
Fake news is too big and messy to solve with algorithms or editors  - bootload
https://backchannel.com/google-and-facebook-cant-just-make-fake-news-disappear-48f4b4e5fbe8
======
rdtsc
I think two things happened that are interesting:

* Traditional mass media has failed at manufacturing consent (stealing Chomsky's title here because I like the book and it fits). Election was lost to a TV personality even though mass media was supposed to prevent it. Google and Facebook didn't waste any time after noticing this market vacuum and signaled they are ready to be the new manufacturers of consent. "Pay us money and we'll properly inform people of your favorite brand/policy/candidate and block competing brands/candidates. Don't rely on TV news anymore. Come to us". That was a very good move on their part.

* Fake news term was a good PR term. It works well as a slogan, is short and very expressive. However it was appropriated by others. Disarming by appropriation is an interesting technique. So now the same media companies talking about fake news are defending themselves from being labeled as such. It went so far that WaPo journalist explicitly asked everyone to stop using the term as it apparently is backfiring too much: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/its-time-to-r...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/its-time-to-retire-the-tainted-term-fake-news/2017/01/06/a5a7516c-d375-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html?utm_term=.5fa563648f29) I think studying how appropriation happened so quickly and effectively is worth it just as much as the effect of lizard people or chemtrails on the outcome of the election.

~~~
leereeves
> "Pay us money and we'll properly inform people of your favorite
> brand/policy/candidate and block competing brands/candidates. Don't rely on
> TV news anymore. Come to us"

Well said. Are people savvy enough now to see through that?

~~~
thomasahle
>> "Pay us money and we'll properly inform people of your favorite
brand/policy/candidate and block competing brands/candidates. Don't rely on TV
news anymore. Come to us"

> Well said. Are people savvy enough now to see through that?

This is the obvious critique you could give any media that claims trying to
filter out falsehoods.

You can either trust nobody (which many people have unfortunately decided to
do) or listen to the various news providers and see who makes the better case
for you to trust them.

I don't know that Google and Facebook makes a worse case than so many other
outlets?

~~~
bigbugbag
Well with that many US presidents in the KKK and his unmatched worldwide
penetration google has it worse than most if not all.

------
xatan_dank
The problem is not 'fake news'. The problem is that it's impossible to have a
discussion about the news at all since everyone is experiencing drastically
different content directly catered to them on the internet. At least with Fox
News we could all point to something Megyn Kelly said and debate whether we
agreed or not. There's no way we can even agree upon an information set to
talk about with interactive 'fake news' because it differs for everyone and
changes rapidly. We also don't have any of the source for these repulsive
services, where we at least have some evidence of how MSM outlets are biased.

The idea that services like Google and Facebook are going to use more
algorithms to counter the tracking and ad servicing algorithms they developed
in the first place is laughable. The solution (if they were actually trying to
counter 'fake news') would be to get rid of this harmful technology entirely,
but that's all these companies have to bring in revenue so I doubt that'd
happen.

'Fake news' is not Breitbart or CNN or one news outlet. 'Fake news' is really
the way these internet companies have distorted our collective reality for
their own short-term gains. It is irresponsible, dangerous, and in my opinion,
not profitable in the long run unless they completely usurp all our species'
communication. Which they are actively trying to achieve.

~~~
metaphorm
you're putting much too much blame on internet distributors of media (i.e.
Google, Facebokk, etc.). Conventional media organizations and their
distribution networks have raced to the bottom very eagerly. Fox News created
the media model which is now the only game in town because it was so
successful.

------
yeukhon
News propaganda didn't just fall off a tree magically.

Propaganda is common throughout history to gather supports.

Fake news didn't just happen on Facebook. Mainstream media have been
criticized for all forms of malpractices or unfair reporting by misquoting,
taking a quote or story out of context, using unauthentic images or using
different random parts of a clip to create a story. Is NYT more fair than Fox
News?

I recently came across a YouTube video called "The Sinter Reason Weed is
Illegal" [1]. I am not a historian, but from this video I learned that perhaps
the ban of cannabis was perhaps not based on scientific facts at all. The
whole ban was just a political move by provoking racism to rally up against
the Blacks and the Mexicans.

After the 2016 Election, I started to follow a Facebook Page called "Now This
Politics" (NTP). Given the page's political nature, most of the stories are
about the current administration. I started to get more news stories from
Facebook. A few days ago United Airlines was reported to have barred girls
from boarding a flight because of their leggings. NTP created a video about
the incident. I felt UA was being ridiculous. Legging isn't the most
inappropriate dress code. I didn't approve UA's defense. But when I went to
the comment section, I started to change my stand on the issue because
apparently these girls got their tickets via an employee discount program, for
which the ticket holder is subjected to a stricter dress code. While I don't
dispute this dress code might be outdated for legging (what about Yoga
pants?), NTP's video was able to impose a negative view on me. Yes, the video
did include UA's defense statement UA said the employee discount ticket
holders are subjected to dress code requirement at the end of the video, but
at that point the negativity had already been planted.

Now I have to be extra careful not to side with the video creator right away,
just because their other videos do make good points exposing the uglinesses of
our current government. The fact I agree with them before would mean I am now
vulnerable to social influences and perhaps beginning to deindivdiualize in my
capacity to distinguishing my own views from others' views..

[1]:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk)

[2]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-
leggin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/26/us/united-airlines-
leggings.html)

~~~
globuous
> I learned that perhaps the ban of cannabis was perhaps not based on
> scientific facts at all. The whole ban was just a political move by
> provoking racism to rally up against the Blacks and the Mexicans.

This is interesting, I didn't know about that. However, I remember a sociology
class I took in college. It showed that crack and cocaine fines / jail times
were very different from each other (doing crack was legally more Dangerous
than doing cocaine). But crack and cocain are pretty much the same thing. The
biggest difference is that a few décades ago (I don't know if it's still the
case), white people did cocaine and black people did crack. Because crack was
cheaper than cocaine. Sad how régulations are made sometimes.

------
superioritycplx
The two sides on political spectrum define "fake news" differently: one calls
everything that's not reported by the established (and very well paid) media
"fake news", the other one calls news that uses cherry picked facts to push
the narrative "fake news."

~~~
ihsw2
Do either of them qualify as fake news? How do we combat fake news if nobody
knows what it is, and how do we prevent collateral damage/unintended
consequences?

~~~
Razengan
Fake == not real. Fake news == reporting stuff that did not happen, isn't
true.

~~~
BearGoesChirp
What about reporting on real facts in a way that leads one to draw a false
conclusion? Imagine if Fox News ran a story on race and crime and used lots of
FBI facts, never drawing any actual conclusion, but pointing out how crimes
break down racially while never mentioning the possibility that profiling or
the interactions between race and poverty or poverty and crime? All the
reporting would be on actual facts. But it should at least be called
propaganda if not fake news.

~~~
Razengan
Anything with a prominent opinion present throughout the piece is more an
"article" than "news" anyway, but yes, propaganda nonetheless.

------
aqsheehy
The algorithm for identifying fake news is actually pretty straight forward:

if I disagree with it then it's fake news

else it's just news

~~~
ajross
The term got terribly misappropriated like that, which was probably
unavoidable. But no, stop it. There is always going to be potential bias in
reporting focus, there will always be arguments to be had over journalism. But
junk like Pizzagate _is just plain wrong_ , full stop. It's fake. Everyone
should agree that it's fake.

And yet in the social media world (Facebook was the big offender) links like
this are just treated as "news" and presented to their users alongside other
stuff. There is a gatekeeper role for these companies that _used_ to be
provided by the traditional media. And Facebook wasn't even trying. So we got
Pizzagate.

~~~
michaelbuddy
I saw the Pizza gate content rise up from seemingly out of nowhere. Thing is
though, the core of it, without making any specific accusations is there is
really weird stuff going on in those emails from wikileaks dump. Strange coded
language when they are talking about kids and pizza. And that pizza restaurant
had some really strange things posted on their social media too. (Strange
enough that they would later delete it.)

After looking long enough at it, basically PizzaGate warrants just as much
suspicion for me as any JFK theory at this point. I believe there's something
to it. There is a mountain of little details that make it impossible to flat
out deny it, I just don't go as far as levying accusations at people withouth
knowing facts. Others have accused people w/o evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt and I think that's wrong. I think the police should be interested in
Pizza Gate, and I think a few of them are. But again I don't go further than
that.

What people think bubbled over Pizza Gate was that guy with the gun who went
in the restaurant. But actually that smelled like a hoax to me. It just seemed
wildly incomplete and a convenient way to say "See what fake news does!" And
that guy had a strange background with him, and the media chose NOT to go too
deep into his story either. It was like they just needed that for their
narative.

~~~
ajross
Contrast:

> [Weird emails...] I believe there's something to it.

vs.:

> [Guy discharges an _actual weapon_ ] actually that smelled like a hoax to
> me.

Yeah. We're done here.

~~~
michaelbuddy
"yeah we're done here"

You're proving my point. Precisely BECAUSE somebody discharged a firearm, in
your mind now the case is closed it's ALL fake news. I'm saying that the
reporting on this guy is light, but we're supposed to dismiss the strange
coded emails now. Nah I think I'll continue to keep my eye on it.

Lesson learned for anyone want to sweep something under a rug. Just pay some
mentally ill person to discharge a firearm nearby, say they did it because
Jodie Foster or Alex Jones told the place was suspicious and then CNN will
ensure to brand the act as a "lesson of fake news" and impossible to discuss
now.

~~~
ajross
> Precisely BECAUSE somebody discharged a firearm, in your mind now the case
> is closed it's ALL fake news.

To clarify (but not debate, like I said we're done): I'm pointing out that
your willingness to believe in "something" about pizzagate based on nothing
but email inuendo yet your inclination to _disbelieve_ that a guy who shot
actual rounds into the air and got himself arrested and charged was sincere
are... sorta in conflict.

You aren't being serious. You're just believing what you want to believe. Feel
free. Maybe there are some, um, "news" sources you can focus on to further
reinforce your priors.

~~~
michaelbuddy
False flags are inexpensive, sometimes free and they are deployed a fair
amount. I am being serious when I say that it's suspicious that the media just
with with their mile-wide inch-deep coverage of our air shooter and we're
supposed to just follow them with their "see what fake news does!!!!" spin
around the block. Nah. Like I said, I'll stick with my skepticism on this one
until the media goes deeper into our shooter. Looks like our shooter's family
has some political connections besides. Until then he seems like more of a
convenient patsy to me. Gut talking there.

Side topic, St. Louis recently had a pizza incident make the news. Odd.

------
tempodox
> Although most techies imagined that their tools would be used to bridge
> disconnects, that did not happen.

That is one disturbing takeaway. Props to the author for seeing that and
pointing it out. I for one feel stupid for having believed such a thing could
happen. But then, hindsight is always 20/20.

------
avivo
I agree with title and most of the points. And I definitely don't want
platforms to just arbitrarily censor what they believe is "fake news".

But we also can't dismiss the responsibility of the platforms. The sort of
systemic change that this piece alludes to _needs_ the companies to be
involved. They are a huge part of "the system" — part of the problem.

As the piece itself says: "We need to work together and build coalitions of
groups who do not share the same political and social ideals to address the
issues that we can all agree are broken." That cannot happen when the
incentives and UX promulgated by the platforms are fighting against any sort
of social cohesion.

Platform changes are critical to _bootstrapping_ ourselves into a better media
ecosystem.

------
pasta
I think false conclusions are the problem.

For example: "Trump approved an oil pipe.". This is no fake news. But the
conclusion most outlets made was: "See, Trump is working with the Russians
because it's Russian steel.". And even one part of the conclusion is true: it
is partly Russian steel. But the steel was already bought years ago.

So my questions is: how could Google and Facebook do reliable fact checking on
this? So yes, maybe they can't make fake news disapear.

~~~
camillomiller
They shouldn't. This is a byproduct of the failure of journalistic filtering.
However biased, journalistic outlets used to have a role and a purpose: apply
a filter to the enormous amount of information the new media society
generates; stick by the truth coming from facts.

What tipped it all over is the advent of three things: 24h news channels,
demanding a spectacularization of news to fill an entire day of broadcasting;
the Web, of course; the need to find a way for monetizing news on the Web,
that led to dancing with the devil of online advertisement. We're currently in
a phase where the shortcomings of the ad based business model for media are
clear to everyone.

How many previously respectable outlets have already burnt their integrity at
the altar of clickbait and ads for the sake of keeping the lights on?

What we are witnessing with fake news is what happens when a balancing power
of society (media) is losing its grip and importance. The problem here being
that the actors who are actively weakening that power (Google and Facebook)
don't want to affirm a different flavor of that power. It's only about the
money.

------
tbrock
Who cares? Get your news from paying attention to real life instead of from
your friends spending time on Facebook.

Read here and make up your own mind:
[http://www.allsides.com/](http://www.allsides.com/)

~~~
cat199
This is great - Finally something that clearly highlights the implicit
editorial bias in _all_ news sources..

Thanks for share.

------
thr0waway1239
The author writes:

"Discursively, this frame is used to highlight every form of problematic
content, including both blatantly and accidentally inaccurate information,
salacious and fear-mongering headlines, hateful and incendiary rhetoric
produced in blogs, and propaganda of all stripes (driven by both the State and
other interests)."

Did you read all the different types and make a mental note of which news you
recently heard falls under which category? Probably not, because we are
cognitive misers.

Sometimes, the underlying issue is that humans simply do not have the capacity
to sift through so much noise to get to the heart of the matter. To proof
yourself against fake news will involve so much thinking that it will become a
full time job.

People _really_ like to "sort and label", as a famous economist put it. It
conserves our mental energy and can even be very helpful for economic and
social progress. The sorting and labeling is going to be personalized to their
upbringing and cultural norms, with a strong affinity towards news, fake or
not, which agrees with such an upbringing.

Fake news could just be an unintended side effect of the increase in
opportunities to consume (information) and communicate, because humans won't
go from cognitive misers to cognitive spendthrifts ever. And who wants less
opportunity to consume and communicate?

And certainly, stop asking Google and Facebook to make fake news disappear.
This is like requesting burglars to make sure they bolt the door after they
are done with their burglary so that other people don't vandalize what is left
of the shop.

------
arcaster
Fake News is an awfully vague term for censorship.

~~~
soreasan
This is my big worry. I feel like "Fake News" is being used for news that
people disagree with.

------
dilemma
Facebook has created a system that encourages fake content. Change that system
and you get rid of the content.

~~~
yeukhon
Be specific. What system? Society is full of chatters. Now we virtualize
social interaction, the chatter is only getting more widespread at the speed
of light.

~~~
jfoutz
The system that encourages the, generally, emotional response of likes, rather
than the, generally, intellectual response of likes.

Stories that challenge a person's world view are generally ignored, stories
that support a person's world view are liked.

I enjoy casual conversations with people i disagree with. In person i can keep
it genial and friendly. On line i don't have that control, and criticizing an
idea becomes tough to distinguish from criticizing the person. Because the
person i'm interacting with isn't really thinking much at all, and just
reacting in an emotional way.

At least that's how i believe they're reacting, because i catch my self
reacting that way more often than i like to admit.

 _edit_

As a concrete example, I've had a bunch of in person conversations about gun
ownership, and a fair number of online discussions. With the in person
examples, generally, i feel like i've learned something, and my interlocutor
has a better understanding of my point of view. Any time i try that online, i
just get pissed off and i'm pretty sure my interlocutor does as well, judging
by being unfriended.

~~~
iamatworknow
>As a concrete example, I've had a bunch of in person conversations about gun
ownership, and a fair number of online discussions. With the in person
examples, generally, i feel like i've learned something, and my interlocutor
has a better understanding of my point of view. Any time i try that online, i
just get pissed off and i'm pretty sure my interlocutor does as well, judging
by being unfriended.

I've had the same experience.

I'm a gun owner. I also believe that guns are dangerous and every gun owner
should be thoroughly vetted before being allowed to own one.

As a New Yorker it took 11 months for my pistol permit application to be
processed. My finger prints were taken, as well as a mug shot. It cost over
$100. A county sheriff came to my home to inspect it and interview me. And I
was fine with all of that, because it meant others had to go through this same
strict process. I think it should not be easy to obtain a gun, and it should
be easy to lose the privilege.

But I've shared this opinion online with other gun owners before and to say it
was not received very well is a massive understatement. Apparently, not only
does my belief in tighter restrictions mean I don't deserve to own guns, it
also means that I don't believe in _any_ part of the Constitution at all, and
should my life be in danger, gun owners who may be able to help me _shouldn 't
come to my defense_. That was seriously what I was told. To these people
online it's preferable that I be _killed_ than defended because I believe guns
shouldn't be easy to obtain. It's absolutely crazy.

------
ilaksh
By pretending that propaganda only comes from sources that they don't like,
they can rationalize censorship.

'Fake News' needs to be put in the context of on-going propaganda that comes
from the mainstream media (including in the United States).

Most HN readers are unaware of this context. I urge the reader of this comment
to research the history of (war) propaganda, and carefully examine his/her
belief system if he/she feels that the United States is exempt from history in
this regard.

See 'The Myth of American Exceptionalism'
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/25/obama-
putin...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/25/obama-putin-
american-exceptionalism-column/3181829/) and research the history of
propaganda in the US. At some historical point where it becomes uncomfortable
to acknowledge it, people will suppose that it ceased to exist. This is not
true.

------
anticodon
Please, show me unbiased ("true") news. In my opinion, such a thing is like
perpetuum mobile, in other words, it can't exist.

~~~
darpa_escapee
Fake news != Biased news.

It's the difference between running these headlines: "Secret child sex-
trafficking ring led by Hillary Clinton" vs "Trump lies, yet again"

~~~
cat199
When the bias is so strong it clouds the understanding of events, it's pretty
darn close to fake..

Witness the fact that _noone_ is talking about _all_ countries attempts to
influence the US elections on all sides, despite the fact that this is almost
certainly the case..

------
nippples
The main issue here is that journalists and editors all over established
publications decided to give objectivity all the middle fingers they could
find, and we're pretty much just fed "news commentary" and opinion columns
instead of news these days.

Add that to these idiots becoming sanctimonious and now you've got a lot of
disaffected audience who just know something doesn't add up seeking
alternative news. If the only options you got are people wagging their
fingers, you might as well just find someone who's not constantly calling you
an asshole over things you cannot control about yourself.

------
intrasight
I don't actively use G+ so I can't judge that. But I do use FB every day. I
think the "fake news" and many other annoyances would go away if we just
rolled the platform back to what it was like ten+ year ago - where you could
just type messages and your friends would see those messages.

------
forgottenpass
>Experts can’t even agree on who is a hate group and who is engaging in
protected speech.

Probably because the experts struggling over this aren't expert enough to
notice that borders of those categories are not questions with answers that
can be investigated, but instead they're categorizations people choose to
apply. (Oh, and the author should know better than to casually drop the
implication that they're non-intersecting categories.)

And to the extent discussing "protected" speech introduces the legal
questions, there is no amount of experts expert-ing that can come up with a
mathmatical proof to replace a nation's amalgamation of different societal
philosophies figuring out where to draw legal boundaries.

------
dredmorbius
I wanted to like this piece. It's got some good bits in it,and boyd's been on
fire the past few months. With some credit to the point that the problem isn't
_trivial_ , I get the overall sense boyd is simply throwing up her hands, and
that strikes me as disingenuous.

@ericdykstra has addressed the question of definitions of fake news, so I'll
just repoint to that
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14001745](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14001745)

------
6stringmerc
Along the same lines, I wrote about the same issue in a more contentious and
direct way - in that Fake News can spread because a large portion of the
population are ignorant, and sometimes willfully so, to the point of maddening
denials of reality like "I dunno maybe the Earth is flat."

[https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/a-case-study-in-the-fake-
new...](https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/a-case-study-in-the-fake-news-
feedback-loop-e42e236eefd0)

------
adrianratnapala
A good article, if a bit of a rant.

The frustrating thing about all this is that civilised people worked out, back
in the 18th century that the solution is to let bullshit and truth have free
play so that free people can decide for themselves.

That doesn't mean interweb giants won't have there work cut out for them. But
that should be workaday stuff like blocking spam and the like. "The like"
includes stuff like folks who make up stupid stuff just to get clicks -- but
it doesn't mean every kind of lie or misinformation.

------
Mendenhall
They cant make fake news disappear because they are going about it the wrong
way.

As soon as you try to crack down or limit "fake news" you play right into
psychology of reinforcing the fake news "media" and "they out to get us".

Also lol at the concept of google and facebook knowing whats fake news and
what isnt and trusting them to do so.

------
sandmarq
I'M waitting with impatince the creation of the minitere of the truth to
finally know the real news.

------
pottersbasilisk
No kidding. I think fake news is a symptom of humanity's social fabric or
contract coming apart.

------
empressplay
If someone is the target of a fake news story, can't they just sue the poster?
Wouldn't an injunction force Facebook to take it down?

Maybe what's needed is more like a DMCA takedown mechanism, if the verified
target of a piece (eg a politician or their agent) files a complaint, then the
piece is temporarily taken down, and the person who posted it has an
opportunity to prove the substance of the allegations and if they fail it gets
taken down permanently, otherwise it goes back up permanently.

This would also have the advantage of killing all of those useless "anonymous
source" articles too.

~~~
partiallypro
Winning a case like that is incredibly difficult, even for celebrities. Unless
there was a gross violation of privacy, people rarely win the battle. It
qualifies as free speech or what could be parody? There's a fine line. A lot
of the outlets that put out the "fake news" are owned by the same companies
that put out "fake news" with the total opposite view point. Outrage gets
clicks and viewership, we're trolling ourselves to death.

------
lutusp
Not addressed in the article, but critical to the issue, is education -- a
properly educated public would be immune to fake news.

Key to that educated outlook would be healthy skepticism and application of
the _null hypothesis_ precept from science -- the assumption that, without
positive empirical evidence, a claim is assumed to be false.

If readers were educated and skeptical, if they understood and appreciated how
science works, the fake news epidemic would starve and die for lack of an
audience.

------
ericdykstra
There is a spectrum of what people call "fake news" ranging from:

1\. Complete fiction presented as fact up to push a narrative [1]

2\. Reporting on conspiracy theories as fact, presenting circumstantial
evidence as hard evidence.

3\. Intentionally misleading by cherry-picking statistics/data/etc [2][3]

4\. Taking things out of context to paint a picture of a person that doesn't
exist [4]

5\. Criticizing someone's words rather than their position to construct a
straw man (most character assassination pieces do this)

6\. Presenting biased reporting on stories

7\. Only presenting stories that paint a story of the world that the author
agrees with

The first is unequivocally fake news. Any source that reports a story like
this should be suspect, and any that doesn't issue a retraction should be
ignored.

The second is what the mainstream media pins the Alex Jones type on, calling
them fake news.

The 3rd, 4th, and 5th are usually the tactics of what people call "alternative
media," but almost all legacy media companies use these tactics, at least
occasionally. This is why WSJ, CNN, WaPo, etc often get the fake news label
from the alternative media and other critics. If fake news is defined as
fiction presented as fact, then it's not unfair to label these tactics as fake
news.

The last two are just punditry and audience pandering, and the only ones
calling them "fake news" are partisans that can't stand partisan viewpoints
from the other side.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/11/1...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/11/10/women-in-hijabs-on-2-campuses-say-they-were-attacked-by-men-
invoking-donald-trump/)

[2] [http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2016/12/4/mostly-
false-p...](http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2016/12/4/mostly-false-
politifact-and-bias)

[3] [http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2016/12/20/picking-
your-...](http://theparadoxproject.org/blog-1/2016/12/20/picking-your-fact-
politifacts-biased-fact-check-choices) [https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-
are-true-the-news-is-fa...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-
news-is-fake-5bf98104cea2)

[4] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-
youtube...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-severs-ties-with-youtube-star-
pewdiepie-after-anti-semitic-posts-1487034533)

further reading: I love this essay by Nassim Taleb: "The Facts are True, the
News is Fake" [https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-news-is-
fa...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-facts-are-true-the-news-is-
fake-5bf98104cea2)

------
helthanatos
They certainly can't stop it if they promote it... Facebook is social media,
so it is excused, but Google prioritizes according to ad payments, so whoever
is paying for the ads has more control over the approved content and the ad
content. Spreading fake news by demonizing certain videos that aren't agreed
with and such. Now, it's not exactly up to Google to stop fake news either...
They just shouldn't promote it as have.

------
sandmarq
I can't be more enthousiam

