Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Education Google News

Google's New Media Literacy Program Teaches Kids How To Spot Disinformation, Fake News (techcrunch.com) 265

Posted by BeauHD from the fun-for-the-whole-family dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's New Media Literacy Program Teaches Kids How To Spot Disinformation, Fake News More

Google's New Media Literacy Program Teaches Kids How To Spot Disinformation, Fake News

Comments Filter:

  • Great. Now how about people over 60? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dexotaku ( 1136235 ) on Monday June 24, 2019 @09:08PM (#58818344)
    This sounds like a great idea on the surface, but how are we also addressing the wilful ignorance of "older" people?

    • Re: Great. Now how about people over 60? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Or googles willful ignorance

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The bigger question is how it addresses willful ignorance of leftists.

    • 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.

    • I don't feel confident in my own ability to filter out fake news. :(
      I catch a lot of it, but I'm sure I miss some things.

      • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

      • I grew up during the early-ish days of the internet in the early to mid-90s, and I'm completely amazed at how much people are taken by this "fake news" problem. The first rule of the internet back then was "only a fool would believe anything they read on the internet". Granted, the average person on the net was much smarter since it generally required some technical knowledge, the equivalent of a skill-testing-question, before you could participate in discussions. Maybe we need some sort of mechanism lik

    • What you defame as "willful ignorance" may, in retrospect, turn out to be "wisdom".

    • Please note this thread started with (obviously) non-obvious sarcasm.

    • 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?

  • Easy to spot fake news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 24, 2019 @09:09PM (#58818354)

    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.

    • 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?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • 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

          • How's he strangling Venezuela? By sending aid packages that Maduro won't let across the border?

            • 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)

              by Shotgun ( 30919 )

              Yes. Orange man bad. He is both a coward who is afraid to fight, and a war hawk.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Actually, I do RTFA ( 1058596 )

        So which category am I if I am pro-Trump because he hasn't started any illegal wars

        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.)

        • 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

          • Every subsequent war has been congressionally authorized by weasel words, if at all. . By a plain reading, they were unconstitutional.

            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)

          by Shotgun ( 30919 )

          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

          • 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."

            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).

            And then you're going to ignore his strong push to move out of Syria

            What the fuck? US troops in Syria when Trump took office: 300, all special forces advising

    • Re:Easy to spot fake news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by e3m4n ( 947977 ) on Monday June 24, 2019 @09:25PM (#58818434)

      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.

      • 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

  • Why are they suggesting magazines and corporate media outlets that were egging on an illegal war on fake evidence (conspiracy against peace, punishable by death) are not fake?
    • Check your sources. The media is not your enemy. Your enemy is your own inability to logically determine fact from fiction.

      • Re: Fake news vs. conspiracy against peace (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NettiWelho ( 1147351 ) on Monday June 24, 2019 @09:28PM (#58818460)

        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..

        • Luckily their viewers were smart enough to know better.

  • Questionnaire for kids (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Monday June 24, 2019 @09:15PM (#58818378)

    ORANGE MAN:

    a) BAD
    b) VERY BAD
    c) Actually it's complex with some aspects being AAARGHMMMPH

    • 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?

      • I think he got assaulted behind the keyboard and just managed to type the name of his killer: "AAARGHMMMPH".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        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)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @03:04AM (#58819446) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • Pot, meet kettle (Score:4, Informative)

    by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Monday June 24, 2019 @09:31PM (#58818480)
    Say what you want about James O'Keefe and his Project Veritas but there have been some pretty damming [reddit.com] hidden camera videos from some of the bastions of the Democratic Party. Google isn't fooling anyone but their disciples anymore.

  • Dunning-Kruger applies here (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday June 24, 2019 @10:26PM (#58818698) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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

      • 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)

        by Shotgun ( 30919 )

        Google is trying to prevent themselves from being such an amplifier for groups they do not agree with.

        FTFY

  • Easy: just check if it comes from Fox News.

  • Blaming the victim (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Monday June 24, 2019 @10:40PM (#58818738)
    Fake news is essentially fraud. A scam. And Google & Facebook are making billions from it. Rather than go after the perpetrators, e.g. Google & Facebook, they want us to just "be more careful" & try not to get conned when we use their platforms. Something tells me there's not really much of an incentive for Google & Facebook to stop fake news. How big do you think the fines would have to be for Google & Facebook to make the fake news stop?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      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)

      by MobyDisk ( 75490 )

      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

  • A search engine just listed results without the political views of the brand?
    When computer code shipped without a CoC?
    When people could search the internet and find what they wanted?

    • 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.

  • 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."

  • Google caught rigging search (Score:3)

    by walterbyrd ( 182728 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:27AM (#58820458)

    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/

  • All journalism is bullshit of different degrees.

Slashdot Top Deals

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Close