Doug:
So I'm wondering how you feel about the rise of fake news during this past election cycle?
David:
First, we need to identify just what is fake news. Is it made up stories, or is it a repeated story that is believed to be true by the reporter? Is it only stories that are purposely created based on nothing at all, or is a "tip" about information enough to make it "fake"?
Just what is fake news, specifically?
Doug:
Let's talk about the easy one: the stories that are obviously false. Should people be able to spread fake stories easily on, say, Facebook?
David:
Fake news isn't new. Remember when we were kids, and The National Enquirer was at every checkout stand at the grocery store with a headline about "Elvis' Alien Baby Robs Bank!"? Even Mom used to buy it and read it at home. None of it was believable, but people were free to make up their own minds about the stories. No one stepped in to censor or otherwise force The Enquirer to cease printing their nonsense. It appealed to a certain demographic. Did anyone believe those stories? Perhaps a very few. Most just found it humerous or entertaining.
Doug:
Sorry, I didn't mean "obviously false" like "woman gives birth to chicken-headed baby". I meant "obviously false" in that if you do a bit of digging, it will be obvious that the news is false. For example, if many fact-checking organizations have shown evidence that a story is false, then what should we do?
David:
What do you mean the chicken-headed baby story is false? Here's a photo of the baby with the father:
Just kidding. We all know Elvis' baby was a tribble, not a chicken....
Now we're in a digital age, and anyone can publish anything and everything on the internet. But has anything really changed? Remember, there is a reason people mock information on the internet; "It must be true. I read it on the internet!" Should there be some standards to what you can say? Should you be required to authenticate every story before you re-tweet it? Who will make those standards and rules? Who gets to decide what's fake? Must we do anything, or keep doing what we've been doing since people started sharing information with each other: nothing. Most people are not stupid.
Doug:
I don't think it is a question of whether people are stupid or not. It is a question of whether it is a technology company's ethical and moral duty to attempt to help us keep the dialog focused on the issues, rather than being tricked by people that neither care nor participate in debates on our values. Google and Facebook probably already make many choices that effect what we see. Why not make just a few more choices to prevent this particular type of spam?
David:
I think it's safe to say we both agree that people should not believe fake news, or be duped into believing something that isn't true. And you are right that while in the past, there were not many opportunities for fake news to show up in print, that just is not the case today. The fake stories are also sometimes much more sophisticated, and sometimes blended with partial truths that make it more likely to fool people. I agree that even educated, intelligent folks can be duped at times. Even professional journalist can be fooled into sharing information that just isn't true on occasion.
But how to prevent it without being accused of bias or censorship? What if a story is 20% true? 40%? 75% true? What if a story is generally and factually true, but some details are wrong? What if the story is true, but important details are omitted? Do these constitute fake news, and should the sites carrying them be blocked? The reason I ask is that a fake-news site, when faced with losing access to social media, may adjust their news to "make the cut", so to speak. Add a little truth here. Add a fact or two there. Now they become acceptable, but still fake. What do you do with a parody site such as The Onion? All of their news is purposely fake for the sake of humor. Should they be blocked, or does satire deserve a pass?
I think Facebook and Twitter, as private companies, can do whatever they want. They are free to set whatever parameters they desire for postings on their sites. It will be interesting what happens afterwards, though. As we can already see, they seem to be hesitant (or perhaps cautious is a better word) moving forward to avoid being labeled as biased, or engaging in censorship.
Doug:
I think that there could be a board of advisors that could make recommendations to tech companies on how to deal with fake news. Perhaps labeling them as such (e.g., "parody", "fake"), or making it more difficult to share/link or access such pages. Currently, tech companies aren't being hesitant or cautious... they are ignoring the problem completely. They will have to be better stewards of our conversations, whether they want to or not. The truth is too important to treat in such a caviler manner.
David:
As long as you're not talking about some federal government agency using our tax dollars for this purpose, I think we can find some common ground. In the same way that these companies are free to restrict what shows up on their sites, they are also free to not restrict postings. Personally, at this point in the game, I say we should just educate folks about fake news and make it known what sites are fake, and let the buyer beware. Elvis (who now goes by the name Zaphod Beeblebrox) totally agrees with me.
So I'm wondering how you feel about the rise of fake news during this past election cycle?
David:
First, we need to identify just what is fake news. Is it made up stories, or is it a repeated story that is believed to be true by the reporter? Is it only stories that are purposely created based on nothing at all, or is a "tip" about information enough to make it "fake"?
Just what is fake news, specifically?
Doug:
Let's talk about the easy one: the stories that are obviously false. Should people be able to spread fake stories easily on, say, Facebook?
 |
| How to spot fake news. |
David:
Fake news isn't new. Remember when we were kids, and The National Enquirer was at every checkout stand at the grocery store with a headline about "Elvis' Alien Baby Robs Bank!"? Even Mom used to buy it and read it at home. None of it was believable, but people were free to make up their own minds about the stories. No one stepped in to censor or otherwise force The Enquirer to cease printing their nonsense. It appealed to a certain demographic. Did anyone believe those stories? Perhaps a very few. Most just found it humerous or entertaining.
Doug:
Sorry, I didn't mean "obviously false" like "woman gives birth to chicken-headed baby". I meant "obviously false" in that if you do a bit of digging, it will be obvious that the news is false. For example, if many fact-checking organizations have shown evidence that a story is false, then what should we do?
David:
What do you mean the chicken-headed baby story is false? Here's a photo of the baby with the father:
Just kidding. We all know Elvis' baby was a tribble, not a chicken....
Now we're in a digital age, and anyone can publish anything and everything on the internet. But has anything really changed? Remember, there is a reason people mock information on the internet; "It must be true. I read it on the internet!" Should there be some standards to what you can say? Should you be required to authenticate every story before you re-tweet it? Who will make those standards and rules? Who gets to decide what's fake? Must we do anything, or keep doing what we've been doing since people started sharing information with each other: nothing. Most people are not stupid.
Doug:
I don't think it is a question of whether people are stupid or not. It is a question of whether it is a technology company's ethical and moral duty to attempt to help us keep the dialog focused on the issues, rather than being tricked by people that neither care nor participate in debates on our values. Google and Facebook probably already make many choices that effect what we see. Why not make just a few more choices to prevent this particular type of spam?
David:
I think it's safe to say we both agree that people should not believe fake news, or be duped into believing something that isn't true. And you are right that while in the past, there were not many opportunities for fake news to show up in print, that just is not the case today. The fake stories are also sometimes much more sophisticated, and sometimes blended with partial truths that make it more likely to fool people. I agree that even educated, intelligent folks can be duped at times. Even professional journalist can be fooled into sharing information that just isn't true on occasion.
But how to prevent it without being accused of bias or censorship? What if a story is 20% true? 40%? 75% true? What if a story is generally and factually true, but some details are wrong? What if the story is true, but important details are omitted? Do these constitute fake news, and should the sites carrying them be blocked? The reason I ask is that a fake-news site, when faced with losing access to social media, may adjust their news to "make the cut", so to speak. Add a little truth here. Add a fact or two there. Now they become acceptable, but still fake. What do you do with a parody site such as The Onion? All of their news is purposely fake for the sake of humor. Should they be blocked, or does satire deserve a pass?
I think Facebook and Twitter, as private companies, can do whatever they want. They are free to set whatever parameters they desire for postings on their sites. It will be interesting what happens afterwards, though. As we can already see, they seem to be hesitant (or perhaps cautious is a better word) moving forward to avoid being labeled as biased, or engaging in censorship.
Doug:
I think that there could be a board of advisors that could make recommendations to tech companies on how to deal with fake news. Perhaps labeling them as such (e.g., "parody", "fake"), or making it more difficult to share/link or access such pages. Currently, tech companies aren't being hesitant or cautious... they are ignoring the problem completely. They will have to be better stewards of our conversations, whether they want to or not. The truth is too important to treat in such a caviler manner.
David:
As long as you're not talking about some federal government agency using our tax dollars for this purpose, I think we can find some common ground. In the same way that these companies are free to restrict what shows up on their sites, they are also free to not restrict postings. Personally, at this point in the game, I say we should just educate folks about fake news and make it known what sites are fake, and let the buyer beware. Elvis (who now goes by the name Zaphod Beeblebrox) totally agrees with me.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!