
Fake News - rgun
https://stratechery.com/2016/fake-news/
======
joshuaheard
The world's intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq's nuclear program, but
this is hardly "fake news" on par with "Restore hair growth with this one
simple trick". This whole "fake news" issue is one giant slippery slope. True
fake news that damages someone is already actionable under our defamation
laws. But what about facts being bandied about in the marketplace of ideas? Do
facts counter to the current dogma become fake? Do we allow state or corporate
curators to determine for us what the facts are? One only has to go to
Wikipedia discussion pages to see how difficult that can be. I can't help but
be reminded by Orwell in 1984, "He who controls the present controls that
past. He who controls the past controls the future". Is controlling the facts
we read what Orwell was warning us about? The only defense against fake news
is an informed educated reader.

~~~
danbruc
_The world 's intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq's nuclear program,
but this is hardly "fake news" [...]_

That is absolutely not the way it went. Essentially nobody believed what Iraq
was accused of by the USA, not even the CIA trusted the available evidence. It
was all fabricated to justify the invasion, a total fake.

------
pwinnski
I think all of this talk about "fake news" in the abstract is unhelpful,
because I suspect we all have something different in mind for "fake news."

I mean, if there's a widespread belief that Secretary Clinton is running a
child sex ring out of a Washington D.C. pizza parlor[0], widespread enough
that it's turning up in response to random phone polling in the days before
the election, that's a different category of "fake news" than "Restore hair
growth with this one simple trick."

If a tweet of some parked busses for a Tableau conference in Austin, Texas,
can result in a tweeted claim by the President-Elect and a thread that runs
for more than a week on cable news about "paid protestors,"[1] that's not the
same as "Aliens take President-Elect for a ride on their flying saucer."

These seem to be in a different category than the NY Times' in-retrospect-
horrible reporting prior to the US invasion of Iraq. It's possible to be
certain but wrong, and marshal evidence in support of your beliefs. In the
case of the NY Times, that mistaken reporting was enormous, and the impact of
it was enormous, but it is reasonable to think that others given the same
information would have made the same mistakes. Lots of people did, in fact. In
the meantime, 99% of the rest of NY Times reporting was accurate, as is
usually the case. The two examples of "fake news" I linked seem ludicrous, and
they're just the tip of the iceberg.

Anecdotally, I personally saw claims about eight LGBT youth having killed
themselves as a result of the election, but those claims seem to be
unsubstantiated at best, and most like "fake news" from the other political
side. It's not entirely a partisan issue.

So yeah, Judith Miller's reporting turned out to be terrible. I'm not sure how
that counters the fact that the so-called "fake news" currently being
discussed is reprehensibly awful, and apparently effective.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13011496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13011496)
[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-
ne...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/business/media/how-fake-news-
spreads.html)

------
ideonexus
Coincidentally, I was on FB today and started seeing a red flag on two
friends' posts reading, "This website is not a reliable news source. Reason:
[REASON]" with reasons like state-sponsored news and unclassified. The flag
appeared on an article about Pokemon Go that was clearly sensationalist
speculation and a conspiracy website about George Soros. The div tag in the
post had a class "bsAlert" and, my favorite part, a poop icon beside it. None
of my other friends are seeing the flag, so I suspect I'm one of the lucky A/B
testers.

This article notes that consumers want fake news, but I want to see more of
these flags. I realize it's a huge risk for FB, as the article notes, but I've
unfollowed (not unfriended) so many friends for posting this nonsense that
it's really hurting my own end-user experience in the network. When you're
dealing with people for whom snopes and wikipedia are "part of the MSM," you
are dealing with people who are living in a consensual hallucination. It's
simultaneously infuriating and frightening to be exposed to that on a daily
basis.

~~~
farnsworth
"State-sponsored news" \- will I see that tag next to NPR articles? What about
wikileaks?

I have very mixed feelings about this. I know that Facebook is a company and
can censor or allow whatever they want to. They censor obscene and offensive
stuff, sure. But deciding what is "true" and "false" is a whole new ball game.
Do we want to get used to having a central authority telling us what's true
and false? If I want to say something stupid on Facebook, I should be allowed
to say it.

Remember that you can have an authority run by a trusted leader one day, and
someone else the next.

~~~
soupgal5
Well, firstly, this isn't "censoring" as such.

I know that, living in 2016, the concept of "objective truth" and "objective
falsehood" is a hard one to really wrap our brains around. But lets try:

Some things are true, and some things are false.

You're very welcome to say "something stupid on Facebook" as an individual
because you haven't presented yourself as a news source. But Facebook
shouldn't play willing participant in giving conspiracy sites a platform to
present made up stories as truths.

------
curiousgeorgio
I can't help but feel that "fake news" is just the latest scapegoat being used
by all the left-leaning media organizations (which represent a majority of the
media in the US) in an attempt to hide the painful reality that they've been
feeding us B.S. for years - and Trump's election effectively calls them out on
it.

If there is a problem with the media in general (apart from strong political
bias), it's a human problem that we all share. People respond to shock,
outrage, and disgust much more than they respond to pragmatic ideas, logic, or
even truth in general. As long as media companies are built on revenue models
tied to ad impressions and social engagement, we'll likely see more of the
same.

Censorship will not help; it can only make the problem worse. Perhaps instead,
social networks should return to being _social_ networks rather than scrolling
billboards. I recall a time (around 2005-2006) when Facebook consisted mostly
of people's own words, thoughts, and conversations rather than embedded media.
I think I'd really enjoy a Facebook that didn't even turn URLs into hyperlinks
- one where the only media that can be embedded is your own original content.
That's partly why I believe Instagram is on the rise, while Facebook seems to
be on the decline (depending on who you ask - and yes, I know Instagram is
owned by FB).

The current social media landscape is like trying to host a party at your
house with TVs on every wall (showing random propaganda) so loud that no one
can even hear themselves talk.

~~~
untog
But they _haven 't_ been feeding BS for years. The vast, vast majority of news
reporting done on a day to day basis is factually correct. Journalists call
people, check facts, get quotes.

I'm not saying that the media is faultless and never makes mistakes. Or that
they don't, from time to time, overhype absolute nonsense stories or clicks or
viewing figures. But we're comparing infrequent reporting mistakes with
deliberate and calculated lying. They are not anywhere near the same thing.

The fact that you _feel_ like fake news is being used as a scapegoat should
make you stop and wonder if there is any evidence to back up that feeling,
rather than double down on it.

~~~
ewzimm
Calling people, checking facts, and getting quotes are also tactics to push an
agenda. Most of the lies in the media are omissions they make, associations
they imply, and opinions they insert. For example, the New York Times recently
wrote _edit:published_ an article about Jeff Sessions' civil rights issue with
schools. They talked about Alabama's history of segregation, mentioned
segregation over and over again, and talked about how he continued the
problems inherited by the legacy of segregation by refusing to raise taxes to
give schools more money.

What they didn't mention is what he did instead, which was to desegregate
schools. There's good evidence that desegregating schools is the most
effective way to improve them. You have to admit it's a little dishonest to
throw the word segregation around over and over again in response to someone
following a strategy of desegregation instead of your personal solution of
raising taxes. It's a strategy that would make Orwell proud.

~~~
untog
If this is the article you're talking about:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-
othe...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/opinion/jeff-sessions-other-civil-
rights-problem.html)

It's an opinion piece, so neither is it written by the New York Times, nor is
it surprising that the author might be "inserting opinions".

~~~
ewzimm
I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it's
published by the media. It's just a great example of how you can use words and
repetition to create an association without actually accusing someone of
something and leave out facts which might be important.

It's an especially good example because it _is_ an opinion piece. It checks
facts, cites sources, and presents a lot of evidence instead of just giving a
straightforward opinion. All these facts give legitimacy to the implications.
Instead of making the article more objective, they enhance the bias.

~~~
nkurz
_For example, the New York Times recently wrote an article about Jeff Sessions
' civil rights issue with schools._

 _I never said anything about it not being an opinion piece, just that it 's
published by the media._

I agree with your original critique, but writing "the New York Times recently
wrote an article" is not saying "just that it's published by the media".
Whether or not an opinion piece is sufficient to make your point, you said the
NYT wrote it, it turns out that they did not, but you are claiming that
despite this you were right all along. Don't do that!

~~~
ewzimm
I'm sorry. I honestly didn't even realize I worded it that way, and that's
totally justifiable to call out. It was meant to flow from inserting opinions
to an example of an opinion that used facts to push an agenda, but it was
sloppy wording on my part.

------
pdeuchler
I cant believe I'm posting a quote from a video game in a thread debating
politics, but I guess we live in strange times...

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of
information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people
whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with
freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on
public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who
would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your
master."

------
genieyclo
One side calls it fake news, another lugenpresse.

Some from both want to police it and tell everyone else what needs to be
silenced.

This is why free speech is so important.

~~~
MrZongle2
_" One side calls it fake news, another lugenpresse."_

Correction: two groups are using that word. One is an extremist faction. The
other is an opposing faction gleefully trying to connect the historical use of
the word to a candidate and his supporters in general.

Edit: to the authors of the responses below, thank you for taking time to
provide a rebuttal (I'm not sure why HN isn't allowing me to reply further).
To those individuals who simply downvoted and moved on, I believe the German
word you're looking for in this case is _säuberung_.

~~~
mwfunk
I don't think anyone is gleeful about it at all. I think people are freaked
out, angry, and frightened and have a right to feel that way.

The candidate drew on that extremist faction for support during his campaign,
didn't make any effort to distance himself from that extremist faction, and
surrounded himself with people that that extremist faction were delighted by
during his campaign.

Then, after winning, not only does he not distance himself from the people he
had previously surrounded himself with, but appears to be following through in
terms of appointments and proposed legislation that, again, absolutely
delights that extremist faction.

I get that the candidate is not a member of that extremist faction, but if
that extremist faction adores that candidate and voices strong agreement with
every political appointment and policy position, many people have good reason
for being a little concerned about it. I don't know why this is so hard for
people to grasp. Just because a particular argument is being used by his
political opponents for the purpose of discrediting him, doesn't mean that
that argument isn't a real issue that people should be very aware of and
concerned about.

~~~
makomk
Except that the extremist faction is tiny, politically irrelevant, and not
nearly that happy with his proposed appointments and legislation. For example,
the New York Times Editorial Board is currently attacking Trump for failing to
denounce a 200-strong white nationalist meeting that's been happening annually
in Washington since 2011 and has achieved nothing in that time, organised by a
man whose hope for the Trump presidency - as per the NYT's reporting - is that
maybe he'll abandon all his actual policies and adopt ones that actually make
white nationalists happy. Their only victory so far seems to be getting the
NYT to give them a whole bunch of free publicity by quoting them in great
detail yesterday.

~~~
JohnTHaller
Except for the fact that Spencer is one of the leaders of the alt right. He
even coined the term "alt right". And Bannon turned Breitbart (which my
conservative friends derisively call Trumpbart) into a "platform for the alt
right" and used it to both get Trump elected and get himself into the White
House.

------
mark_l_watson
Great writeup. I had the same concern, that is, who controls the censorship.

It is far better to have a multitude of sources and let people choose, which
is not what occurs for the corporate news media.

~~~
pg314
Having a multitude of sources and letting people choose as a solution
presupposes that people have the time and the inclination to fact-check and
are capable of evaluating news and sources critically.

If I see how much time it takes to carefully fact-check some of the nonsense
articles that have been doing the rounds recently, it would be a full-time job
just to stay reasonably up-to-date. This is why people have been sourcing out
the job of fact-checking and editing to e.g. newspapers in the past.

I also very much doubt that the majority of people are capable of critically
evaluating news items. Some of the discussions I've had recently, where people
wouldn't change their opinion even when confronted with clear-cut evidence,
haven't helped convince me otherwise.

------
PravlageTiem
I gotta say, watching the political ideology that doubled down on
postmodernism massively backpedal on the "truth is relative" meme is endlessly
entertaining.

------
firekvz
If you want to understand how this works, you can find some example in some
other thread that was started a bit ago but I think it got moderated, here's
the link to it:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016561](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13016561)

It's an article about the "scapegoat" person behind the website dolartoday.com

You can find my explanation about how much damage this website does by
publishing fake news to a large audience... I dont even go in details about
the economically damage (the one with more impact on my country) just a simple
example, link to my post:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13017182](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13017182)

------
banku_brougham
A nothing-burger of an article, im my opinion. There is a problem, can't
really be fixed, also 'liberty.'

I am actually concerned by the implications of our destroyed arbiters of
truth, but I'm not smart enough to envision a path back to sanity. People
accustomed to the relative political stability of the US have no idea how bad
it can get.

------
zw123456
In my view, we need to go farther than just fixing Facebook in this regard,
although that would be a great start. We have “truth in labeling laws” and I
think we should also have “labeling of truth laws”. What I mean by this is
that we restrict the free speech rights of those selling food and drugs and
require that claims of ingredients and claims must be truthful. This is of
course because it goes to the health of the public.

I assert that we need something similar when it comes to "NEWS", anything
labeled news should have certain standards of accuracy such that the public
consuming something labeled news can be confident that what they are consuming
is reasonably factual much in the same way that someone consuming food and
drugs feel reasonably confident they are consuming what is on the label. This
goes to the health of our democracy and hence indirectly to the wellness of
the public.

I know this sounds pretty controversial and has 1st amendment implications but
it is not without precedence. Prior to the 1996 telecom deregulation act,
there were restrictions placed on the public TV networks under something
called the “Fairness Doctrine”. That was done under the 1934 telecom act which
([http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm](http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/piac/novmtg/pubint.htm)),
in return for free use of the airwaves in exchange for "public services" such
as news programming.

With deregulation came the selling of spectrum through auction, which in my
view, I don't think it was a good bargain for the public. But I also think
that falsely calling something news could also fall under the regulations by
the FTC.

I think it is important for the functioning of a democracy that the public
have access to a source of information that they can feel confident is fact
based.

All of this is obviously academic as it seems pretty unlikely the Trump
administration would consider anything like that.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _anything labeled news should have certain standards of accuracy such that
> the public consuming something labeled news can be confident that what they
> are consuming is reasonably factual_

Who determines what is factual? How do you police the global Internet?

Consider the Snowden disclosures. The government held its line on their non-
factuality for surprisingly long, including by lying to Congress [1]. Also,
The Guardian, who led the charge on vetting and publishing Snowden's claims,
is a British newspaper.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-
di...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/31/cia-director-
john-brennan-lied-senate)

~~~
zw123456
Good point. But I know a lot of people who feel very exasperated and
frustrated in not knowing who to trust. I think for democracy to work, we have
to figure out a way to provide people with some level of confidence in some
sort of information source they can trust. If not, I sincerely worry about the
future of democracy.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
We used to have nonsense toolbars "scanning" Google links, _et cetera_ for
viruses. Perhaps a similar, but federated, trust system?

I could choose to have sources flagged as trustworthy or untrustworthy by the
ACLU and the EFF thusly indicated in my browser. (Similar to AdBlocker Plus
lists.)

It would be simply for a campaign to publish its own trust ratings, however.

~~~
zw123456
Something like that would be great, something like a virus checker but a fact
checker button, so it is quick and easy for people to know if what they are
reading is true or not. A lso, it would be great if TV network News shows had
to display their "accuracy" rating at the beginning and end of their shows.

------
dfabulich
In this article, Ben Thompson proposes no clear alternative to the status quo
of Facebook distributing fake news/propaganda, suggesting, vaguely, that
"whatever fixes this problem must spring from the power of the Internet."

Furthermore, he seems to argue for an economic fatalism about both the news
media and Facebook, that they _must_ provide what users want, and that users
want fake news/propaganda to support their own opinion, so the media and
Facebook must provide it.

On the media: "The media couldn’t have done a damn thing about Trump if they
had wanted to. The reason the media covered Trump so extensively is quite
simple: that is what users wanted."

On Facebook: "the company is heavily incentivized to be perceived as neutral
by all sides; anything else would drive away users, a particularly problematic
outcome for a social network."

If this economic fatalism argument is correct, then I see no reason to believe
that some other solution will "spring from the power of the Internet," and
democracy is doomed.

Certainly Thompson himself provides no reason to think a solution will exist,
even one that "springs from the power of the Internet." He is correct that "if
we choose, [we have] access to more information and sources of truth than ever
before, and more ways to reach out and understand and persuade those with whom
we disagree." But if we can't actually tell which news sources are providing
truth, and we all want lies, and so thereby the lies are easier to
find/access/distribute, then the problem cannot be solved.

But if his economic fatalism argument _isn 't_ correct, then it really has
nothing to do with his second argument that FB shouldn't decide the news.

As for Facebook, most their proposed solutions
[https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061)
look like solutions Thompson would like. Thompson argues that Facebook
shouldn't "decide the news," not for economic reasons, but because FB could
make the wrong decisions under a totalitarian government. Facebook strongly
agrees, "We do not want to be arbiters of truth ourselves," so they won't.

FB proposes easy reporting and third-party verification, which sound to me
like they "spring from the power of the Internet," whatever that means. If FB
decides to "raise the quality bar" on the "Related Articles" section by
measuring positive citations, in a way vaguely reminiscent of Google PageRank,
that would spring from the power of the Internet, I guess.

None of that matters if people are always going to click on propaganda and
share it no matter what. So Thompson is either wrong about the economic
fatalism argument, or FB is already planning to give him what he wants, or
both.

------
sigsergv
Beware, a new trend in social media: Confirmation Bias As A Service.

------
mightykan
“Fake news” is an oxymoron. I think you mean “propaganda.”

~~~
linkregister
Propaganda can be truthful. Propaganda is defined by intent and breadth.

~~~
MrZongle2
In the truest sense of the word ("that which is to propagated"), yes.

But for common usage, it's seen as less than honest. For example, consider
"spreading awareness" and "spreading propaganda". Which seems benign and which
sinister?

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Mr Propaganda himself, Edward Bernays, had consumer-facing Propaganda renamed
as Public Relations because people had a sour association with the word from
the Great War, but openly stated that it was the same thing.

------
nsxwolf
Why are we talking about fake news now? Would we be talking about it if
Clinton had won?

~~~
gaius
"Social Media" in general is another scapegoat, but don't you remember when
everyone was changing their profile pics to be that "Hope" meme that Obama
did? Why was social media good then but evil now? No-one seems to be able to
explain it.

~~~
untog
How on earth are those things connected? Changing your profile picture is
nothing like disseminating factually untrue news stories to an audience of
millions.

~~~
gaius
They are connected by being scapegoated, in a display of cognitive dissonance
to avoid a real root cause analysis.

No piece of "fake" news changed anyone's mind, simply reinforced beliefs they
already had. Same reason people subscribe to newspapers that reflect their
existing worldview or value system.

~~~
untog
> No piece of "fake" news changed anyone's mind, simply reinforced beliefs
> they already had

You make it sound like that doesn't matter. It does. Reinforcing an incorrect
belief is a bad thing.

~~~
gaius
Who gets to define correct or incorrect here? _Everyone_ has an agenda.

