
Fake news is not the real problem - rwx------
https://techcrunch.com/2018/02/18/fake-news-is-not-the-real-problem/
======
losvedir
I've been thinking about this a lot as news articles like this one[1] come up
in my feed.

This whole anti-tech Russian backlash has me so down trodden. Like _who cares_
if Russia bought ads? _Who cares_ if Russia uses those sites and tweets or
shares a photo or whatever. I learned long ago to tune out ads and not trust
anything I read on the internet, or at least read with a hefty helping of
salt.

I wish the outcome of all these revelations about how Russia (and I'm sure
other countries or random people or corporations with various interests) was
using facebook, twitter, instagram, etc, was for people to go, "oh, that's
good to know. I guess I should believe whatever random posts I come across
less." Not, "Uh oh! These services and ads are only for our certain, pre-
approved uses, and we need to make laws enforcing that."

We could have used these as a nice ol' inoculation in the meme war and
improved ordinary people's understanding of just how the internet works (and
doesn't work).

[1]
[https://twitter.com/raju/status/965023245459214336?utm_sourc...](https://twitter.com/raju/status/965023245459214336?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&stream=top-
stories)

~~~
aaron-lebo
I'm doing a dissertation on Russian propaganda, among other propagandas, so
disclaimer for bias.

I don't understand not caring about it, even were I not working on it. I was
having discussions with friends in 2015/early 2016 where we were looking at
stuff and it was obvious what was going on. The day after the election,
Zuckerberg was saying it is "crazy" that Russians could have been involved.

We've got something systematically wrong if the biggest tech companies in the
world with all the data and resources either were oblivious to it (seems
likely based on their reactions) or were aware of it but kept doing it because
it made them money. By all accounts their ad tools actually made this
especially easy.

No country, much less one that considers itself a superpower should be
willingly letting a foreign nation spread propaganda. That big moat called the
Atlantic and all those resources don't matter if you you're gonna let them in
the back door. This kind of naivety/ignorance is too common in the power
centers of the US. Consider Obama getting outwitted by Putin and Clinton
getting beat by an idiot like Trump. Maybe they aren't so clever after all.

That Russia is doing that is annoying, what's offensive is that our leaders
allowed it to happen, and what's disturbing is people either acting like it
hasn't happened (evidence says otherwise) or just want to shrug it off. It's
hard to say how much of the recent domestic unrest is being fueled by it.

~~~
scottlocklin
Well, let me explain to you not caring about it: Israel and Saudi Arabia
regularly run information warfare campaigns in the US, and actually influence
election outcomes in obvious ways.

For that matter the US has boasted of fixing the Russian elections in 1996,
overtly committed a coup in Ukraine in 2014, and has attempted to do similar
things since the fall of the soviet union for example by supporting evil
murderous clowns like Khodorkovsky. So, if Russia took out a few ads or posted
from twitter accounts; big deal. And that's assuming Russia (rather than
Russian people acting on their own) did something -thus far 100% of the
"evidence" for this sort of thing has turned out to be a big nothing burger.

The media obsession with finding a Russian under every bed is absolute
insanity; McCarthyism pales in comparison to this hysterical nonsense
-communism was a real threat back then. It's also obviously organized:
basically the same idiots telling us Putin is behind everything they don't
like are the same idiots who sold us on the Syrian war, Iraq and so on. I
mean, we have Rob Reiner, aka meathead telling us anyone who doubts the former
heads of the CIA is a traitor. This is NUTS.

~~~
aaron-lebo
I don't want to be too rude, but you are being willfully ignorant if you
believe it's not happening.

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/16/us/politics/r...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/02/16/us/politics/russia-
propaganda-election-2016.html)

[https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/now-available-
more...](https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/now-available-
more-200-000-deleted-russian-troll-tweets-n844731?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma)

You're free to debunk these and a hundred other sources, but there's something
there. Do you really belive an ex KGB officer doesn't use some KGB tactics?
That a nation with major economic disadvantages isn't going to rely on
alternative methods of attack?

Not looking to get into a whataboutist argument. The US has done shady stuff,
plenty of it. Propaganda is in no way limited to the Russians.

~~~
scottlocklin
Go look up the term "Gish Gallop" -that's the substance of the "Russia is
responsible for everything I don't like" conspiracy theory you're writing your
dissertation on.

I agree there is something there: just like there was "something there" when
these same clowns were selling us the Iraq war. The "something" isn't actual
evidence which exists in the corporeal world: it's manufactured nonsense.

I mean, the very absurdity of the accusations on display here: OMG RUSSIANS
DID THINGS ON TWITTER AND SOCIAL MEDIA. FWIIW same story with the "all of our
intelligence agencies agree" dossier; basically, Russia Today exists. Russia
Today, now listed under FARA laws. Somehow the WSJ and WaPo Saudi/Israeli amen
chorus manages to escape FARA -wonder how they managed to do this?

~~~
aaron-lebo
_" Gish gallop" is a term for a technique used during debating that focuses on
overwhelming one's opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard
for accuracy or strength of the arguments._

That's not Gish Gallop. That's two sources that you didn't bother responding
to. My conspiracy involves data, yours is blanket denial. Don't understand
your motivations.

Can we not be realists about how countries behave? I see nothing incompatible
with Russia's actions in the recent past (annexing Crimea with unmarked
soldiers) and the use of propaganda. But again, the difference is, I'm willing
to test this. Do you just assume it's false without testing?

Noticed in your other post that you called Khodorkovsky a "murderous clown".
To my knowledge, his sin was being an oligarch who got on the wrong side of
putin, went to jail for it, and now is a critic of him. Who did he murder? Why
do you call him that? Do you believe putin (whom there is evidence that has
killed political opponents) is guilty of this, too? Just trying to understand
your motivations.

~~~
scottlocklin
Khodorkovsky is a murderer, and anyone who denies this either doesn't know
what he's talking about, or works for the same people that tout him in the
media.

All the "everything I don't like about the world is Russia's fault" gorp is
gish gallop. The two things you linked are literally a clownish witch hunter
indicting Russian nationals for ... trolling people on twitter. I do not take
this seriously. The fact that anyone is physiologically capable of meeting
this with other than hysterical laughter at the bald faced absurdity of it
will probably remain beyond my ken.

------
Eupolemos
> The real problem isn’t fake news; it’s that people have given up on that
> search for truth.

This is where it almost gets profound. The philosopher Harry Frankfurt pointed
out, in his "On Bullshit", that the greatest danger isn't lack of truth or
even direct falsehoods - it is when we give up searching for truth, or don't
care about speaking truthfully. I.e. Bullshit.

However, whatever the people can do to demand rigour and educate themselves on
the matters, pales next to a media trying to hold itself to standards. When
the media gives up, we are in dire straits indeed, if not utterly lost.

Where I am from in Europe, we have pretty good media standards. But at least
one of our biggest newspapers is actively working to muddle the waters for a
party.

Without being any kind of expert, other nations do not seem so well off.

~~~
Theodores
There is the Western media mindset which is as brain-washed in its own special
way as the craziest of religious cults. Most of the official government
history is a lie, it has been one big fight for oil and other resources, not
this 'war against terror' or whatever the clown in chief says.

To escape the Western media mindset usually involves being brain washed with
something else. Or living in a country where the truth does not match the
reality on the ground. For instance, Syria, people that live there know that
what all is told on the news on the television in the West is utter rubbish
written and presented by people who have made up minds and don't care.

The Western media mindset is cunning in that the better educated people that
read broadsheet newspapers have indoctrinated themselves further into it, even
if they think of themselves as being the educated, questioning one.

Most people do not have the capability to appreciate the criminality that has
gone on in Washington, London and elsewhere over the years. So this
criminality goes on and the Western democracies exist in their special lawless
way, preparing for war and actively beating up the world for profit.

The funniest bullshit is the 'al-qaeda' nonsense. Not one person has ever met
an al-qaeda person even if dead people in brown parts of the world are
obviously al-qaeda. In previous wars you at least knew the enemy existed, now
it is just fake news that you have to believe, on the Koolaid.

~~~
dpwm
> Most people do not have the capability to appreciate the criminality that
> has gone on in Washington, London and elsewhere over the years. So this
> criminality goes on and the Western democracies exist in their special
> lawless way, preparing for war and actively beating up the world for profit.

The problem is that the idea of law is one of the Western definition. Unless
I'm not aware of something, it is almost certainly (domestically) lawful for
Washington to act in a way that allows for expansionist and imperialist
policies. Whether it is a good idea in the long term (winning hearts and
minds) is another debate to be had.

> The funniest bullshit is the 'al-qaeda' nonsense. Not one person has ever
> met an al-qaeda person even if dead people in brown parts of the world are
> obviously al-qaeda. In previous wars you at least knew the enemy existed,
> now it is just fake news that you have to believe, on the Koolaid.

I'm really not sure if I have understood you correctly. I'm inclined to
believe Al-qaeda was a thing. Whether it was an existential threat the the US
is certainly questionable and whether the military response was therefore
justified is certainly questionable, especially given that they have so far
included four of the six countries listed in Rebuilding America's Defences
[0]. I am inclined to agree there was a degree of dehumanisation of the
civilian casualties of the ensuing wars that had at least the undertones of
racism.

[0] Rebuilding America's Defences was a 2000 publication by "The Project for
the New American Century." It contains a a list of countries the think tank
argued the USA should invade, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya and North
Korea. Afghanistan was mentioned as a training ground for terrorism.
[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmeri...](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf)

~~~
Theodores
Your only knowledge of the existence of 'al-qaeda' is from what the people
that brief the news men have chosen to tell you. For instance, there was a
stand off between India and Pakistan during the glory days of The War Against
Terror where it was alleged that there was 'al-qaeda' in between the two
countries causing the trouble and that Uncle Sam could fix it. Obviously there
were also the fake terror warnings where it could be red or orange depending
on what random rubbish had been told to the media that day. Then there are
independence movements in Africa where it is too complicated so 'al-qaeda'
gets 'affiliated' so the story is explained that way. Then there is the actual
creation myth of 'al-qaeda', wasn't it made up on the testimony of one
unreliable witness in a New York court room? Wasn't there motive for inventing
'al-qaeda' in trying to prosecute Osama bin Laden under RICO laws, for which
some organisation needed to be invented? Or did I imagine that?

I think you need to be checking primary sources for this 'al-qaeda' and doing
some checking of facts, 'inclined to believe' is fine if it is a religion, but
history is not a religion.

~~~
dpwm
I had no idea this was contentious, but it really does seem it is. Robin Cook,
a former UK Minister who I had immense respect for due to his stepping down
over the invasion of Iraq, had this to say shortly before his death:

> Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by Western
> security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by
> the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-
> Qaeda, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the
> thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the
> CIA to defeat the Russians. [0]

As you imply you know of some, could you give some pointers for primary
sources surrounding this?

[0]
[https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development)

------
didibus
For fun, let me suggest an absurd theory.

Engineers used to be evenly distributed across non engineers, where they were
able to influence family and friends with their methodical thinking. They used
to be respected, seen as peers, part of the middle class like all others.

Now, they've all relocated to the west. They command upper middle class
salaries, most are the new rich.

Eroded of their engineers, most of the country rallies behind their familiar
team.

Isolated and newly rich, the engineers are no longer being fed data about the
average non engineer. Therefore they are applying the engineer rational to a
biased subset of the data, limiting their effectiveness.

And so here we are. Non engineers know the true reality of their problems, but
don't have the tools to solve them. So they rally behind charlatans. While
engineers have the skill set to solve problems, but no longer know the
realities of the problems to solve.

A dystopian future is sure to follow.

~~~
jdoliner
This comment is peak HN arrogance. People rally behind charlatans because they
don't have enough proximity to us engineers to think sanely about things?
Maybe we could make them an app where they can get one of us engineers on the
line so they're finally able to use their brains again and realize that they
need to vote democrat.

~~~
adventured
Well, the parent was upfront about it after all:

"For fun, let me suggest an absurd theory."

How does that interact with the peak arrogance premise? You'd have to say they
were knowingly lying and using that intro to deflect it being challenged on a
serious intellectual basis. That's a step too far imo, and goes against
leaning toward good faith as far as other members go.

------
ABCLAW
>it’s that people have given up on that search for truth.

No, it's that lowering the cost of information access also lowered the cost of
DDOSing people with bullshit.

It isn't that people don't care; it's that it is very inexpensive and very
effective and very profitable to muddy the waters at scale.

------
jhiska
Another way to see it is the Internet was supposed to make sharing what one
understood as truth easier; instead, what it did was democratize Chomsky's
propaganda model by making entry into becoming the media much cheaper; the
Internet-based media newcomers essentially copied as best as they could the
traditional media's model of _imposing_ their view of reality and
manufacturing consent.

In this view, what we're seeing is a power struggle for influence between the
media who traditionally held the power to manufacture consent and the
Internet-based newcomers.

------
ukulele
> The real problem is that the engineer’s mindset, wherein one weighs the
> available evidence, and accept and incorporate new evidence even if it
> contradicts what you previously believed, has never been more rare.

This is the author's premise. It would have been nice to get some discussion
around why that is the case (or even that it is true), but alas the article
simply states it.

Ironic to provide no details given the subject matter.

~~~
placebo
You're right that it would be nice if the article would provide more evidence
to back that claim up (especially given the article's content), however I
don't think it's such an outlandish claim if you look at the facts. To greatly
oversimplify (with the inherent dangers of oversimplifying), suppose 50% of
the population believes news item "A" is true while the other 50% of the
population believes "not A" to be true. There could be different reasons for
such a scenario, but if "A" is something that can actually be verified with
relative ease, then having such a high percentage of people disputing "A"
could very well imply that way too many people are more interested in holding
on to an opinion that suits their agenda (be it psychological, political or
other) than to seek out what is true.

------
skookumchuck
There was heavy manipulation of the media in favor of Clinton during the last
election. Reddit, for example, was very active in promoting pro-Clinton news
and downvoting pro-Trump news. It was so obviously an orchestrated campaign it
was actually funny. CNN was relentlessly pro-Clinton. Clinton bought the
machinery of the DNC to ensure her primary victory.

Now, I'm not suggesting any of that is or should be illegal. But any
discussion of Clinton losing because of propaganda should consider the
converse.

~~~
RickJWag
You're right. CNN ran comically doctored glamour shots of Hillary Clinton,
every picture of Donald Trump showed him in a bad light.

It's alarming that so many outlets (on the left AND the right) are trying so
hard to control the minds of the masses. I hope we find better ways to de-
politicize 'news' sources.

~~~
skookumchuck
"better ways to de-politicize 'news' sources"

There isn't a better way than free speech, which is why political speech is
the most protected free speech. I've never even heard this mentioned in any of
the news about the Russian propaganda, and it should be a central discussion
point.

------
danielam
The main thrust, that we ought to value the truth, is hard to disagree with.
Certainly, it would be good if instead of adopting a Machiavellian ethos in
which the goal is to "win" at all costs and where the spoken and written word
isn't about communicating truths but rather functions as an instrument of
manipulation and power, we were at least committed to the truth even as we
honestly disagree.

But what's this about an "engineering mindset"? It's an incredibly bizarre
thing to appeal to in this context. Engineers are not somehow the
quintessential pursuers of truth -- indeed, their pragmatic approach is less
about the truth of the matter and more about effectiveness. Engineers are not,
by virtue of being engineers, somehow particularly competent or qualified at
understanding political issues. Politics is not a technology. Indeed, viewing
politics in technocratic terms is positively dystopian. Perhaps the author of
the article, writing for tech media, has fallen prey to the specialist's
syndrome. To a hammer, everything is a nail.

Furthermore, there is more to politics than just the evidence of the matter at
hand. There are things which affect politics that are not political as such.
The importance of truth, the proper relations between state, society and
individual, and so on.

------
Hasknewbie
> "The real problem isn’t fake news; it’s that people have given up on that
> search for truth"

I disagree. Most people have neither the time, inclination, or often the tools
to "seek the truth" by themselves, and therefore they rely on the media to
(in)form their views.

Moreover there is such a thing as influencers and trend-setters. The media do
not simply report on what people are expressing, they can also (and often very
much do) set an agenda. Knowing this, it's journalists' duty to report the
news accurately and not mix reporting with opinions, not manufacture or
distort facts, and avoid feeding into the Outrage Economy and its endless echo
chamber.

By chance, I stumbled on a "meta-journalism" website just today, that analyses
how mainstream print media (both left- and right-leaning) cover the news, it's
pretty interesting. It's also often pretty damning. I hope they become better
known:

[https://www.theknifemedia.com/](https://www.theknifemedia.com/)

------
wwweston
Lest we as an audience be overly flattered by the "engineer's mindset," it's
probably best to remind ourselves that in the field of software there are
plenty of discussions and divisions that are frequently litigated in a tribal,
adversarial manner. And that's just _inside_ the field. Software engineers
don't exactly end up uniformly distributed politically either.

So either we don't apply the engineer's mindset all the time, or the
engineer's mindset has limits itself when it comes to bringing consensus. I
suspect it's both, but maybe particularly the latter: every problem human
engineers care about includes human _values_ at some level, and human values
aren't equally weighted (or even shared at all) across humans.

The mindset required to work on that last problem might not be engineer's
mindset _or_ lawyer's mindset.

~~~
Apocryphon
The first step to the road to humility is to realize that we are not the face
of all engineering.

------
wh-uws
While I agree with the articles sentiment I think missing enough with the
engineers mindset is only part of the problem.

I recently wrote thoughts on the rest of the problem (having honest
disusssions about problems to gather the insight and data to engineer with in
the first place).

It was in response to a friend's social media post which read something to the
effect of "Whats your most controversial opinion? No judgement"

"[... It] is nearly impossible to have completely honest versions of these
conversations attached to your identity today because of a mixture of

\- extreme militantly politically correct culture

\- the existence of social media itself (allowing for identification and easy
witch hunts from the comfort of your home)

\- and in aggregate many people operating from completely different and often
incompatible belief systems and sets of facts

For instance try to have any conversation in public with even slightest bit of
negativity about any group of humans that are not rich, male, and white.

People in most of western civilization today would be hard pressed to voice
any opinions because they would instantaneously be labeled a "fascist",
"misogynist" , "racist", or a litany of other "-ists" with a dizzying amount
of speed and force.

No matter how well you argue any point you are now inextricably linked with
some "-ism".

Someone screenshots this opinion and posts to a group like Occupy Democrats
with a person's full name...

And bam life quite possibly on the way to ruin.

It will affect your social and professional lives for quite some time.

I feel like until we can come to some form of consensus around the state of
the world and how to use observations about it to discuss it we will continue
to have situations where people cannot understand each others side and
constantly talk past each other to all our detriment."

------
natecavanaugh
Our post modern culture has now taken to saying things like "my truth" and
"your truth", as if it can be possessed and is unique to individuals. But
there does seem to be a general lack of understanding or belief that truth is
outside of our personal perception.

It doesn't surprise me that we can't seem to agree on what's true when we
identify truth as somehow representing me or you, and therefore we have a
personal stake in defending "our truth" rather than seeking "the truth" as
best we can understand it.

------
anigbrowl
_It’s the Internet’s fault, we’re told._

No. Pointing out the existence of the internet as a vector for propaganda
doesn't mean people are blaming the existence of the communication medium.

------
fareesh
The discussion between Eric Weinstein, Ben Shapiro and Sara Fischer on the
future of news is a great watch for anyone interested in this subject.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw)

------
pfarnsworth
Of course a writer for Techcrunch believes that fake news is not the problem.
That's like the NRA saying that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The problem is that we are so deluged with inaccurate articles written by
bloggers who have no real concept of journalistic integrity. We can't tell
what is real and what is fake. So what happens is that people will start
rejecting all news.

There's no accountability for writing shitty and inaccurate articles, and
that's the problem. They believe that news can be buggy like software and can
be corrected later, but it's not. It should be held to a higher standard
because we rely on it.

All that will happen now is that people will stop believe everything they read
and even worse, they're going to stop caring. That is extremely dangerous for
us as a society because it means people can start doing things in broad
daylight and no one will believe it or care. This appears to be what this
current administration is doing and Republicans don't appear to fear the
consequences, because they're right. There's a very loud minority but the vast
majority are really starting to not care.

