I know Facebook is a US-based product and everything, but I'm really getting sick and tired of products that are used all over the world getting adjusted just because they are a problem now in the US.
First we had "fake news" (which used to be called just propaganda), which we have dealt with long before Internet was even a big thing in our region[0]. Now this.
Media survives just fine here. Most people still don't use adblockers and most people are ready to donate for good quality journalism (in fact, there's a Serbian-based investigative reporting center that's currently making an excellent progress in moving away from grants to one-time donations by their readers, and there are other digital-only media sources across Europe which are even breaking records living off of subscriptions by being transparent and talkative to their audience[1]). But nope, instead of doing their own thing, they're going to have to adjust because Facebook wants to promote more "local" things to encourage "civil engagement" because a "research suggests it" (keep in mind there's not a single mention of what that research might actually be, neither in the article itself, nor in the manifesto).
You have separate sections in every newspaper what so ever, and unlike in Facebook's very specific, and very tailored to every individual bubbles, at least you skim through the headlines from other sections while you're trying to locate something you will actually read. That alone makes you more informed about what is going on more than Facebook's bubbles ever will.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_during_the_Yugoslav...
1. Fake news makers are exclusively after money. 2. Propagandists are exclusively after a political end. 3. Journalists are mostly after the truth, even if they are very biased and far from immune from the corrupting influence of money and political ends.
The mainstream media's privileged position of controlling the narrative is under threat, both from within the media (e.g. Breitbart) and without (random guys on the internet creating narratives).
The idea of "fake news" is propaganda, created in order to push Facebook/Twitter/etc into shutting down the media and random guys that are threatening the mainstream media. It'll probably work too.
Incidentally, insofar as "fake news" is real, it is highly unlikely to have any major effect. ...for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads. https://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/fakenews.pdf
Propaganda: The NYT, at the behest of the government, publishing reports of Iraq possessing WMD's in order to lay the groundwork for an illegal invasion and occupation.
Fake News: A fabricated story about a made up individual finding boxes of ballots marked for Clinton, complete with a photo pulled from Google. The story then is pushed on social media sites by sockpuppets.
In other words there's a difference between Judith Miller and Stephen Glass.
Of all the significant distinctions, the most important one is that fake news is driven by the current state of the internet: ad revenue based click grabbing, pushing of content on social media (sometimes through sockpuppets), an elevated level of anonymity, etc.
This archive of a disreputable website has an article that claims Clinton bribed prominent Republicans (which were at that time Trumps opponents in the primary). It even links Wikileaks and gives an id for the email. Only ... the ID simply doesn't exist. It even made it into an Interview of Hannity with Assange:
https://www.reddit.com/r/WhereIsAssange/comments/5ion2c/full...
> Hannity: Let me ask you about Wikileaks. I think this could shake up the political world. Is it true that an email sent in July of this year that you have, that describes how funds could be diverted from the Clinton campaign to the super PACs of Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and John Kasick. Specifically document number 1078645. Assange: I don't have that in front of me. We have published nearly 100,000 documents so. I mean I have seen references to things like that. I don't recall seeing an 'eyes only' phrase.
Assange didn't recall it because there is no email. The whole story was made up as clickbait for conservatives. But even Assange guards his statement, because it is normal that one doesn't recall everything, right?
Another example was a story about Supreme Court justice Ginsberg. Another clickbait website made up a quote of her and linked as proof an interview of Ginsburg in the NYTimes. And the NYT is reputable, right? Only the quote is fictional it never was in the NYT article. In a time were many people just read the headline and skim the rest (if at all) and sharing via social media is one click away, this is disappointingly effective.
(This is almost certainly due to selection bias - Trump hatred is a socially required belief in my circles, while Trump support is a very unusual position adopted only after careful thought and kept carefully hidden.)
There are many silly beliefs that Trump opponents have picked up from the mainstream media. For instance, compare beliefs about Trump-inspired crime to reality - most are hoaxes perpetrated by Trump opponents, and the most serious incidents (e.g. the kidnapping/torture of a mental retard) were committed by Trump opponents.
Or beliefs that Bannon and Trump are somehow antisemitic Nazis. Never mind that Trump was mentored by (((Roy Cohn))) and that the key people in his organization are (((Allen Weisenberg))), (((Michael Cohen))) and (((Jason Greenblatt))). Somehow (((Jared Kushner))) and (((Ivanka Trump))) are also involved. Not to mention that Bannon's rise to power came from working with (((Andrew Breitbart))), and he's secretly communicating with (((Curtis Yarvin))). [1]
Strangely, these crazy beliefs are never cited when discussing fake news. They just aren't part of the narrative. That's why I characterize this "fake news" push as propaganda - it's only about keeping non-mainstream sources out of the narrative.
[1] I'm only using the alt-right ((())) to emphasize what actual anti-semitic people would think of Trump.
Chiefly that owners have the cattle's best interests in mind and will tell them the truth.
(Actually, they mostly do. The advertisers are mainly very selective about the facts they publish. And the way they wrap them up for delivery. "Never give a sucker an even break" as one famous advertiser candidly put it.)
I think this study is too limited. The problem is not that a single article changes minds. It's a well-poisoning problem. Stories about the Clintons assassinating their opponents have been floating around right-wing media for decades.
When I was growing up, I heard an adult talk about the time their friend went to see the Clintons land at an airport. When the friend asked Hillary to end abortion because it was killing babies, Hillary supposedly replied "We will kill your babies."
Nonsense circulated for decades has a toxic effect on political discussion. "Fake news" is just the latest nonsense fad to join Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and their kind.
What do you call information that is produced to resemble reputable news sources but contains very little true information?
Is there any support for the claim that it was reported, and a term was coined for it, in order to limit competition?
Why should we think it's that vs genuine reporting on a trend where people profit from producing this material AND a complimentary trend for Americans (trending toward conservative views) to believe anything that fits their preferred narrative without question?
I think this is absolutely different from propaganda because it's done first and foremost from a profit motive. It did not generally (as far as we actually know) come from powerful groups who want to control a political narrative. [0] I'm sure that has already started to change- Russia and other countries will certainly use this attack vector. The material they produce would be fake news used as propaganda.
[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503...
The status quo.
That's why I can't watch any of the national news stations. Foreign broadcasters are less likely to pump things up, and some local news stations are passable, but the big boys have been transparently biased and driven by clickbait, since before clickbait was a thing.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fake_news
With the rise of weaponised viral clickbait and advertising-driven Internet competition over attention, we've seen an increase in algorithmic content created solely for the purpose of driving up advertising revenues.
Even that isn't an entirely new phenomenon. The rise of "penny presses" -- daily common-circulation newspapers based on advertising, and selling for a penny, as opposed to the "professional" six-cent press, gave rise to the New York Sun's Great Moon Hoax of 1835, with the goal of driving up circulation numbers:
In the beginning there were articles and there was fact-checking. Specific articles that failed checks (failed QA) were fake. A rush of those in 2016 were found to be for-clicks and for-profit.
One might have really hoped that more checking (better QA) would come out of that, but perversely the opposite happened. "Fake news" became a blanket condemnation not just for unchecked stories, but often unread ones. "The headline says that? Fake news!"
This is kind of a critical juncture, but I worry that it is becoming a wrong turn.
I read a lot of what most would consider "alt-right" news. They've repossessed that term and now use it to refer to really biased reporting on the part of the "mainstream media". The accusation is usually very biased reporting, blatantly favoring left-leaning ideas and politicians, as well as not reporting on issues that contradict the mainstream narrative.
Sometimes they go too-far with conspiracy-theory-level stuff, I'll give them that. But for the most part, they're spot on when it comes to reporting on the mainstream media's blatant left-leaning bias and selective reporting. When I read them, it sounds like a "normal" person, one that doesn't jump through hoops to justify their points. The points are just there.
Have no fear, citizen, that bug will be solved soon.
If you take a closer look, the established media is not so innocent about that. Most of them find it perfectly ok to lie for money every few minutes (TV ads)...
Agreed, but if advertising first purpose was to tell verifiable facts it would have been called information. The problem here is people believing everything is thrown at them, especially if done by some popular figure.
(You sure stirred it up with this one.)
But it's not really true, is it? The better way to describe the situation would be to say that the ~35% at BOTH ends of the political spectrum only wants to hear and read "news" that confirms their biases. And "journalism," as a business, has given them that.
What I'm saying is that we don't have a "facts" OR a "news" problem. We have an ideological division/superiority problem, and I don't know if anything can fix that.
Well, short of splitting the country into 3 parts: the 2 coasts, and flyover country, and letting them all go hard towards their biases, and checking back in on the results in about 50 years, and see which experiment worked better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism
I look at the pros & cons of a place like Japan and wonder.
A frustrating part of political discourse is that most people don't bother to put in the time and energy to understand the things they talk about, largely because it does matter enough to them to actually be right.
Out of curiosity, which "side" are you on predominantly?
How many of the people who hold up the NYT as some ideal actually subscribe? I'll be surprised if it's anything but a tiny number. Journalism is dying because journalists think they should write about what they want to be true. And the NYT is leading that charge.
I'll tell you something, though. They had a couple of very good articles that really stood out. And those also had exceptional prose.
Why is this a problem that needs to be solved though? A big part of being free is being able to choose what you get to care about, being able to choose what you get to read, and being able to have your own opinions.
Remove that, and you're no longer free. Would it be better to not be a free people? I can see the benefits of both sides, but I think freedom is a better long term solution for a multitude of historical reasons.
Constraining your freedom doesn't mean you cease to be free, but it allows others to flourish just as you do. A free society ("a free people", as you say) should allow everyone to flourish as much as they care to (but no less). Collective freedom is not just the sum of individual freedoms. It is the result of cooperation.
What kind of nonsense is that? My OPINION is that Snowden is a hero, and NOT a traitor, and I absolutely choose to consider that opinion is correct. What are the FACTS about that? He broke the law. But he broke an immoral law? What about the actions he divulged? Were they not unconstitutional? Of course, there are "laws" on the books that make what the CIA/NSA did "legal." So where does all this leave us?
Forums like this keep discussion fake news in the light of "fact," as though fact were enough. It's not. You can go back and forth and back and forth with arguments about Snowden, and get nowhere. It all depends on your bias about how the Constitution should regard your personal liberty and privacy versus the concern for national safety. Lots of people fall on both sides. I use this example because it's a good, clear one, but the same thing is going on in most other stories. There's at least 2 ways of looking at everything. A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion.
Now that the country is well and truly removed from the halcyon post-war era, we have to figure out how to live with each other, and differences of opinion. That's the real issue here. The same way that social norms had to react and catch up with the emergence of Facebook itself, we have to settle into new norms about living with people who don't think like we do, and that goes for both sides.
It's not going to stop me from thinking that someone is "wrong" when they call Snowden a traitor, but it doesn't mean I need to get in their face about it, or put signs in their yard, or tear down their signs, or picket their business. You see what I'm saying.
> A person's bias and moral compass determines which way is the one they choose to care about. And who are you to tell them that their opinion -- based on the same set of data -- is "wrong?" That's just called having a difference of opinion.
Somebody's moral compass is not just an irreducibly subjective element, but it is also normatively sensitive to facts. Our weighting of the data might have biases, but those biases are surely appropriate or not as well? (I don't mean to imply that we can resolve in principle the issue of whether our biases are correct or not, which we might not; see the problem of Deep Disagreement [1])
So yes, I agree with you when you say that the problem is how to live with each other given our limitations to resolve disagreements. However, I think underplaying the role of facts in this needlessly perpetuates them. The sort of disagreements we face is not just of the kind you just gave an example of: people disagree in ways in which they don't even agree on the same set of data. See the case of climate change denial, for example. Those are not simply having a "difference of opinion".
[1]: https://www.academia.edu/2592706/What_is_the_Problem_of_Deep...
I'm confused, isn't that exactly what the parent's argument is though? You said that's not what you're saying, and then repeat the exact same thing, contradicting yourself.
Personally I disagree with you, if I'm understanding correctly. To me, a huge chunk of the population, you included it would seem, believes that some things are no longer a matter of opinion, that 10 and 20 years ago everyone would have happily agreed are matters of opinion rather than matters of fact.
If I understood him correctly, he's saying that I was claiming that if we agreed on facts (if facts were settled, as it were), we would agree in opinions, which is clearly false as a matter of fact. My claim is that we should agree in opinions, if facts were settled. I think difference between would/should is significant here. I am saying: if facts were settled, and we had a disagreement, at least one of the parties in the disagreement should not hold their opinions (would be wrong). I am not saying: if facts were settled, we could not be in disagreement.
If it was possible in principle to settle the facts, our apparent entitlement to hold certain opinions would be, in a sense, illusory. We can act on the assumption that it is not, for sure, but that doesn't make our entitlement right.
I am not even claiming that facts are settled (that is, that we know what is true as a matter of fact). Since they are not settled, we should be more cautious in our taking of opinions, and of course that goes both ways.
At least for me, I am coming from the angle that some things are a matter of fact, and some are a matter of opinion. For example, everyone can be fully informed on economics, but on the matter of "how much should a waiter be paid in New York City", there is no "right" answer.
That might very well be not what the disagreement was about from your perspective though. :/
Along the same lines (maybe), I've always thought an improved way to approach disagreement (breaking down "matters of opinion) is to break things down into components to better discover discrete points of contention. When you have a unsolvable dispute, you've either reached a matter of opinion, or, the disputed topic has to be broken down further. I wonder if that's the approach the book takes?
I think this approach could be quite successful, assuming two reasonable people involved (a tall order nowadays perhaps).
People look to their ideological pedagogues to TELL them what to think about the NEWS COVERAGE of the ARTICLES about the PAPERS about the DATA, regardless of what it says, and it's happening on BOTH sides, with both the Rush Limbaugh's and the Jon Stewart's of the world. Facts may matter to you and me, but they certainly don't to most of the population. By the time it reaches the average person, an 18-month study, with all it's glorious data, assumptions, conditions, and results, is washed out in a single sound byte, because no one has the patience to understa...
Oh, look! A funny cat video! That's hilarious. Let me just send that on to 1,000 of my followers...
That's where I (personally) draw the line on everything: do literally whatever the hell you want, as long as you aren't harming anyone else in the process. Obviously there are nuances, and sometimes causing some harm in the pursuit of the greater good is acceptable, but I think this principle is a sound starting point.
And that's the thing. You can be a climate-change denier all you want, but once that starts affecting public policy, that's a problem, because, for example, eviscerating the EPA will have far-reaching, long-term, negative effects on life on our planet.
This goes both ways though. I'm far from an expert on the subject, but I've read very compelling arguments from people whose livelihood are significantly affected by EPA regulations that have missed the mark, or are enforced unfairly.
A perfectly legitimate case can be made to modify some EPA regulations, but when that reasonable position is characterized as "eviscerating the EPA", well then we have another problem, because then both sides are not in a compromising mood, and that is what we need to accomplish anything.
Terminating the EPA entirely (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/861) is not a "reasonable position".
> So here’s to the freedom to be led astray, which it would be folly to restrict, lest it foster complacency and tempt the devil. Because that’s what attracts him: foolproof safeguards. Like the one the Clinton campaign erected when, per WikiLeaks, it encouraged the nomination of a laughable, beatable “Pied Piper candidate” named Donald Trump. Or CNN’s belief in its ability to not only report the news but tell us which sources to ignore.
> Assume you’re an imbecile, but, more important, consider that the imbecile across from you may be a genius in disguise. As we go forward, so many of us still secure in our contempt for the vulgar pretender and his sorry partisans, it’s a lesson worth remembering. It might prove helpful, even protective. Plus, it’s true.
It's good that people are free to choose what to read and what to believe, and yet the current state of affairs is cause for concern nonetheless. A coin is "free to choose" whether to come up heads or tails, but if it comes up heads ninety times of a hundred tosses, it's reasonable to assume that the coin has a problem.
Of course, you could always make the argument that nothing is a problem and that this is just the way the world is -- a growing number of people don't care about facts -- and this is what we are now. But all judgements of good vs. bad are ultimately based on a choice of values. Freedom is a value, as is respect for the truth. Believing that while everyone is free, stability requires that only a small portion would choose fiction over fact is a reasonable position.
[1]: http://harpers.org/archive/2017/02/a-grim-fairy-tale/?single...
Does that extend to facts?
I'm saddened by the current state of affairs where increasingly polarized factions feel that taking nuanced (rather than absolutist) positions threatens their positions and gives up ground to the opposition.
At least from my observation, the general stance of most people is 100% complete belief in any partisan theory, and complete rejection of any opposing ideas, regardless of the amount of evidence supporting each.
Look, we're talking about the difference between opinion and fact here. By its very nature, "fact" implies that you have enough evidence already that questioning that fact requires evidence of its own. If I hold some weaker opinion, then sure, it's entirely reasonable to hold an opinion contrary to that without the burden of proof immediately being on you.
Trump constantly spouted blatant fiction. He still does. This isn't one set of facts vs another.
Trump lies, then vilifies those who call out his lies, and somehow he's the hero.
No, it isn't. With complete sincerity I think you should make a serious effort to appreciate this possibility.
This happens because it's not as simple as facts vs. fiction. Yes, he does get some facts wrong. But the media does pick what facts to report on to always paint him in a bad light. This is why I said it's not so simple.
What they cannot choose, however, is what is truth, and what is reality.
Reality has a way of imposing itself. And a disregard for reality on the part of some has a profound way of imposing itself on the many.
I.e. It becomes about controlling mind-share. Calling something out as "unfair", "biased", "propaganda", or "fake news" is one way of controlling the amount of mind-share it has with people that identify with it. So you can't just "let someone" have their "wrong" opinion, you have to "correct them". That is precisely what political correctness is, it's to "put down" unacceptable opinions with public witch hunts and legal pressure. I have no idea when it went from "leave people alone" with their probably "wrong" opinions, into "omg, you're not allowed to think/say that, you must be sexist/racist/homophobic and we'll make life a living hell for you, and we'll get you fired".
I don't disagree with your broader point, but I've never ever seen anyone tout democracy as "the perfect system in terms of fairness". Even back when it was the new hotness, writers on it (de Tocqueville et al) were very well aware of its flaws and failure modes.
Too bad we don't know which half and which news is fiction.
> If some guy with a catchy domain name can produce content that goes viral, it doesn't matter how many Pulitzer the NYTimes has.
The NYTimes can have all the awards in the world if they publish articles that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be bullshit or dishonesty.
> If anything, as someone who actually cares about facts, the latest changes in my Facebook newsfeed has gotten me to read a lot more publications because my friends are sharing stories from journals I don't normally read.
You should always look at what the other side has to offer, I talk to people who have polar opposite beliefs to mine on a regular basis, keeps me informed and makes me re-evaluate my own position.
What articles did you have in mind? The NYT's reporting on WMDs in Iraq is often raised as an example of 'fake news,' but I think the failure of the fact-checking process and subsequent investigation and apology [1] is to the NYT's credit. Investigative journalists have to make judgment calls about their sources and sometimes they get it wrong, but I've never seen an NYT article 'that you can demonstrate beyond doubt to be dishonesty.' Factual errors and misleading language do slip in regularly, resulting in frank corrections or the publication of dissenting views. That's more than you can say for most 'alternative' news sources.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the...
Sometimes is not that simple. A lot of this is related to personal biases and just the way the brain works. Ofcourse people can try to train theirselves into being more skeptic but in a world in which every day you are bombarded with information is pretty hard to find the time and motivation to do so.
Even if it were the case that Mark Zuckerburg was exploiting those flaws for personal benefit, I find it hard to blame him - we live in and support a society that encourages that behavior. If exploiting human flaws for profit is an undesired outcome for human organizations, we should work to stop encouraging that behavior.
I will however provide a counter point to my own argument, which is that we should name and shame those who abuse human nature at society's expense for their own benefit. Otherwise we end up with a society full of people who are actively harming society.
Honestly I don't know what to think. I just wanted to provide both of these views. I'm curious what the response to either views is.
What's destroying journalism is people like you calling out media as propaganda, fake news, etc...
Making occasional errors isn't a sign of bias. Correcting those errors is a key part (and running the correction prominantly) of not being biased.
It's been observed that the principle bias of many major commercial media is inherently pro-establishment.
Also negative "news" sells better. Humans just respond to fear and hatred. It is just so much easier to fear and to hate. I'll admit to it. I feel suspicious when I see something positive in the news: is this a sponsored post?
I do think the buzzwords need to die. Everyone calls everything they don't agree with fake news these days.
I believe it's less to do with not caring to not understanding the system. Coming from a world where newspapers ensured to report only correct info and corrected incase of error. People expect that the internet is also the same. Many are surprised to know that Wikipedia articles are peer submitted and reviewed. Many assumed its from a company like Encyclopaedia Britannica. Just an online version, instead of the heavy books.
This world never existed, sorry.
I posit that this number is close to 95% worldwide.
People are all the same - impulsive and vulnerable. I've spoken to some perfectly normal immigrants from various parts of the world and have heard some properly batshit insane stuff - any other time we would have assigned them a round-the-clock nurse.
And guess what - it makes zero difference to their life what they believe.
Beliefs need to collide with reality (through decisions, actions etc).
More of the population is turning to alternative news sources because their trust of source like the NYTimes, WAPO and CNN has been violated. I'm pretty sure you weren't holding the Times up as some bastion of truth but to deny their blatant bias in reporting is folly. Withholding facts, failing to pursue facts or making the decision only to pursue facts you agree with politically is as bad as just making shit up.
The blueprint that's destroying journalism is the chase of profits over the chase of ALL truth.
Now, I do agree that large segments of the electorate are becoming less able to parse information effectively but I think there's still enough folks left that would gladly pay straight up subscription fees if they thought they could trust the information they were paying for.
I think what's even more troubling is that this isn't just changing fashions, but that some are actively trying to shake people's faith in the truth.
If you simply consider your world to be the other half of the country (that does care about correct news), then there is not much of a problem. If, however, you need to please shareholders, then, yes, you have a problem.
That line is pretty much all you need to know about the article, despite what the title is claiming.
In my opinion. If anything is destroying journalism, it's the fact that half this country does not care for fact vs fiction. [0]
If some guy with a catchy domain name can produce content that goes viral, it doesn't matter how many Pulitzer the NYTimes has.
If anything, as someone who actually cares about facts, the latest changes in my Facebook newsfeed has gotten me to read a lot more publications because my friends are sharing stories from journals I don't normally read.
The author is misplacing the blame.
[0] http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503...