Fighting the fake

[garote]

In the last decade, the number of smartphone users in the United States has grown to a quarter of a billion people. Worldwide smartphone usage has grown to an astonishing 3.5 billion people -- almost half the human population. Even more astonishing, that figure jumped by 40% in only the last four years.

All over the globe, people are getting palm-sized wireless access to astoundingly vast amounts of information. But sheer access to information isn't the only thing going on here. It's not like we're just dumping a complete set of encyclopedias into everyone's lap - though we are - we're also enabling people and groups of people to become sources for information, as well as consumers of it. People using smartphones can broadcast as well as receive, and that is what's truly new, and it has created a strong need for a new level of skepticism.

People are not catching on as fast as we - jaded long-time users of the internet or smartphones - would like. The biggest menace as we see it, is "fake news": A source emulating the appearance of a previously reliable source with journalistic integrity - e.g. a newspaper or even a news channel - but that is actually propaganda, or a commercial, or a prank, or just really compelling but dangerous misinformation spreading of its own accord. The previous era's indicators of journalism - a flashy logo, a serious looking man in a suit behind a desk, a news crawl along the bottom, for example - can be used like camouflage. Go anywhere online and you'll see it creeping out at you.

Fun statistics: Almost 75% of American adults are now accessing news on their phones (as compared to 50% a few years ago). Social media is a significant provider of information: it is just as common for an American adult to get news through social media as through a news organization’s website or app.

Eventually, all these new users of the internet will realize that your choice of media feed matters. Some feeds poison you, some enlighten you. Some are junk food, some are nourishing. But asking all of us to be our own research assistants and fact checkers all the time is too much. A lie can run around the world twice before the truth has got its boots on, and though skepticism will slow the lie down, it's just as important that we find ways to boost the truth into the fast lane.

So, what has been tried? Here are some ideas for discussion. Which seem promising to you?

* Increased government promotion of critical thinking training in public schools. And/or computer literacy.

* Platform providers should develop better automated algorithms for determining what is high quality content, moving away from what is merely popular.

* Platform providers should hire policy enforcers: Humans who spend hours every day marching through flagged content to block misinformation, hate speech, et cetera.

* Platform providers should develop self-policing tools with an "area effect". E.g. if you think a source is spreading lies, personally demoting it also demotes it in the search results or news feeds of your friends and family.

* A massive state-mandated push to completely eliminate anonymous accounts on the internet. Everything you post, click, buy ... will be resolvable to you, by everyone who sees it.

* Companies compete to develop whitelists of news sources, or advertisers, and offer those lists as a service to platform providers. If you want only "conservative approved" news, you can get it.

* News organizations develop a system of accreditation, endorsing good journalistic practices. Organizations that meet the criteria are endorsed as providers of "real" news, and earn membership in paid newsfeeds, get special filtering status on social networks, etc.

* Same as above, but the accreditation is done by a third party that has the blessing of a variety of powerful entities, e.g. the major political parties.

* The government declares that anyone guilty of spreading "fake news" be subject to a fine.

* The same, but it's platform providers - Facebook, Twitter, Reddit - that are liable, rather than citizens.

* Citizens and other companies are allowed to sue platform providers for defamatory content on their networks.

* The government develops and maintains a "whitelist" of trusted news sources.

* Platform providers are required by law to place "balancing" content near content with opposing viewpoints.

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

I'm afraid we are way ahead of any opportunity to promote centralized education and critical thinking. The world is changing faster, and its rational modification was hardly ever possible.