Google's New Media Literacy Program Teaches Kids How To Spot Disinformation, Fake News (techcrunch.com) 265
Google announced this morning it's expanding its two-year-old digital safety and citizenship curriculum for children, "Be Internet Awesome," to now include media literacy -- specifically, the ability to identify so-called "fake news" and other false content. "The company is launching six new media literacy activities for the curriculum that will help teach kids things like how to avoid a phishing attack, what bots are, how to verify that information is credible, how to evaluate sources, how to identify disinformation online, spot fake URLs, and more," reports TechCrunch. From the report: The courses offer kids not only instruction, but also a combination of activities and discussion starters aimed at helping them develop critical thinking skills when it comes to pursuing online resources. Its overall theme, the course material explains, is to help kids understand that the content they find online isn't necessarily true or reliable -- and it could even involve malicious efforts to steal their information or identity.
The kids learn how phishing works, why it's a threat, and how to avoid it. They then practice their anti-phishing skills by acting out and discussing reactions to suspicious online texts, posts, friend requests, pictures, and emails. In the following media literacy sections, kids learn what a credible source is, how to figure out what a source's motives are, and learn that "just because a person is an expert on one thing doesn't make them an expert on everything." In a related classroom activity, the kids pick a question related to something they've seen online or are learning in class and try to get the answers online, while figuring out if the sources are credible. They also learn to fact check credible sources with other credible sources as a way to look for a variety of sources.
The kids learn how phishing works, why it's a threat, and how to avoid it. They then practice their anti-phishing skills by acting out and discussing reactions to suspicious online texts, posts, friend requests, pictures, and emails. In the following media literacy sections, kids learn what a credible source is, how to figure out what a source's motives are, and learn that "just because a person is an expert on one thing doesn't make them an expert on everything." In a related classroom activity, the kids pick a question related to something they've seen online or are learning in class and try to get the answers online, while figuring out if the sources are credible. They also learn to fact check credible sources with other credible sources as a way to look for a variety of sources.
Great. Now how about people over 60? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Great. Now how about people over 60? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or googles willful ignorance
Google are manipulating (Score:3, Informative)
Google here is the bad player. Not "fake news". They are willfully and intentionally messing with search results. Want to see this in action?
Go to Google and type in "Hillary Clinton's Emails" and you will see ZERO autocomplete suggestions.
Go to Google and type in "Donald Trump's Emails" and you will see PLENTY of autocomplete suggestions.
A Google insider has just risked being exposed to bring you tons more info through the Veritas Project. Google are literally manipulating everyone's search results in the
Re:Google are manipulating (Score:4, Insightful)
This is correct and has the potential for being 9/11 in scale.
All this time Dems are going on about Russian Collusion when in fact it's been Google and Facebook meddling with elections.
Can't wait to see how this shakes down. Google is not to be trusted and my family is migrating away from the G.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Google is not going to get out of this. They fucked up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The opposite:
This is what election meddling looks like:
https://www.projectveritas.com... [projectveritas.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Project Vas Stercore is more like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling things you don't like names doesn't alter the truth or make it go away.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't expect that it would make them go away. They seem pretty stuck.
Re: (Score:2)
I suggested a different name because the modus operandi of the "Project Veritas" organization is opposite to the actual meaning of the word "Veritas" (i.e., Latin for "Truth"). They should rename themselves to something more appropriate.
Re: (Score:2)
Liar?
I think not.
https://www.projectveritas.com... [projectveritas.com]
Re: (Score:2)
*Rolls Eyes*
Re: (Score:2)
I googled "willful ignorance" and the second link was on Rational Wiki, so it seems to be doing good.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/... [rationalwiki.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the current state of affairs. Google is the friendly guide to tell you what to think and all the critics are russia shills. (and my serious observation gets modded as troll to make the caricature complete).
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down Susan. Teaching you how to build a house isn't telling you what house to build. Teaching kids to check references isn't brain washing them.
Re: (Score:2)
and teaching people to recognize phishing simply is a good thing. So you can go back to sleep Shirley. But I claim google is is managing its page rankings to downgrade people who somehow don't trust the established order. This isn't easy to test by googling but it is easy to test at the receiving end of google: the number of people reaching a site through google. And for those people teaching us internet literacy does indeed feel wrong, even if they start with commonsense stuff like phishing.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, maybe not as many people subscribe to your fringe theories as you think, and therefore are not searching google for "democrat reptilian partnership" or whatever catch phrase you think should list a low traffic site that nobody clicks on as page rank 1. Meanwhile, in the real world, almost everything I search ends up with wikipedia as the first result. Or fox, or cnn, or whatever. Which is more likely, that your favorite low-integrity news site is unpopular, or it is the victim of googles ne
Re: (Score:3)
I know. Once things are pushed into obscurity, it feels like lunatic fringe when you try to explain it. The whole point of the current drive to clean up the web is not just to push fringe away but also to define fringe.
I'm not talking about 'my fringe theories'. Take WSWS.org. That is some old socialist site (marxist?). They write somewhere on the site that their hits from Google dropped dramatically and remained that way. From my point of view , which is fairly radical about freedom of speech, that is a v
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but how are we also addressing the wilful ignorance of "older" people?
Require television news to run 'remember, everything you see on TV is not true' disclaimer at start of every program and after every advert.
Re: (Score:2)
I catch a lot of it, but I'm sure I miss some things.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can at least say to your self "I duno, but this might be fake", you are doing better than most of the population.
Then you can find other sources to verify. If none have it, or its all conspiracy bullshit or "sources" with a clear agenda; you are in good shape.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but how are we also addressing the wilful ignorance of "older" people?
That's not Google's problem. Go tell Yahoo to get working on this.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but how are we also addressing the wilful ignorance of "older" people?
I think that we're just going to have to wait for the generation that grew up eating lead paint chips to slowly fade away.
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but how are we also addressing the wilful ignorance of "older" people?
My father, who was a teeny during WW2, told me back in the 60's "Never believe everything that you read in the papers".
Some "older" folks are not as naive as you might believe, and are downright cynical and skeptical about "news" reports.
In contrary, I get the feeling sometimes that younger folks believe anything that is posted to YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Great. Now how about people over 60? (Score:2)
What you defame as "willful ignorance" may, in retrospect, turn out to be "wisdom".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but how are we also addressing the wilful ignorance of "older" people?
Older people like Joe Biden?
Re: (Score:2)
Just because we can't teach critical thinking to everyone doesn't mean we should teach it to nobody.
Re:"Older" people, sure you don't have cognitive b (Score:5, Insightful)
What he means is that older people were taught to recognise disinformation, soime of whom lived through regimes where it occurred daily - eg Soviet Russia or East Germany - and know to think for themselves.
This makes them dangerous compared to the blindly-following brainwashed sheep we have for kids today, and thus must be demonised with language such as this suggesting that they are the problem.
They are the problem - to those seeking to control the populace.
Easy to spot fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
There are two super simple way to spot fake news:
1) Be right wing yourself, then everything posted by or seeming left wing is fake news.
2) Be left wing yourself, then everything popsted by or seeming right wing is fake news.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two super simple way to spot fake news: 1) Be right wing yourself, then everything posted by or seeming left wing is fake news. 2) Be left wing yourself, then everything popsted by or seeming right wing is fake news.
So which category am I if I am pro-Trump because he hasn't started any illegal wars and am pro-getting Bush and Cheney hanged for conspiracy against peace?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
LB Johnson was also against the Vietnam war. Still the system as a whole was bent on war and war they got. Trump was not anti Russia but the whole system is pushing confrontation and it can blow up completely. He tried to get out of Syria but system said no. How he is going to avoid war with Iran is a big question because the whole system is pushing him in that direction, by strangling them with sanctions until they do something in response which makes retaliation become unavoidable. He's supporting a genoc
Re: (Score:2)
How's he strangling Venezuela? By sending aid packages that Maduro won't let across the border?
Re: (Score:2)
There is an ongoing economical war against Venezuela. I understand if you didn't hear about that.
When the US wages economical war , prepare to starve. That also applies to Iran. Think of what the US did to Iraq in the nineties. The aid packages had a dual aim
- an attempt to set up a channel so that people had to go to Guaido for help, which would enhance Guaido's power
- propaganda to act like you're helping with one hand while strangling with the other.
In the end Guaido's people just decided to burn the tru
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Orange man bad. He is both a coward who is afraid to fight, and a war hawk.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not paying attention? He said he thought that starting a war with Iran was a good idea for a president who wanted to win re-election to get the war bump. And he only pulled back from attacking them this weekend because the outcry was so loud.
As a fun aside, with the exception of W's war in Iraq, you'd have to go back two generations to find a president of either party who started a questionable war (then it was Vietnam.)
Re: Easy to spot fake news (Score:2)
Congress last declared war in 1942, under the administration of virtuous & patriotic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States)
Every subsequent war has been congressionally authorized by weasel words, if at all. By a plain reading, they were unconstitutional. Of course the old drunken capitalist dogs of the Supreme Kangaroo Court disagree. But they also think corporations are people, with more rights than any human person. The common people
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has the right to declare war. They also have the right to do non-war force authorizations. They can (and have) confirm(ed) a treaty that obligates US forces to fight (keep in mind Washington advised against entangling alliances in a speech, in part because they were legal). They can (and have) authorize(d) the US military to attack something that they don't consid
Re: (Score:2)
He said war with Iran would be a good political move. So, you're faulting the man for telling the truth, and then leaving off his "but". As in, "...but, I'm not going to do it." And then you're going to ignore his strong push to move out of Syria, and his strong push to move our troops out of South Korea. You're not going to give any weight at all to him questioning why American resources are being used to protect shipping in the Straits of Hormuz?
Clinton fought a war in Bosnia, which was very questiona
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, because he didn't have a "but". He said it would be a good idea to do a few years ago. He tried to do it this past weekend. He didn't do it now because people were outraged. Expect him to try again (in Iran or elsewhere).
What the fuck? US troops in Syria when Trump took office: 300, all special forces advising
Re: Easy to spot fake news (Score:2)
"faggot"
Is that Russian for "reasonable & patriotic"?
Re: (Score:2)
And he did that by NOT bombing Iran's SAM installations after they shot down our property flying in international airspace!?!
WHAT are you even going on about?
Re:Easy to spot fake news (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you hit the nail on the head.... I would add 1 more..
I see a LOT of articles linked from sites like foxnews, CNN, forbes, etc that spout shit with zero sources cited. When I look carefully I see these articles are NOT listed under technical categories. INSTEAD they get listed as 'editorials'.
Look at the category of the article. If its NOT actual news from real headlines, its just an editorial.
Also READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE. Today even NYT is guilty of 1984 bullshit like posting headlines that say something demonstrably FALSE, and then as you read the article, they go on to say exactly the OPPOSITE of the headlines. This is pure information warfare. Why? Because 70% of the fucking morons out there skim the headlines to form their opinions.
Re: (Score:2)
Open up google news. Enjoy all the editorials as the top links. Notice how the headlines are clustered to present a very slanted perspective. Notice how Google's own "authorative sources" are always linked, sprinkled with the occasional Fox piece.
If you can even call them editorials, and not just blatant DNC propaganda. [archive.org]
I'm sure it's all about the "fairness" of presenting an interpretation of the world they want you to have, even if it isn't factually correct.
Point is, it isn't just the headlines and the sou
Re: Easy to spot fake news (Score:2)
"real left wing (ie communist)"
Lenin, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh - the founders of actual Communist nations - all cautioned their followers against the dangers of "leftist" extremism.
Re:Easy to spot fake news (Score:4, Insightful)
Same as the right, which labels everyone they disagree with as a "leftist" or communist. Seriously, even people on the hard right like Teresa May have been called communists lately.
Really? So let's look at your own country. Who's been spending the last ~4 years calling pro-brexiteers racists and neo-nazi's? Lefitsts, media, politicians, academia. Considering that from an outsiders point of view, the differences between the libs and libdems and conservatives in your country effectively boil down to "how hard they're going to fuck you" and how they're all pushing for more censorship, more controls on media. The communist label seems to be an appropriate one for nearly all your major political parties. The right and centre-right chased the left over 10 years ago down the left-wing rabbit hole.
You see it around here too, people virtue signalling "I'm a centrist" as if that makes them extra rational and smart somehow.
That's true. Then again, like many centrists have discovered in the last couple of years, it's only a matter of time that the mob comes for you and your job for not holding the right left-wing political opinions.
Fake news vs. conspiracy against peace (Score:2)
Re: Fake news vs. conspiracy against peace (Score:2)
Re: Fake news vs. conspiracy against peace (Score:5, Insightful)
Check your sources. The media is not your enemy.
But CNN was literally at the same time saying both that wikileaks is fake and that 'reading these stolen documents is illegal, except for the media' and that 'everything you know must come from us' deadpan serious..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Reading the documents requires possessing them. Possession includes transitory states such as simply "looking at them" whereby a cache in any form is created(like on a computer). CNN tried to make the claim that they(the media) were the only arbiters of truth, and only the media could tell you the truth of them - because they're protected. That isn't how the law works with leaked things like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good points, it sounds like you missed the Ontario, Quebec, and Alberta elections over the last 3 years or so. Members of the media were in the exact same state as in the US over the 'left' losing political power to the point that those parties which were once majorities or super majorities were relegated to non-party status. The Ontario election was particularly shocking to various anchors and political pundits at the CBC and CTV during election night, both in broadcast media and their streaming versions
Re: (Score:3)
Define "journalist".
In this case, it means "us", as in "CNN". You can't read it, but WE can. Now TRUST us to tell you the truth.
Questionnaire for kids (Score:4, Insightful)
ORANGE MAN:
a) BAD
b) VERY BAD
c) Actually it's complex with some aspects being AAARGHMMMPH
Re: (Score:2)
What's "AAARGHMMMPH" supposed to mean?
Did the author of the post above just have a heart attack while typing?
If the person had a heart attack then they'd just say it, not type it.
Maybe he was dictating.
Oh, shut up!
Anyway, why teach kids "orange man bad"? Do they think Trump will be in office when they get old enough to vote? Not this Trump, that's certain. Maybe another Trump, Barron Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
I think he got assaulted behind the keyboard and just managed to type the name of his killer: "AAARGHMMMPH".
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, why teach kids "orange man bad"? Do they think Trump will be in office when they get old enough to vote?
If the current crop of Democrats have their way, YES.
They are trying to push the legal voting age down, because they figure only people who don't really know anything are willing to vote Democrat.
Re:Questionnaire for kids (Score:4, Informative)
Why would anyone bother with this "orange man" stuff when all they need do is point to the things he has actually said and done on camera?
2020 may actually be one of the most grounded, fact based campaigns in history. Let him stand on his record.
Re: (Score:2)
2020 may actually be one of the most grounded, fact based campaigns in history.
Inevitable coffee sploosh ....
Pot, meet kettle (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In the case of the video of the Google exec explaining how they planned to influence the 2020 election, Google had Youtube remove the video.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pot, meet kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to assume that any hidden camera footage from Project Veritas and James O'Keefe has been doctored and edited to mislead the viewer. He has a long, proven history of doing it over and over again.
The default assumption is that anything from Project Veritas is bullshit, and if anything it raises the bar of proof even higher.
Edited in the sense that nobody is going to watch hours of hidden camera video, yes.
"Edited" in the sense you are trying to imply, no. You just don't like that some of the things revealed are unpopular.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh bullshit. O'Keefe always releases the full unedited videos. People like you have nothing to say except "he's doctored the videos!" with no proof. He releases the unedited video, so go ahead and show us where he's made a deceptive edit. I'm not holding my breath.
Re:Pot, meet kettle (Score:4, Interesting)
Liar.
Your link goes to some Reddit bullshit complaining about the suggestions that Google offers for "men can" being "feminized" because people keep searching for information about trans men or something. That has a link to the Veritas site: https://www.projectveritas.com... [projectveritas.com]
On that page there is no link to the unedited video. Perhaps you could provide a link to it?
Re: (Score:2)
My link? Might wanna lay off the crack pipe.
As for what you posted, I'm not going to dig for the original videos. However, the subject of the video responded with "they got me" instead of "they doctored the video".
Sorry.
Dunning-Kruger applies here (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter whether it is "liberal" or "conservative"; any source of information that always bolsters your confidence in your rightness is necessarily making you a less competent judge of the facts.
Reality is complicated, inconvenient, and often seemingly contradictory to your current level of understanding. When someone makes things neat and tidy for you, and asks nothing in return, not even effort... that person is not your friend, he's your master.
Any community that accepts your views without reservation is not accepting your views, it's shaping them.
Re: (Score:2)
Critical thinking is not natural and educating yourself takes a lot of effort. Politicians, foreign intelligence, and fringe groups have long taken advantage of this.
The difference is how easy it is now, with everyone so connected, to get massive payoff for your efforts. And with things like Facebook's graph search how easy it is to find a specific audience that'll eat your shit up with a smile, spreading it like wildfire through their network of like-minded friends and family.
Google is trying to prevent th
Re: (Score:2)
The first lesson about critical thinking should be that people are uncritical towards things they trust and critical towards things they don't trust, and the main distinction between people is whom they trust. The skill of critical thinking only comes second.
Google is in the game of telling people who to trust. They are building it into their page ranking and in their google ads.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is trying to prevent themselves from being such an amplifier for groups they do not agree with.
FTFY
Easy: check if it comes from Fox News. (Score:2)
Blaming the victim (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine the shitstorm if Google decided to start labelling fake news according to its own fact checkers and definitions?
Actually we don't need to imagine, because Facebook did it. They got some supposedly neutral fact checkers to rate stories, and of course some of them abused their power. Worse still they found that users tended to not only ignore the warnings, but actually view them as "proof" that the story was true because the evil "mainstream media" was trying to suppress it.
Google's incentive
Re: (Score:2)
For 100 years, we didn't stop fake news when it came from supermarket tabloids, television stations, or newspapers. We called that freedom of speech. And those examlpes were human beings who actively curated the selection. So why would we hold a neutral indexing tool liable?
Google indexes the data put on the internet, ranking it approximately by how often it is linked to. If people link to fraud, then Google returns fraud. If people link to legit information, then Google returns legit information. Fac
Remember when (Score:2)
When computer code shipped without a CoC?
When people could search the internet and find what they wanted?
Re: Remember when (Score:2)
I, too, remember when Google was useful for searching the internet.
An AC here on Slashdot said that was Google's "second algorithm", the one that worked magnificently well. The same AC said they are now on their fourth search algorithm.
uh huh (Score:2)
and learn that "just because a person is an expert on one thing doesn't make them an expert on everything."
I see.
How about also "just because an actress looks good, that doesn't make her ideas valuable."
Fox guarding the chicken coop... (Score:2)
...that is all
Google caught rigging search (Score:3)
Google is the master of pushing fake narratives.
Google enjoys special protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Google gets the special protection because Google is supposed to be a neutral platform, not a publisher.
But Project Veritas has proved Google is not a neutral platform.
Google has done much more to meddle with the election than Russia.
Google censored this video from Youtube (of course) but it is available on bitchute.
Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent "Trump situation" in 2020 on Hidden Cam
https://www.bitchute.com/video/re9Xp6cdkro/
very easy (Score:2)
All journalism is bullshit of different degrees.
Re: (Score:2)
i see a much bigger problem with this than just the current candidates. I see a company determined to cherry pick their lackey for all time. Welcome to the USSR
Re: Step 1 (Score:2)
In Soviet America, TV watches you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no? Trump is a Russian Stooge! The Russians stole the elections! Assange worked with the Russians!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that the Obama claims were demonstrably false and still persisted while the Russiagate claims are more complex. That doesn't make them partly true. Assange working with the russians is nonsense, and the benefit of the Mueller report is that it shows that Trump is no russian stooge.
The claim of russian interference is debatable because there is never total absence of interference. I'd say there is no interference to speak of. If you take the facebook ads issue, even if the Russian state was behi
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-vax is not a Trump supporter thing, they are just fringe loonies. I'm talking about things like birther-ism, which are over the top crazy, but a big chunk of that group believes. I don't think you can find a parallel on the left.
I don't think the Left had a target president who actually spent a lot of his growing up elsewhere, and then claimed in publicity for one of his autobiographies that he was even born elsewhere.
In other words, Obama's the only one about whom such an idea could even be bandied about (by that well known right wing crazy, Hillary) .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, the true news is at low-viewership times/pages and is there to bolster their reputation. That is, it's not the redeeming party of Murdoch's empire, it's the window dressing on his propaganda.
Re: If it's not socialism it's fake (Score:2)
Please stop conflating Progressive "leftism" with socialism. Real socialists want nothing to do with those capitalist stooges.
Re:In Google we trust? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd post links but chances are they won't stay valid for long, YT already sent 2 "copyright" takedown notices against it.
oh no, its gone already. I only watched it yesterday evening, It was scary just how much they want to edit what information you get and how cheerful they were about doing it.
there is this teaser for it:
https://twitter.com/Project_Ve... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody should trust Google:
https://www.bitchute.com/video... [bitchute.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you have some "Republicans Pounce" stories to read?