Doug:
One of the things I worry about most these days is people mining Big Data and finding ways to manipulate us. Some of the studies of Big Data are interesting, insightful, and funny. For example, The NYTimes reported on a Google analysis of the most misspelled words, state-by-state:
Indiana's most checked-on word was "hallelujah" and Pennsylvania's was "sauerkraut." That, no doubt, says something about our respective locales. Wisconsin's most-searched misspelling was "wisconsin."
But such analysis can also find what we find irresistible. For example, here is a study on social media headlines by BuzzSumo:
The article, wryly titled "This Study on the Most Effective Facebook Headlines Will Make You Cry Tears of Recognition," shows what works and what doesn't, in attracting eyeballs. Of course, just getting you to read something isn't worrisome manipulation. However, combine that with fake news, and we're in trouble.
David:
This just seems to be Advertising 101. Tag lines to get your attention have always been used to entice readers to take a longer peek at specific ads. "Be the first to impress your friends by using our new and improved widget! But wait! Buy it now and we'll include a once-in-a-lifetime guaranteed offer of a second widget at no additional fee! Hurry, as quantities are limited!" How many thousands of times have we heard that message?
Are you saying that there is something new and improved with big data collection?
Doug:
Yes, there are new things with these techniques, but not "improved" from our perspective. If you combine fine-grained details (like misspellings per state, or county) with targeted, effective headlines, you get "advertising" that works. But I'm not worried about this from a sales perspective; I'm worried about this combined with fake news. Now you are sold lies to get you to believe something that isn't true.
David:
Not true. We get these sales pitches all the time, yet we can spot a lemon or snake oil salesman. An effective ad may get your attention, but it doesn't make you purchase something. You still have to make that decision yourself. Fake news headlines are the same. Remember the National Enquirer back in the 1970's and 80's? Headlines about Elvis and alien babies certainly grab your attention, but few believed such nonsense. Fake news is more sophisticated, to be sure, but it is still the reader's responsibility to sort out truth from fiction.
Doug:
We don't get these pitches all the time. This is new. This is targeted. And it is designed to both be believable, and also to pitch you what you want to believe. How will you be able to tell the difference between what is true and false? You won't be able to, and, doubly insidious, you will want to believe it. And they don't want to sell you something; they just want your attention, and for you to believe.
David:
The biggest problems I see at this point is Americans are poorly informed about civics and the real world around them, and also that news organizations have become so biased themselves that fake news seems more believable. When everyone is peddling a biased narrative, some story that fits that narrative becomes more believable. Even CNN has had to fire people because they bought into a fake story that fit their belief system. Remember Dan Rather? That was what got him into trouble: he wanted the story to be true so much that he failed to investigate.
Doug:
You are confused. I'm not talking about CNN or Dan Rather. But I'd be more concerned about people's ethics than their civil knowledge. I am talking about information that is created to sell you a narrative. Here is an excellent, if long, article on the problem; I recommend following the author. (CNN fired people because they made missteps in their reporting, not because they believed fake stories. And the reporters may very well end up correct.) If you can't tell the difference between CNN and any of the fake news outlets, then you have already been duped. If you can tell the difference, then "hallelujah" and pass the sauerkraut!
David:
I don't think CNN is trying to publish fake news stories, but they do leave out important details at times because of their bias. If you watch the news portion of Fox News, not the opinion shows, you might pick up on certain words that you would believe are biased. I see the same thing at MSNBC, CNN, and many other outlets. Polling shows that most Americans do not care at all about the Russia-collusion story, but the daily news is intensely focused on the story as though it were all true. Continuing to run non-stop coverage about an issue with no proof appears to be based editorializing. Some might call that investigative journalism, some might call it fake news pushing an agenda.
Doug:
Unnamed sources does not mean "no proof." The Washington Examiner: borderline! And that article was from May, 2017. You realize a few things have happened since then, right? But even if no one cares, it is still news! Oh, wait... maybe your news only gives you "news" that you care about. That is part of the equation for fake news: your pump is primed, to coin a phrase.
David:
What I'm saying is that you must make decisions about what you believe. Individuals must be informed and take some responsibility for what they believe.
Doug:
But there is no way that any one person can know what is true! How can you tell if any one story is based on fact, or is designed/engineered/tested to appear that way? You can't. We need reliable sources.
David:
But I do agree that it is a problem, and the problem is likely to get worse. This summer we watched the newest Star Wars movie, Rogue One, which had dead actors portray major characters. It isn't too far of a stretch to see how easy it would be to make a video showing someone doing something or saying something that they never did. Soon, we may not be able to believe our own eyes.
Doug:
That is my point: you can't tell (from pictures or text) what is the truth. But with artificial intelligence and advanced geometric graphics, this isn't limited to the big studios; you'll be able to do this too. Consider this research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk
Combine that with Big Data and targeted research, and we don't stand a chance. Unless we have reliable sources. We can't watch only news that we want to watch. We have to watch the news we need to watch.
One of the things I worry about most these days is people mining Big Data and finding ways to manipulate us. Some of the studies of Big Data are interesting, insightful, and funny. For example, The NYTimes reported on a Google analysis of the most misspelled words, state-by-state:
 |
| Google conducted a state-by-state analysis of the most commonly misspelled words for the first four months of 2017. |
But such analysis can also find what we find irresistible. For example, here is a study on social media headlines by BuzzSumo:
David:
This just seems to be Advertising 101. Tag lines to get your attention have always been used to entice readers to take a longer peek at specific ads. "Be the first to impress your friends by using our new and improved widget! But wait! Buy it now and we'll include a once-in-a-lifetime guaranteed offer of a second widget at no additional fee! Hurry, as quantities are limited!" How many thousands of times have we heard that message?
Are you saying that there is something new and improved with big data collection?
Doug:
Yes, there are new things with these techniques, but not "improved" from our perspective. If you combine fine-grained details (like misspellings per state, or county) with targeted, effective headlines, you get "advertising" that works. But I'm not worried about this from a sales perspective; I'm worried about this combined with fake news. Now you are sold lies to get you to believe something that isn't true.
David:
Not true. We get these sales pitches all the time, yet we can spot a lemon or snake oil salesman. An effective ad may get your attention, but it doesn't make you purchase something. You still have to make that decision yourself. Fake news headlines are the same. Remember the National Enquirer back in the 1970's and 80's? Headlines about Elvis and alien babies certainly grab your attention, but few believed such nonsense. Fake news is more sophisticated, to be sure, but it is still the reader's responsibility to sort out truth from fiction.
Doug:
We don't get these pitches all the time. This is new. This is targeted. And it is designed to both be believable, and also to pitch you what you want to believe. How will you be able to tell the difference between what is true and false? You won't be able to, and, doubly insidious, you will want to believe it. And they don't want to sell you something; they just want your attention, and for you to believe.
David:
The biggest problems I see at this point is Americans are poorly informed about civics and the real world around them, and also that news organizations have become so biased themselves that fake news seems more believable. When everyone is peddling a biased narrative, some story that fits that narrative becomes more believable. Even CNN has had to fire people because they bought into a fake story that fit their belief system. Remember Dan Rather? That was what got him into trouble: he wanted the story to be true so much that he failed to investigate.
Doug:
You are confused. I'm not talking about CNN or Dan Rather. But I'd be more concerned about people's ethics than their civil knowledge. I am talking about information that is created to sell you a narrative. Here is an excellent, if long, article on the problem; I recommend following the author. (CNN fired people because they made missteps in their reporting, not because they believed fake stories. And the reporters may very well end up correct.) If you can't tell the difference between CNN and any of the fake news outlets, then you have already been duped. If you can tell the difference, then "hallelujah" and pass the sauerkraut!
David:
I don't think CNN is trying to publish fake news stories, but they do leave out important details at times because of their bias. If you watch the news portion of Fox News, not the opinion shows, you might pick up on certain words that you would believe are biased. I see the same thing at MSNBC, CNN, and many other outlets. Polling shows that most Americans do not care at all about the Russia-collusion story, but the daily news is intensely focused on the story as though it were all true. Continuing to run non-stop coverage about an issue with no proof appears to be based editorializing. Some might call that investigative journalism, some might call it fake news pushing an agenda.
Doug:
Unnamed sources does not mean "no proof." The Washington Examiner: borderline! And that article was from May, 2017. You realize a few things have happened since then, right? But even if no one cares, it is still news! Oh, wait... maybe your news only gives you "news" that you care about. That is part of the equation for fake news: your pump is primed, to coin a phrase.
David:
What I'm saying is that you must make decisions about what you believe. Individuals must be informed and take some responsibility for what they believe.
Doug:
But there is no way that any one person can know what is true! How can you tell if any one story is based on fact, or is designed/engineered/tested to appear that way? You can't. We need reliable sources.
David:
But I do agree that it is a problem, and the problem is likely to get worse. This summer we watched the newest Star Wars movie, Rogue One, which had dead actors portray major characters. It isn't too far of a stretch to see how easy it would be to make a video showing someone doing something or saying something that they never did. Soon, we may not be able to believe our own eyes.
Doug:
That is my point: you can't tell (from pictures or text) what is the truth. But with artificial intelligence and advanced geometric graphics, this isn't limited to the big studios; you'll be able to do this too. Consider this research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk
Combine that with Big Data and targeted research, and we don't stand a chance. Unless we have reliable sources. We can't watch only news that we want to watch. We have to watch the news we need to watch.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!