Americans Don't Think the Platforms Are Doing Enough To Fight Fake News (poynter.org) 370
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.
"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the current state is preferable to the prior one, where news organizations hid behind their reputations while manipulating the truth.
Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Even better would be if people learned to think for themselves and/or check up on stories before reposting them.
Trying to pass laws to regulate the news feeds to prevent "fake news" is putting the cart before the horse.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds nice but politicians are trying to avoid that [newrepublic.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Did you actually look at cnn.com before making up that line of bullshit?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This all smells like utter bullshit to me. Evidence or GTFO!
(I welcome the downmods for demanding evidence for wild claims)
Re: (Score:3)
You're searching for a fixed phrase, doofus. Google gets fooled by just a single word of difference. Are you seriously expecting me to remember a headline exactly? And if you ever bothered to see CNN's front page since early 2016, you'd know this is not an isolated occurence but something that happens all the time. Heck, they have a piece of anti-Israel drivel on their front page right now. [cnn.com]
But no, your side is holiest of holy. Every SJW and neo-nazi these days says that. Polish "patriots" put people i
Re: (Score:3)
If this was unclear, I call SJW beliefs a religion, as it has all hallmarks of one.
That's probably unfair to stuff like Hinduism, most tribal faiths and so on -- so perhaps a different name would be better. But a number of ideologies behave nearly identically:
* Christianity
* Islam
* SJWery aka so-called third-wave "feminism" (which is an insult to a noble movement that real (ie, "first wave") feminism was)
* communism
* NSDAP beliefs (the word "nazi" became a generic insult these days)
* current Polish nationa
Re: (Score:3)
What is wrong with being anti-Israel? The borders keep moving and if they aren't stopped they will soon have committed a genocide.
You got the direction wrong. Only one of the sides has "Death to $OPPONENT" on their flags, only one says no one but them deserve to live on those lands, and only one wants unconditional "supremacy of $RELIGION".
Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" (Score:5, Insightful)
The title is too long. It should be "Americans don't think". That is enough and informative.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are extremely dumb these days, but singling them out is unfair. I see that voters in Switzerland are kind of sane-ish, but that's the only case I can think of.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see much independent thought anywhere these days. It's not just the states. People prefer the comfort of propaganda regardless where they live.
Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
To a certain point, I agree, however, I think there's been a significant rise of opinion pieces that are passed off as 'news'. I also find opinions laced into articles either through manipulative language or statements not backed by facts (and refuted by other news media articles) on a greater frequency than before. I think media outlets need to clearly label what is opinion versus news (and the best outlets do) and keep high editorial standards around slipping in influential language. The other best way to combat it is to have a heterogenous news diet, being sure to read articles from multiple sources that might be labeled left and right of center (you can avoid the far left or right ones altogether).
Re: (Score:2)
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.
To a certain point, I agree, however, I think there's been a significant rise of opinion pieces that are passed off as 'news'. I also find opinions laced into articles either through manipulative language or statements not backed by facts (and refuted by other news media articles) on a greater frequency than before. I think media outlets need to clearly label what is opinion versus news (and the best outlets do) and keep high editorial standards around slipping in influential language. The other best way to combat it is to have a heterogenous news diet, being sure to read articles from multiple sources that might be labeled left and right of center (you can avoid the far left or right ones altogether).
I agree with you. But, have you ever thought that it is the type of news that most people want to listen/hear/see? Yes, it is sad but true. Why do I think it is that way? Well, if you look at traditional way of representing news back before Internet booming, news were boring and dry. There was no excitement in listening to news. Now, people/journalists keep throwing their opinion into the story they are telling. If the opinion allies with the readers, it grabs their attention and confirm their bias. Then th
Re: (Score:3)
See, this requires a little thought.on your part. You have to look at a graph of black unemployment numbers to understand what's going on here.
As you will see, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (run by the Trump administration), that the black unemployment numbers have been dropping steadily since the recession ended in early 2010. They fall steadily through the Obama administration and the slope of decline is unchanged. In fact, if you look at the numbers closely, you will see that the rate of improve
That comes off like a cop-out (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:That comes off like a cop-out (Score:4, Insightful)
QAnon was started as a goof on 4chan, later moved to 8chan, and then spread to Reddit and YouTube when they realized they could make money off of it. Only thing driving it now is the lulz and money from the stupid, gullible people that bought into it.
Not sure what the point would be to censor absurd content like this. Rational and sane people can immediately recognize it as bullshit, and the rest are a lost cause.
I'd be more likely to believe that (Score:3)
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 cr
Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" (Score:4)
News is reporting on events and who said what, were when and how.
Eg: President Trump went to an Update NY Military Base this week and said this, they were so many people there.
This is data that can be verified and backed up. There shouldn't be much disagreement on this. This isn't to say news is unbiased, it can cover people at their best or at their worst, and ignore the parts in the middle. Allowing their bias to pick and choose.
Opinions is interpretation of the news and value is applied to it.
Eg. Trump is showing support for the troops for going to this Update NY Military Base.
or
Trump is trying to prevent a military coup by giving the military everything it wants.
The problem is with the "news" cycle there is only a little bit of actual news and the rest trying to get different takes on what is going on.
Now having and informed opinion section is useful, for helping explain complex actions on why say they vetoed a bill that was to feed poor children, by pointing out that there was a lot of other stuff in to too which could be harmful, or is too expensive.
Re: (Score:3)
News is reporting on events and who said what, were when and how. Eg: President Trump went to an Update NY Military Base this week and said this, they were so many people there.
News is also about providing *factual context* about why he said what he said at a military base, not just that he went there. It's about a trusted source helping you understand the reasons behind actions.
e.g. "President Trump went to an Update NY Military Base this week. Sources closes to the President stated that this was in
Re: (Score:2)
Saying sources but then not giving context as to who is meaningless. 'Sources' say the sky is red.
Not true, Anonymous Coward.
Professional reporters / trusted news organizations spend decades cultivating reliable sources and keeping those sources confidential. Generally a reputable news organization will require multiple sources before citing major news stories, and the credibility of the source will be carefully vetted.
Woodward and Bernstein's confidential source (Deep Throat) brought down Nixon.
Re: (Score:3)
True. But such anonymous sources can only be trusted when the reporters/news organizations can be trusted.
One problem in the present is that news organizations and professional reporters have through their actions managed to tarnish their reputations to such an extent that the general public no longer is willing to blindly trust them.
When the Washington Post said they had a reliable source willing to out Nixon people believed them, because they thought they were trustworthy. Were they to say the same thing
Re: (Score:2)
We're confusing manipulative lies with opinions incompatible with the worldview of a segment of the population, and it will destroy us.
What does Alex Jones have to do with this?
Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" (Score:5, Insightful)
The mixing of the two concepts is a deliberate ploy on the part of those telling manipulative lies. They're trying to reframe it from "truth vs lies" to "freedom of speech".
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed! And in the land of the First Amendment, this statement chills me: "79 percent think those companies should be regulated like other media organizations."
It's over, America. Freedom had a good run.
Re:"Fake news" or "Opinions I disagree with?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Part of the problem is we used to largely achieve this separation (imperfectly, of course) by paying intelligent adults reasonable salaries to do things like verify sources, check facts, and more or less make the news more reasonable. I believe this once somewhat honorable profession was called "journalism". It had its flaws (Hearst, et al) but by and large it worked.
Now that journalism has collapsed or been sucked into "the infotainment content business" nobody's willing to pay for that or they expect an algorithm that can automate the cost of doing down to zero.
It's also complicated somewhat by the increase in diversity. Part of the effectiveness (and flaw) of journalism was that, yes, some of what made it through the journalism filters was "fake news" but it was more or less fake news built off of shared assumptions and biases of a more homogeneous population.
Now that we have fewer shared assumptions and biases, it's getting more and more difficult even to decide on what's "fake news" unless the fakeness can be determined by physical science and mathematics.
My money is on all of this getting worse before it gets better.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Here's someone who does:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.americanthinker.co... [americanthinker.com]
Do pussy hats help with your butthurt?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I notice that you and you pal above have failed to address the basic point instead chose to point out that example of propaganda was gun control. The article is about PROPOGANDA but instead, you do like the current press does which uses false analogies, obfuscation, straw men arguments, and flat out lies to change the subject of whatever you do not want closely examined. You and your ilk disgust me. You are liars, and at best "useful idiots" if you are not actually fo
The title of this is wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What do you mean by "worldviews contrary to their own"?
If you mean "opinions they disagree with", I think most Americans would disagree (isn't that ironic?). If you want to blather on about your horoscope or the superiority of Apple products or how Ocarina of Time is the best Zelda game, you should be perfectly free to do so, and I believe that is the majority opinion by a wide margin.
If, however, you mean "calls to take action that is wholly incompatible with free society", then yes, I think most Americans
Re: (Score:2)
The Bill of Rights simply limits the government's rights to take away negative rights (that is, those rights that exist naturally but can be only taken away, such as speech, as opposed to positive rights, which can be only given, such as say medical care).
However, the idea of the Bill of Rights, the worldview that created and sustained it, was far more than the limited powers of that document to reign in government. It was this idea, this dream lived out, that we all shared a society where one could speak
Re: (Score:2)
Which fake news? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Which fake news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Which fake news? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more like 25% of the population considers one news fake, another 25% considers the opposite news to be fake. Those of us in the middle 50% find all the shenanigans by those on the two extremes to be exasperating, and would be happy to see both their conspiracy theories banned as fake.
I think you have it almost right... 25% consider their "fake news" true. Another 25% consider their "fake news" true. And 50% consider it all fake to some degree or more, and do not want to be around either side with blinders on.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to go have a white privilege shame spiral and maybe overeat some Hagen-Das... Or should I have Ben and Jerry's - oops, never mind: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
It's more like 25% of the population considers one news fake, another 25% considers the opposite news to be fake. Those of us in the middle 50% find all the shenanigans by those on the two extremes to be exasperating, and would be happy to see both their conspiracy theories banned as fake.
Let me see if I can walk you though this ... what if something that you think of as "middle" and "true" gets banned as supposedly being "fake"?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me see if I can walk you though this ... what if something that you think of as "middle" and "true" gets banned as supposedly being "fake"?
Then you're spending too much time on FB.
Re: (Score:2)
...and would be happy to see both their conspiracy theories banned as fake.
I wish they'd ban chemtrails as fake; I'd like to see the skies go back to looking the way they did before 9/11...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
What??? Allow people freedom?!?
Your "freedom" is just a tool of white male oppression! We need the white male tech executives to save us from all that!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe just let people read different news sources and decide.
There is a truth to this. And I'm not here to argue that folks shouldn't consult multiple sources. However, I think the problem is that there isn't an agreed upon definition of "fake news" since we currently have a President that tosses that term around anytime he doesn't like a particular story. Pre-Trump, we had "fake news" but let's be honest, it has become a very vogue term since Trump assumed office. And that hits on the first part of your comment there.
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.
The thing is, that's just debate and happens
Really? Where? (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are people who would rather be on social media than talk to people face to face. They're never going to check various sources! The only reason why they read news at all is because someone they trust linked them to a story on social media.
True. But the problem remains that these people are intellectually lazy and trust misinformation provided by untrustworthy sources. They won't change. That reality must be countered, rebutted, and drowned out by actual facts to convince others *before* they can be misinformed by their peers and drawn into their bubble.
a tad self-serving (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Sensationalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This is where crony capitalism fails. A true free market would include the externalized costs of such things, but the whole reason those costs have been "externalized" in the first place was for the individual entity to avoid paying them by foisting the cost onto the general public.
Nothing will change until the public stands up and says "no we're not going to pay these extra costs for you", then the free market will take care of stabilizing the rest...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what will prevent them from externalizing costs like environmental destruction/pollution? Certainly not more freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
But... (Score:2)
You want to fight fake news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Howabout teaching critical thinking skills at every grade level.
We're forbidden now to teach at any grade level how to tell boys and girls apart.
So I think we have a ways to go before we even consider getting back to "critical thinking" ...
Re: (Score:3)
We're forbidden now to teach at any grade level how to tell boys and girls apart.
Uhh, citation please?
Re: (Score:3)
Teachers have been doing their best to do this for decades... but then parents get a say in their kids' educations as well. If the parents are biased, they will help to install a biased system that will punish teachers who teach against their biases. Speak to any teacher (grade 7-12) who teachers history, civics, biology, or physics how much parent protest plays into their curriculum decisions and you'll get some stories about being accused of "shoving evolution down the throats of kids", liberal indoctrina
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you do when it's a basic principal of American government to include public input and steering, but such a large proportion of the public is so literally wrong about their understanding of facts that they choose to install their own reality?
I'm not sure.
For example, male and female are a biological reality, yet there is a large anti-science political and social movement which teaches that they are just fluid social constructs. What do you do about that? It is perplexing.
Re: (Score:2)
Howabout teaching critical thinking skills at every grade level
I'm pretty sure the government has a vested interest in not doing that in their own schools.
You get what you pay for (Score:2)
What is fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
American's are the fake news.. (Score:2)
Getting news ... (Score:3)
... 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.
Re:Getting news ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting news served up inside a bubble is a goddam mistake.
Exactly. The whole concept of "likes" and recommendations based on passed viewing habits is a disaster. Netflix, facebook, youtube, even public education is moving to "personalized content". Personalized content doesn't create a well rounded person, personalized content turns a slightly one sided person into a completely one sided person over a very short amount of time. Silicon Valley needs to completely abandon most forms of personalized content but I predict instead they will likely double down and instead start using a person's friends list to decide what is and is not fake news.
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is a radicalization engine, so why are we acting surprised when large s
'People' need to stop being DUMB (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So unfortunately my conclusion is that expecting a
Turning off Twitter SP500 corps feeds in 321 (Score:2)
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.
Better headline... (Score:2)
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
I have a strong preference (Score:2)
For platforms being platforms and interfering with their users as little as possible.
Can still access CNN from Facebook ! (Score:2)
I pasted a link to CNN article and FB didn't delete it. What gives?!
lazy (Score:2)
LOL... (Score:2)
"...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.
Already lost (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
News at 11 (Score:2)
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.)
Why blame the platforms? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
109% of Lee Harvey Oswalds killed JFK.
What about the other 109%?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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, whe
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
Because your perception of things given to you by people who want you to distrust the media is incorrect.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 eve
Do you have any evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org] 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 a
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that a lot are owned by the same parent corporations I'd say it's very possible.
In the list of media organizations that poster provided, four of the twelve are owned by the same corporation: NBC and MSNBC are owned by one company, FOX and the Wall Street Journal are owned by a different company.
That's not a lot of overlap, and that poster's list is not at all exhaustive. And several of those organizations aren't even based in the US, so they're not particularly interested in serving the US government.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations aren't people. Corporations are MADE UP of people, and all it takes is ONE GUY wanting fame and fortune by scooping something and the secret is out.
It's the same way with the claims about the moon landing being a hoax. If you think of NASA as one entity it's easy to think they could hoax it, but consider the number of people that would have had to be involved in setting up stages, recording etc. - and now imagine not a single one of these people wants to get famous by proving it was a hoax.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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... [snopes.com]
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 gai
Re: (Score:2)