platforms Are Doing Enough To Remove Worldviews Contrary To Their Own

    would work. As would:

    Americans Are Over The Whole Bill Of Rights Thing, Want To Feel Warm, Fuzzy, And Safe.

    --
    Check your premises.
    1. Re:The title of this is wrong. by gman003 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What do you mean by "worldviews contrary to their own"?

      If you mean "opinions they disagree with", I think most Americans would disagree (isn't that ironic?). If you want to blather on about your horoscope or the superiority of Apple products or how Ocarina of Time is the best Zelda game, you should be perfectly free to do so, and I believe that is the majority opinion by a wide margin.

      If, however, you mean "calls to take action that is wholly incompatible with free society", then yes, I think most Americans think we need to have less of that, and they are right to think so. People calling for a genocide ought to be excluded from civilized society, and in fact any society that does not attempt to exclude such people cannot rightly be considered civilized. Propaganda whose logical conclusion is an atrocity, even if it does not yet openly call for it, should not be given a megaphone. The large social media platforms - Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube, Tumblr - are not the final arbiters of what we see and hear. They are simply a powerful amplifier - and there are some ideas that do not deserve to be amplified.

      And if we return to the original headline, and define "fake news" in the simple and obvious manner ("news which is demonstrably false"), we reach the almost axiomatic "we should give preferential treatment to truth over lies". Forget all the fiddly details for a moment - can we agree that information that is objectively true, ought to be spread faster and said louder than information which is objectively false?

  4. Which fake news? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't really win when 50% of the population considers one news fake, and the other 50% considers the opposite news to be fake...

    Maybe just let people read different news sources and decide.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Which fake news? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more like 25% of the population considers one news fake, another 25% considers the opposite news to be fake. Those of us in the middle 50% find all the shenanigans by those on the two extremes to be exasperating, and would be happy to see both their conspiracy theories banned as fake.

    2. Re:Which fake news? by houstonbofh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's more like 25% of the population considers one news fake, another 25% considers the opposite news to be fake. Those of us in the middle 50% find all the shenanigans by those on the two extremes to be exasperating, and would be happy to see both their conspiracy theories banned as fake.

      I think you have it almost right... 25% consider their "fake news" true. Another 25% consider their "fake news" true. And 50% consider it all fake to some degree or more, and do not want to be around either side with blinders on.

  5. a tad self-serving by ooloorie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing good, according to a new survey published by Gallup and the Knight Foundation on Wednesday. The report, based on web surveys from a random sample of 1,203 U.S. adults, found that 85 percent of Americans don't think the platforms are doing enough to stop the spread of fake news

    So the people with a vested interest in propping up traditional media and censorship miraculously discover in a poll that... Americans want more censorship!

    It's like Stalin proclaiming that Russians want more communism!

    Or like Brawndo proclaiming that Brawndo is what people crave!

  6. Sensationalism by fluffernutter · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is where capitalism fails. Sensationalism makes more money than real news, just as a fast food hamburger makes more money than a nutritious salad. Until capitalism is brought to bear on the things humans actually need rather than the things they want, nothing will change.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  7. What is fake news by Dorianny · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that the definition of "fake news" seems to have changed for incorrect facts or biased viewpoints to "anything that contradicts my beliefs or I simply don't like"

  8. Re:Yes by Weaselmancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because your perception of things given to you by people who want you to distrust the media is incorrect.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  9. Re:You want to fight fake news? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Howabout teaching critical thinking skills at every grade level.

    We're forbidden now to teach at any grade level how to tell boys and girls apart.

    So I think we have a ways to go before we even consider getting back to "critical thinking" ...

  10. Re:Getting news ... by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Getting news served up inside a bubble is a goddam mistake.

    Exactly. The whole concept of "likes" and recommendations based on passed viewing habits is a disaster. Netflix, facebook, youtube, even public education is moving to "personalized content". Personalized content doesn't create a well rounded person, personalized content turns a slightly one sided person into a completely one sided person over a very short amount of time. Silicon Valley needs to completely abandon most forms of personalized content but I predict instead they will likely double down and instead start using a person's friends list to decide what is and is not fake news.

  11. That comes off like a cop-out by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there's plenty of actual fake news going around. Google "QAnon". There's also a ton of misinformation around Climate Change. And then there's John Oliver's video on Astroturfing last week.

    There's literally billions being spent to spread what can only be called lies. I'm less worried about folks confusing opinions with facts and more worried about them confusing outright lies for something true. That's what's going to destroy us.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:That comes off like a cop-out by dcollins117 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      QAnon was started as a goof on 4chan, later moved to 8chan, and then spread to Reddit and YouTube when they realized they could make money off of it. Only thing driving it now is the lulz and money from the stupid, gullible people that bought into it.

      Not sure what the point would be to censor absurd content like this. Rational and sane people can immediately recognize it as bullshit, and the rest are a lost cause.

  12. Re:You mean CNN? by Lucas123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey, give CNN a break. They created a 24/7 news cycle they have to fill with 23 hours of pontificating pundits. The pundits have become more the news than actual breaking events.

  13. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OR - the media itself is giving people reason to distrust them by simply adding in their own (biased) adjectives and continuously pushing "nothing burgers" while purposefully withholding certain stories, truths or defenses. Politicians do enough lying on their own. The last thing we need to the 'reporters' adding another layer of lies on top of the lies we were already told. The ministry of information is strong.

    I don't have the cycles to verify each and every statement made by "X" politician, let alone every (opinionated, hyperbolic) statement made by each of the various 'wings' of the media. Ill just turn off all the politics and talk to the people around me, and see how they're doing.

  14. Re:You mean CNN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Did you actually look at cnn.com before making up that line of bullshit?

  15. Re:You mean CNN? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This all smells like utter bullshit to me. Evidence or GTFO!

    (I welcome the downmods for demanding evidence for wild claims)

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  16. Do you have any evidence? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you have any proof that the media is purposely withholding stories?

    That would require a perfect conspiracy of everyone involved in the news cycle at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, USA Today, New York Times, MSNBC, The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.

    Now imagine what it would take to get everyone involved to shut up without scooping each other. News outlets get paid through advertising. If some amazing event occurs, the first outlet to report it gets the most eyes and the most advertising revenue. That is how it works. Your conspiracy theory runs counter to this.

    I have a rule of thumb I try to keep in mind. If your explanation requires a conspiracy to work, your explanation is almost certainly wrong. People talk.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  17. Re:You want to fight fake news? by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For example, male and female are a biological reality, yet there is a large anti-science political and social movement which teaches that they are just fluid social constructs. What do you do about that? It is perplexing.

    Intersex is also a biological reality, and comes in many different forms, but I guess since that doesn't fit your worldview it must be "Fake News".

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  18. Re:You want to fight fake news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Thank you for a perfect example of a demonstrable lie.

    In reality, science has discovered that gender is not simply a factor of XX or XY (which even if it were true, would not explain the existence of hermaphrodites), but is predicated on the chemical receptors of the brain. This fully explains the notion of effeminate men and masculine women, and transgenderism (which has existed for as long as humans have if you'll just read history). Some people don't like this highly disputed, yet never refuted fact, so they have to make up how "schools don't allow boys and girls to tell each other apart!!1" because obvious bullshit hyperbole gets you modded +5 by sock accounts on /.

    It's sad that respect for science has been overrun by right wing indoctrination on this site.