
India’s millions of new Internet users are falling for fake news - JumpCrisscross
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indias-millions-of-new-internet-users-are-falling-for-fake-news--sometimes-with-deadly-consequences/2017/10/01/f078eaee-9f7f-11e7-8ed4-a750b67c552b_story.html
======
fragsworth
The obvious problem is that the dissemination of news these days is determined
by how many arbitrary or ignorant individuals have clicked "like" or "upvote"
on whatever social network they're using.

It doesn't need to be true, it just needs to be shocking, and people will
promote it.

This is only fixed by good moderation, with prominent (and powerful) "flag"
buttons like Hacker News has. Hacker News and Reddit don't suffer from nearly
as much fake news, because moderation teams tend to do a good job of weeding
out garbage, and have an easier time with the prominent report buttons.

Facebook and social networks have absolutely no moderation.

~~~
aphextron
>Facebook and social networks have absolutely no moderation.

Sure they do. They just have zero incentive to remove fake news content. It
makes them money, brings in users, everyone is happy! What could be wrong?
What's good for Facebook is good for the world!

~~~
fragsworth
Oh, you're right. I forgot that they moderate things that are illegal in
nature.

But it's still the bare minimum.

~~~
jstanley
You sound like you want them to do more moderation?

It amazes me that we've reached the point where there are commenters on
_Hacker News_ arguing in favour of online censorship.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _It amazes me that we 've reached the point where there are commenters on
> Hacker News arguing in favour of online censorship._

Why? Do you think that HN is a moderation-free bastion of unfiltered speech?

~~~
jstanley
Sorry, I emphasised HN because I perceive it to be a place where "enlightened
people" (in a non-sarcastic sense) tend to hang out. And therefore, of all the
discussion forums I can think of, HN is the one that is most likely to have a
view on censorship that prefers freedom of speech rather than suppression of
wrong-thinking.

~~~
BugsJustFindMe
> _And therefore, of all the discussion forums I can think of, HN is the one
> that is most likely to have a view on censorship that prefers freedom of
> speech rather than suppression of wrong-thinking._

You appear to be suffering from the misapprehension that "freedom of speech"
means "the HN community should tolerate bullshit" rather than "you can't be
put in jail for bullshit". The difference is extremely important to many of
us.

~~~
jstanley
I wasn't talking about moderation on HN at all. I was talking about moderation
on Facebook.

~~~
BugsJustFindMe
> _I wasn 't talking about moderation on HN at all. I was talking about
> moderation on Facebook._

So was I. But you're talking about the people here.

I don't see why you think it matters where scam blocking happens. So far in
these comments you seem to be saying that scamming needs to be defended as a
practice. That's a hugely psychopathic position, so I hope the interpretation
is wrong. But when you use the phrase "freedom of speech" against moderation
of fake news, which are scams perpetrated on the vulnerable public, not a
synonym for "news you don't want to hear", it becomes hard to interpret
otherwise. I think that most people here would probably say that Facebook
isn't a place where social responsibility should vanish, and part of
responsibility, part of having a conscience, is protecting people, both
individually and collectively, from scammers. Because Facebook is not a copper
wire. Facebook is an interconnected network of its participant members, just
like HN.

------
coliveira
This has nothing to do with poverty. The US population is just as guilty of
believing in fake news, they even elected a president based on rumors. And now
the president himself fabricates and spreads such fake news with support of
his propaganda machine.

~~~
gaius
_The US population is just as guilty of believing in fake news_

Because it’s pushed to the top of algo-driven newsfeeds, and originates with
people with blue checkmarks after their names

~~~
biztos
For anyone else who didn't know what the "blue checkmark" means in this
context:

Twitter et al. apparently us the blue checkmark to indicate they have vetted
the identity of that social media account, and they vouch for @ev[0] being Mr
Williams while @finkd may or may not be Mr Zuckerberg.[1]

At least on Twitter, it has a "first-prize ribbon" look to it, as if being the
blue-checked Mr Williams were an achievement superior to that of the second
(red) Mr Williams and the others on down.[2]

[0]: [https://twitter.com/ev](https://twitter.com/ev)

[1]: [https://twitter.com/finkd](https://twitter.com/finkd)

[2]: [http://www.trophies2go.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/RBB...](http://www.trophies2go.com/wp/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/RBB2BS.jpg)

~~~
gaius
_Twitter et al. apparently us the blue checkmark to indicate they have vetted
the identity of that social media accoun_

Not anymore - now it means Twitter endorses what they say. I mean does someone
stop being themselves once they break the ToS? If not, why withdraw it?

------
blunte
Simple minded people - those without a willingness to question and consider,
will always be led around by false information. It doesn't matter whether it's
rural Texas or India.

Until we instill in people a willingness to think, question, and consider, we
will continue to be plagued by ignorant masses. It doesn't help when there
exists an active, malicious business model designed to keep ignorant people as
willfully ignorant followers. *autocorrect fix

~~~
stri8ed
You are forgetting there is a real time & cognitive cost associated with
performing analysis, especially if you are already biased on the issue. It's
the same reason people can't stick to diets. People want to feel good now. So
if you can give them another reason to like/hate Trump, you will find little
resistance.

~~~
noufalibrahim
Sure but there is a coarser option (especially on social networks) -
unsubscribe from bad groups and generally keep yourself away from stuff that
has proven itself to be an unworthy source of information. It requires some
amount of thought upfront but after that, it improves your experience. This is
similar to you subscribing to a good newspaper rather than any tabloid rag.

------
anilgulecha
I'm optimistic this will be solved in the near future -- it is a UX problem.
Like the "Not secure" in browser, what we need is a "Potentially fake" icon
that can be flagged/used on various platforms.

The advent of the fact-checker platforms is the first bit. Next would be
API/automation, followed by the UI/UX changes.

~~~
adamnemecek
The problem is that the incentives are perverted. With "Not secure", the
platform has an incentive to deploy https. With fake news tho, they are
potentially making money from explosive news so why would they go out of their
way to combat it.

Like facebook is claiming to be combating it but I don't think they care that
much. I can't help but feel they are combating it due to the uproar, not due
to the goodness of their heart.

------
empath75
There is going to be another Rwanda-scale genocide somewhere because of rumors
on social media, eventually. Billions of people without the intellectual
toolchest to determine truth from falsehood, eventually it’s going to get out
of control and a lot of people are going to get killed.

One can argue it’s already happening to the Rohinga.

I think we as a species need to make a serious effort to educate people in
really basic critical thinking skills and teach people a healthy skepticism,
and how to evaluate evidence and chains of reasoning.

It’s counter to everything we’ve been teaching the masses up till now, which
is to respect authority, because it’s easy to control them that way.

Without centralized mass media, that’s no longer an option. Manufactured
consent will no longer be available as a means to maintain stability in
society, and we’ll have to figure out how to do it with everyone able to think
and learn for themselves.

~~~
danmaz74
Be careful what you wish for. Skepticism about official experts/science/the
government is helping fake news a lot, eg here in Italy.

~~~
empath75
'healthy skepticism'

My point was that teaching people to just trust what they read has lead them
astray. They used to trust the 'mass media' who largely hewed to the 'the
establishment' line. Now that the mass media isn't the only source of
information for most people, they'll believe basically any nonsense.

People _should_ be skeptical of the establishment media. They should be
skeptical of _everything_. What you need to teach people is how to properly
apply skepticism to figure out what might or might not actually be true, and
why.

------
thisisit
> Many fake news stories appear to support India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata
> Party and its right-wing Hindu nationalist agenda, said Jency Jacob,
> managing editor for boomlive.in, a fact-checking website.

That right there is a "fake news" in itself. Both sides of the aisle has to be
blamed for the situation. As much there is agenda from the right wing, there
has also been concentrated effort from the left wing too.

------
JoshMnem
I think that humans are going to find out that algorithmic news feeds are not
a good way for people get information. AI shouldn't decide what knowledge is
consumed. RSS and Atom are much better solutions.

~~~
dehue
Why would they stop using algorithmic news feeds when those bring in way more
clicks and ad revenue than RSS style feeds? I just don't see it changing ever
now that sites can tailor their pages for each viewer to maximize their
profits and keep people on their site.

~~~
JoshMnem
> Why would they stop using algorithmic news feeds when those bring in way
> more clicks and ad revenue than RSS style feeds?

The probably won't. They shouldn't kid themselves that they are making the
world a better place though.

------
mythrwy
Lots of people hate the way China does things (including me) but they have a
long history of "harmoniously" controlling large populations and probably have
learned a thing or two.

So my guess is the future consists of more "harmonizing" globally. Which I
don't like, largely because it's opportunity for corruption, but the cost of
that might ultimately be less than the cost of the current free for all.

In some ways I feel like we are living in the twilight of a form of savage
freedom. Which I personally relish because it's what I'm used to.

I imagine for some the transition will be similar to what happened to
Aboriginal peoples throughout history.

"You mean I have to wear pants and show up at 8AM for school every day? Are
you crazy? That's horrid! Why would anyone do that? I certainly won't be!".

 _" Yes, but then you'll have all the food you can eat and will never be
cold!"._

"Eh, I don't know. I'd rather do what I want and go hungry sometimes. No
deal!"

 _" Ok, now you are causing problems for others who want to have all the food
_they_ can eat. Look here, now see this gun?"_

------
pavel_lishin
> _Last week, newspapers here carried full-page advertisements by Facebook
> that explained how to spot false news._

I guess that's cheaper than hiring additional moderators, or figuring out how
to temper this issue with technological solutions - but shouldn't this be a
big flag to Facebook that there is indeed a huge problem?

~~~
damnyou
Do you like end-to-end encryption? Because this is what you get with end-to-
end encryption.

~~~
pavel_lishin
Sorry, are you saying that Facebook can't see the content that's stored on
their servers? That when my mom posts a picture of some roses, that nobody
between me and her can see what the image is of?

~~~
damnyou
Not Facebook. Whatsapp.

------
ilaksh
The majority in this thread are not willing or able to put 'fake news' in
correct context with propaganda and censorship. I even see a comment basically
saying that freedom of expression in the West will eventually be like it is
(not) in China and suggesting that is probably for the best anyway.

So I believe that apathy or this lack of/incorrect context will have very
significant consequences.

I just hope that people will research the long and ongoing history of
censorship and propaganda and try to see the correct connection with "fake
news" and the suggestions for suppressing it.

------
elkali
The bigger threat than Facebook is Whatsapp. India is Whatsapp's biggest
market and while sometimes people point out the fake news on Facebook, the
fake WhatsApp forwards go completely unchecked. There can be hopes that
Facebook will manage to curb fake news in the future, but the senseless rumors
and propaganda will continue on Whatsapp.

