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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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!
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.
109% of Lee Harvey Oswalds killed JFK.
What about the other 109%?
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
I don't think you should get news from platforms.
The millennial that doesn't like most of the stuff designed for millennials.
Howabout teaching critical thinking skills at every grade level. A large chunk of this generation may already be too far gone, but that doesn't mean we can't begin fixing the problem with the next one. Anyone with even a modest ability to critically think when confronted with hyperbole on social media sites can quickly discern real from fake news, or at least realize the need to use Google or other search engines (such as duckduckgo.com) to check the veracity of any "news" report or bombastic claim.
People want someone else to protect them. People want someone else to pay for everything. Seems to be the new mantra - it's someone else's responsibility. I guess the up-and-coming "I love socialism and I want to be protected from anything that I think is offensive" generation is willing the let go of all freedom to have their own little, personal bubble of supposed security...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Platforms that offer free service don't do enough to vet news? Well, you get what you pay for - a bunch of clickbait of dubious authenticity.
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"
Because your perception of things given to you by people who want you to distrust the media is incorrect.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
How many of that 85% are sharing every shock value story across their own Facebook feed? Fake news is pretty easily stopped simply by not turning into a viral "please click like and share" campaign. And we can't blame all Trump supporters either. Those that hate him turn anything that remotely looks like a juicy rumor mill story against him into the latest facebook viral story.
Sent from my TARDIS
So you have a plan to prevent all the idiots out there from believing fake news? You can be personally responsible all you want and preach personal responsibility of others, but you will continue to be affected by the others that choose to believe fake news since they are part of shaping your society.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The only Fake News in this area is profits from your Tesla shorting.
... served up inside a bubble is a goddam mistake.
The bubbles are out to make money, and they aren't concerned with diligence as much as money.
Right now, some of my extended family are shitting their britches because their bubbles have removed Alex Jones.
Not by way of support or that ass, but by way of providing information, I pointed out that jerk is available all over the fucking place.
The hard part is to exit the confines of the bubble long enough to read.
However, that's too much trouble for them.
An easier, more satisfying approach is to stay in the bubble and bitch like hell.
Batshit crazy people.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
I'm right there with you - part of the responsibility of living in a free democratic society is educating yourself and trying to make rational decisions and choices.
Unfortunately, humanity regularly demonstrates it's too stupid for this responsibility. Facebook is both part of the problem, as there's no way to downvote stupid and it contributes to the "what should I be enraged at today without thinking about it" culture, and it's also just a place that demonstrates this is the basic nature of humanity, whether on FB or not.
I choose not to participate in social media hysteria and stupidity, because I feel it actively makes me dumber.
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/
You know.. if I see something on a legitimate news site that sounds outrageous or out of step with reality in some way? I look elsewhere to see if it's being reported accurately (Snopes is good for this). Most people? Not so much, apparently. Stop using Zuckerbook and other so-called 'social media' as a news source, for starters! Then apply this Magical Thing called 'critical thinking', and (shocker!) common sense. There, was that so hard?
The ultimate in fake news that just got caught misreporting news again, like the very other day almost..
So you have a plan to prevent all the idiots out there from believing fake news?
Yes. It's called showing other news too. Used to be a time that contrasting viewpoints were both discussed, and the viewer could decide. We've always had idiots, always had flat-earthers, always had conspiracy theorists. But somehow it's now incumbent upon media to "protect" people from "bad" points of view? Who decides what is bad, and who decides what is allowable? Would you be OK if Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh got to dictate what you can and cannot see?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A lot of us will be starting to Block all S&P 500 corporations on Twitter starting on Friday.
No, a one week suspension is just Alex Jones going on an already planned vacation, as any decent intelligence operative could tell you.
Permanent or we cut your funding.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Americans Really Really Want Platforms To Do All Their Thinking For Them
"Like, why do I have to think for myself like some chump?" - said Joe Blow from White Trash, Florida
Who decides what is bad, and who decides what is allowable?
The good news is that we don't even need to reinvent the wheel, we just have to disallow anyone who does not exhibit it:
Journalism ethics and standards
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
The thing is, that's just debate and happens all the time.
I don't see debate happening hardly at all any more. All I see are people are shouting past each other, or someone talking and someone else refusing to listen. Actual debate seems to be dead, there is no room for it anymore amidst the anger,
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
For platforms being platforms and interfering with their users as little as possible.
With the advent of social media we have brazen attempts to manipulate the populous vs the news media's covert attempts to do the
same. The only difference between the to is whether it is overt or covert.
I know. I am such a SHORT. I guess the SEC must be a short too. That can be the only explanation!
So, you're basically saying there is no problem. The media should be able to say whatever they want, true or not, and represent it as true. There will be no differentiation between a bold faced lie and an informational news article because it is against the bill of rights. Furthermore, news agencies should be completely free to manipulate how the populace thinks and feels. Wonderful backwards country you have there.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I pasted a link to CNN article and FB didn't delete it. What gives?!
What's wrong with the way it's always been? Let all information out there through, don't filter anything. If source is caught lying, people don't go to it anymore. If source proves reliable, more people pay attention to it.
THAT many people want some kind of regulation/agency to tell them what's true and what's not true, what to believe and what not to believe instead of making up their own minds...? Sounds more like 79-88% of Americans are morons.
Americans don't want to think for themselves
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.
Glad you were able to catch up.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Media journalists are standing on thin ice. From Fox and Brietbart to CNN and MSNBC political agendas shine through. Journalists are supposed to be objective reporters of fact. Analysis, "our say," and judgmental words are not objective statements of fact. At least social media is a level playing field. Of course most of it is links to media outlets (bad) and lolcats (stupid).
Bill Gates is a communist -- he's just more equal than the rest of us.
If you get it from the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, FOX on the TV side, and NY Times, Washington Post, Washington Times etc. It's all propaganda, depending on your political views.
"...Facebook and Google are and aren't doing to stop the spread of viral misinformation."
They're not the ones sharing the stories and making them viral. The idiots complaining about the problem are the ones creating it.
That poisons the conversation. I know he is a blathering idiot - but there are those that will accept that he is correct.
So you have a plan to prevent all the idiots out there from believing fake news?
I'll get around to it eventually. First I have to prevent billions of idiots out there from believing in fake gods.
You can be personally responsible all you want and preach personal responsibility of others, but you will continue to be affected by the others that choose to believe fake news since they are part of shaping your society.
So? Given they are part of society why would they not be entitled to shape it?
The only thing worse than having to work to build consensus for the ideologies you support are the alternatives.
If you both think the trivially modified in flight news you receive via video and internet can be trusted more than anecdote and believe any platform should be deciding what is fake and real for you then you already have demonstrated you lack the required critical thinking skills to participate in politics. Nothing against you but you are probably calling healthy rational skepticism paranoia by this point and believing every plea to authority that falls in line with your confirmation bias.
If this represents you, please stop voting or spreading your political ideas. DON'T participate. I don't care what your actually political views are or if there are millions of you ready to raise me up as king and get my way on all my views. If your views aren't based on sound reason and logic it no longer matters what they are.
Facebook is your home? Or perhaps you mean any medium where anyone's opinion can be posted is "your home" and if it doesn't agree with your point of view should be taken out as trash?
If you want to punish liars .... for example could start with Collin Powell, GW Jr, everyone in government, military, all private citizens that supported invasion of Iraq, which was based on WMD lie and caused a great deal of suffering to millions of people. We know for a fact it was a lie after all, there's no denying it. Why hasn't anyone in "your home" taken responsibility for it?
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.
to be fair, it WAS at one time regulated, this article is somewhat specific in saying that it going away didn't cause FOX news, but it does point out that if it had been extended to cable television things MIGHT have been different.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
honestly, i do think that anything purporting it's self to be "news" SHOULD have some form of the fairness doctrine applied to it. Sure, we might lose some stories about a dog that likes lasagna or something, but I like to think that the value gained would be far more important. In today's media, you can't survive without making everything sound worse than it is to get those eyeballs.
opinion pieces should be required to be clearly stated as opinion pieces, and if a company decides to run opinion pieces, they should have to give equal time to a rebuttal if requested and a proper expert can be vetted (and provide documentation on why no expert could be found on demand, should that be the case)
those freaky socio-medical shows need some of that as well.. some form of requirement on sharing alternate research against their juice cleanses and diatomaceous earth eating madness. Or again clearly cite that there has been no counter research.
If you put a political ad or public service/health announcement into any form of media, you should be required to be a public company (so people can see your investors) or an open public non profit (that shares donor information) or a private citizen. and that information needs to be clearly visible, and disclosed with the advert.
it confirms what seems like most North Americans (yes, we Canadians too) want is to have someone else fix our problems. In this case, many seem to be too lazy to try and reason whether the given news is fake or not, they would rather have some program/person/company tell them it is.
IMHO, finding a solution to our laziness will go a long way to solving this problem, among others.
Never bathe in hot oil and Bisquick.
Americans are upset that they have the responsibility of installing bullshit filters in their own minds. People surveyed were angry that Big Brother doesn't seem capable of creating bespoke filters for every user that's sufficiently biased to the user's world view.
85 percent of Americans need to think more. Or some. Or any.
But it's easier to let someone else do it for you. Kinda like outsourcing your critical data into the cloud, where it's all backed up and secure (you hope) and available for anyone to use. (you hope NOT.)
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
A lot of the worst offenders don't call themselves "news", but "entertainment". Oh, it doesn't matter that I said something biased or inaccurate, this isn't *news*, it's *entertainment*. Maybe it'd be enough to have the news outlets self-identify each show. They kind of do it now, but they want it both ways -- they want to show what looks like news but carries a tiny little asterisk that reads "For entertainment purposes only." We'd need to have outlets that identify as news display a banner that says, "WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT THIS!". Those outlets would be held to journalistic standards. Any outlet which doesn't display the banner can be ignored as biased garbage.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
We have this really old fashioned concept called journalistic standards. I know its somewhat derided in our Web 8.0 culture, but the concept still has a ton of merit. If a media organization is journalistic, it adheres to certain standards regarding factuality, impartiality and ethics. A journalistic organization can have an agenda, but it has to be open and explicit about it. On the other hand, for a media organization that isn't journalistic, it's pretty much open season in terms of what they say or who they take money from in exchange for saying something. For these organizations, honesty is optional.
Journalistic organizations are not perfect, but they are generally worthy of being trusted. All the others are, quite simply, unreliable sources of information.
Examples of journalistic organizations: most of the printed newspapers in major cities (the main ones, not the rags), US News and World Report, The Economist (has an agenda but is honest about it), NPR. There are lots of others. These are good sources of news that are generally trustworthy. Notice that most of these info sources require a subscription. That's because real journalism requires real people, doing real work, making real salaries, in order to determine what's factual and what isn't. It takes time and effort. Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are getting their info from these sources because they actually cost money. NPR is free only because of the federal funding model they follow.
Examples of media organizations that are NOT journalistic: Facebook, Facechat, Twitter, Instragram, 4chan, Reddit, Slashdot. Basically all the new-gen online platforms. NBC and FOX pretend to be journalistic organizations, but they are dishonest about their agendas, which disqualifies them. Same goes for anything run by the Murdoch family. CNN gets close but doesn't quite make it either. These are NOT places to get news. They are fine for entertainment, biased commentary, and an occasional interesting discussion. But not for reliable info. Any news from these places needs to be treated with a "trust but verify, or just don't trust" mentality. Anyone who uses these as their main source of news is making a big mistake.
When the MSM themselves are almost just as bad at fake news level and just as guilty of propaganda? Also can American think for themselves instead of have others dictate their worldview?
They moved the ads to in video and paetronhandle? Your point?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Ok, so I guess you have been happy with every president ever then.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Can we cut this Orwellian shit out, please? It fools no one but the fools.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
News is impartial factual reporting with sceptical questioning of opposing advocates. Opinion pieces are not news.
if the movement wasn't getting national coverage. It's one thing to see stories on Fox News (which, let's not mince words here, is more or less the Republican Party's propaganda arm). But I've seen bloody CNN talking about it.
Now true, it's not like they could spend that time covering something like the 45,000 folks who die of preventable diseases every year or the war in Yemen being fought with our weapons or the last round of Wallstreet deregulation that just happened and is going to cause a market crash in about 6 years....
My point, in case it wasn't obvious, is that these nut job conspiracy theories are leaping off 4 chan and it's happening for a reason. Somebody with a lot of pull would much rather we pay attention to that then to our ever worsening economic situation... We can debate who that is, but that's secondary to the simple fact that we're being distracted from more important matters.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Americans prefer that someone else do their thinking for them, and are angry that it's not already doing it."
-Styopa
Education dumbs them down so much...
Are these same people complaining that their local newsstand isn't spending enough time reading all the newspapers and magazines they sell in order to tear out the "questionable" articles? Likewise, the post office isn't responsible even if illegal drugs or other goods are mailed using their service.
I don't understand why people think the distribution network is responsible in any way for the content that is pushed through their network. If anything, the social networks are a victim of people abusing their system.
But social media sites aren't "the media" (in the "news" sense). They don't write and publish the content people are complaining about - they're a "public" bulletin board where anybody can post whatever they want (legally - the sites can remove whatever posts they want, but aren't required to). They are a place for users to share media (words, pictures, etc.) with whoever wants to receive it.
To censor content risks losing safe harbor protections. Warning labels do not, so long as they can be contested & appealed, and maybe checked/tested (via algorithm) before publishing content. Moreover, categorically labeling an entire site/source as unreliable is more problematic then labeling a single item that site/source produces/publishes as being suspect.
Either way, this opens a Pandora's box of civil liability.
For instance: 1) How can one algorithmically check factual content for accuracy vs. editorial opinion? 2) How can one distinguish the spreading of a rumor or propaganda from mere reporting on the prevalence of a rumor or propaganda? 3) Who is the authorized arbiter of truth? 4) What if an unsubstantiated rumor is later proved to be true? 5) What if a generally accepted rumor is later proved to be false? Etc.
Error: NSE - No Signature Error
Anybody who doesn't believe that Christians are under worldwide attack is obviously not paying attention.
By the way Muslims are under worldwide attack too.
Jews have been under worldwide attack since they traveled to Egypt to escape famine in the ancient past.
We all get you don't like the president. He can't be controlled by the political elites of either party and is actually keeping his campaign promises, which terrifies professional politicians on both sides.
The problem with calling something "Fake news", and Trump has this problem too, is that the term has no real meaning. One can promulgate lies as truth, but one can also promulgate truth as lies. The best way to lie is to tell the truth, just not the whole truth. Leave out context and the truth can become a lie. Then there's the whole point about presenting opinion as fact, ignoring facts that don't match the narrative, etc.
This is not way a left or right problem. It is a left and right problem, and a moderate problem too. Moderates love to ignore inconvenient facts presented by the political far right or far left, even when the facts themselves are actually factual.
Well, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are regarded as Fake News by an increasing number of people.
Platforms cannot be the arbiter of truth. Why? Because they're as biased and subject to mistakes as the content creators they host. The very same people crying for moderation now will be crying foul when it turns against them.
Leaving ourselves at the tender mercies of corporations to pick the winners and losers in the online marketplace of ideas. What could go wrong.
It's ok, the taste of boot leather isn't so bad once you get used to it.