Whenever somebody ends a comment with 'Wake up people!' I instantly delete everything I have read from my mind.

>>I suspect the root of the problem is our system of education. The primary goal these days seems to be obedience and unquestioning believe in authority.<<

You would think so. But my dad is a varsity Professor with a PhD, my mom has a Masters in English.

They believe literally every cock and bull story they see on Facebook.

You make an interesting point when you state that "The primary goal these days seems to be obedience and unquestioning believe in authority." because for me that is both the problem and, ironically, the very obvious solution.

If there was a trusted (read, authoritative) service that one could use to vet such stories then the problem would go away.

The devil is in the details though. I've seen people dismiss Snopes as some sort of leftist agenda pandering website.

>>I suspect the root of the problem is our system of education. The primary goal these days seems to be obedience and unquestioning believe in authority

>You would think so. But my dad is a varsity Professor with a PhD, my mom has a Masters in English. They believe literally every cock and bull story they see on Facebook.

This is precisely what the parent to your comment is saying. Many (most?) degrees hold more symbolic value (read, fake) than real practical value because that is what education has devolved into: favoring symbolism (test scores, degrees) over real life applicability.

>If there was a trusted (read, authoritative) service that one could use to vet such stories then the problem would go away.

This is a logical fallacy.

If you already think you lack the ability to find truth, how would you know it was real when someone else supposedly gave it to you? If you can't trust yourself how can you trust your trust in others?

> If there was a trusted (read, authoritative) service that one could use to vet such stories then the problem would go away. The devil is in the details though. I've seen people dismiss Snopes as some sort of leftist agenda pandering website.

But this is exactly the issue. If you're saying "these people aren't competent to evaluate news, so they need a trusted source", then how can they possibly evaluate their trusted source?

It's not a surprise that people who can't pick out fake news stories also can't tell how effective Snopes is, it's the heart of the problem. (Well, that and "if Snopes became authoritative, how would you know if it started lying?")

> You would think so. But my dad is a varsity Professor with a PhD, my mom has a Masters in English. They believe literally every cock and bull story they see on Facebook.

I would guess that the difference between you and your parents is years of exposure to the tropes, tone, register and other pragmatics of internet content.

I don't think the problem is with the level of education, but rather how people are educated to deal with issues in the real world.

> China already has an excellent way of controlling fake news

Here's the fun part, in China, spreading rumor is a criminal offence, but debunks (or at least one sided debunks) are not. So people and PR firms and using fake news to counter fake news.

If people want to be bullshitted they will be bullshitted. Fake news on BOTH sides allows people's confirmation bias to give them that nice hit of dopamine on how right they were about those Muslim immigrants or ignorant flyover hillbillies.

Step one is to realize your side is just as full of shit as the other and to accept that your favorite politicians are not right about even half of most public policy ideas.

After that, then you can start working on removing biases.

Edit: Also fake news is such a shitty term. Call it what it is: propaganda. Media that plays to the worst elements of our animal brains to bring the greatest emotional response and move our fingers to the share buttons. It's nothing new, we just have an unprecedented amount of it available to us and little desire to hear the complex and often unintuitive truth to many issues: nuance doesn't fit in a tweet.

If I'm a Trump supporter who sees a fake story about how Hillary's email are proof of treason why would I did into it? It tells me exactly what I want to hear.

This gets even easier if you are misleading and manipulating facts rather than outright making them up. The pope endorsed trump sounds immediately made up, and has nothing to back it up. Hillary conspired to keep drug prices high, when "backed up" by emails is easier to believe. If I already believe she's corrupt then why would I doubt more evidence.

The basic principle is 'most of the people can be manipulated', and it is a fight for who will manipulate those people. During internet era, we have seen a lot of examples of this in many levels, fake ads, celebrities endorsing products, bloggers reviewing products that they got for free, fake poll results, Those stuff we can only fight with by educating people, and it is not so easy, cause also manipulators are getting smarter.

Indeed. In the UK, the drip feed of fake news over the last decade from the traditional print press must have contributed to the Brexit victory.

The Daily Mail is still running stories about straight cucumbers now.

i think this can all be solved with a new social media tool, which takes human nature into account and is carefully designed and evolved to direct thought into certain patterns... but who designs the software???? That person will have great power. Really you need a tool to make building software accessible to many more people.