
How Much of the Internet Is Fake? - jbegley
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html
======
rossdavidh
Hypothesis: most of advertising has always been fake. The subscription numbers
of newspapers did not equal the number of people seeing your ad, and even if
they did see it they probably didn't pay much attention. The 70's TV-watcher
would use the commercial break to go to the restroom. People listening to a
30's radio serial would talk to each other about it during the ad, I bet.
Anything driven by ads, is inherently going to be mostly fake, since it is not
usually information that the user wants, but you're trying to convince the
user that they want it. Which is easier, forcing the user to pay attention to
the ad, or convincing the person paying for the ad, that it happened when it
did not? The latter will always be easier.

~~~
coffeefirst
Yes and no. TV audiences were measured through surveys. You have margins of
error and some percentage of viewers going to the bathroom, but by and large,
you were paying for placement in a show with 500k viewers. Some of them
wouldn't see it, but you're getting what you paid for.

The rampant fraud we're talking about involves making a fake website (or
taking a real one and hot-swapping its ad code) pointing a farm of devices at
it and tricking the analytics services AND the buyers into thinking they were
put in front of the audience of 500k people, give or take, when 0 of them are
human.

The only way a scam like this works is because the ads are sold by robots,
bought by robots, and measured by robots in lots of small batches, so a person
can't just look at the site on their laptop and confirm that their ads are
running even if they wanted to.

~~~
DrScump

      TV audiences were measured through surveys.
    

... _and_ live metering services like Nielsen, who installed their own
metering hardware in participating households' TVs and VCRs and polled them
daily over a dedicated phone line.

------
Balgair
"My favorite statistic this year was Facebook’s claim that 75 million people
watched at least a minute of Facebook Watch videos every day — though, as
Facebook admitted, the 60 seconds in that one minute didn’t need to be watched
consecutively. Real videos, real people, fake minutes."

With all the recent news [0] coming out around FB and their practices, I've
only one thing to say now: I knew they were evil, but I didn't think they were
stupid too.

[0] 'fake', who knows after this article?

~~~
nkurz
I didn't really understand this criticism. If one were to say that American's
on average watch almost 4 hours of television per day[1], is it at all
misleading that this might not be done in a solid block? All the other
criticisms aside, I'm just fine with saying "1 minute per day" even if this
involves several short videos.

[1] Yes, this actually is the correct figure:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption).
3 hr 58 min per day; 35.5 hr per week; 77 days per year. And if you are
thinking to yourself "Well I don't watch any!", remember that this just means
someone else is watching twice the average to make up the difference.

~~~
swsieber
A minute is a small time. Small enough that it can be comprised fully of
mistaken video starts.

Given that the videos auto-play, I wouldn't be surprised if a significant
portion of the count was from videos autoplaying as people scrolled theough.

~~~
ben_w
Disagree. Five seconds is in that category, one minute is in the “ha ha my cat
fell off my bed isn’t that cute” category.

~~~
eigenvector
The 1 minute can just be 5 seconds 12 times, which is pretty easy to
accomplish with autoplay while scrolling Facebook while never deliberately
watching anything.

~~~
kazinator
Vegging in front a TV for two hours can be accomplished without deliberately
watching anything.

It's a captive pair of eyes that can be subliminally programmed, even if no
deliberately watching.

~~~
eigenvector
But even if you passively watch TV while doing something else - like cooking
for instance - you at least show the intent to do that. Your TV doesn't turn
itself off and play in the background even if you actively _don 't_ want it
like web auto-play videos attached to unrelated content (your social feed) do.

------
jolmg
> A recent academic paper from researchers at the graphics-card company Nvidia
> demonstrates a similar technique used to create images of computer-generated
> “human” faces that look shockingly like photographs of real people. (Next
> time Russians want to puppeteer a group of invented Americans on Facebook,
> they won’t even need to steal photos of real people.)

Here's the HN discussion about that:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18761907](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18761907)

------
livueta
> What’s gone from the internet, after all, isn’t “truth,” but trust: the
> sense that the people and things we encounter are what they represent
> themselves to be.

I wonder if attitudes towards trusting content on the internet are partially a
generational thing. Frankly, the idea that "trust" ever really existed on the
internet (post very early days, anyway) strikes me as slightly absurd. Having
gotten online in the late 90s/early 2000s, my default position, augmented by
countless stranger-danger-type warnings from parents and teachers and slightly
tongue-in-cheek disclaimers on websites[1], was that everything was bullshit
until proven otherwise. I don't want to sound too sanctimonious, but that sort
of skeptical attitude is a good defense against being taken in.

In contrast, I've (totally anecdotally) seen older age cohorts and/or people
who just ended up online later for whatever reasons develop much more relaxed,
trusting attitudes towards internet content. The stereotypical boomer aunt for
whom Facebook is the internet tends to be much less suspicious of content they
see, as, after all, it's being posted by their real life friends! Why would
one's real life friends go on the internet and tell lies? This is as good a
place as any to plug my pet theory that real-name policies are actively
harmful, as they incorrectly imply trust where none should exist. This
dynamic, coupled with attitudes towards media outlets tuned by eras in which
there were only a handful of (generally) credible outlets, seems to be a
recipe for complete credulousness when transplanted into a low-trust medium
like the internet.

So, rather than a redefining of the essential qualities of the internet, what
seems to be in the offing is a general recalibration away from overly-trusting
models of thought among segments of the population who never really developed
the sort of awareness that I'd argue is necessary for not ending up as a total
dupe.

Of course, the article's points on _why_ a lot of fake content exists totally
stand - profit motive is a massive driver of that sort of behavior, and I
genuinely hope that the ad model crumbles under the weight of its own
depravity.

\---

[1] "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and
falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

------
floren
> Political arguments now involve trading accusations of “virtue signaling” —
> the idea that liberals are faking their politics for social reward — against
> charges of being Russian bots.

I particularly enjoyed this sentence coming as it did after the following:

> If a Russian troll using a Brazilian man’s photograph to masquerade as an
> American Trump supporter watches a video on Facebook, is that view “real”?

> Next time Russians want to puppeteer a group of invented Americans on
> Facebook, they won’t even need to steal photos of real people

~~~
claudiawerner
What always gets me about the concept of 'virtue signalling' is that it seems
to imply that the virtuous opinion is not sincerely held, because if 'virtue
signalling' were to include sincerely held opinions, any statement on a moral
issue made to multiple others counts as 'virtue signalling', and suddenly the
concept isn't useful any more. For instance, if I say "murder is wrong", does
this count as virtue signalling? Should it only count if I secretly believe
murder is right?

Alternatively, virtue signalling refers to showing off our sincerely held
beliefs to gain social credit, but I don't see why that would be bad either;
we do many things (like make friends and show our accomplishments) to gain
social credit, so why should voicing our opinions (with the effect of having
like-minded people befriend you) be such an action to deserve the derision it
gets?

It seems that "virtue signalling" is a very flimsy accusation; it is to say
"you're lying, since nobody could possibly hold such a kind position
sincerely". Maybe it's even an effect of an age in which we're so cynical that
we expect anyone who holds a kind opinion to be acting insincerely.

The answer to accusation of virtue signalling should always be this simple:
show evidence that I don't sincerely hold the opinion, _then_ you might be
onto something and we can start talking about social credit and instrumental
rationality. Until then, an accusation of virtue signalling is as substantive
as saying unicorns are real.

~~~
losvedir
I think you're debating the merit of the "virtue" part - whether it's
sincerely held or not - while to me the main idea is the "signal" part.

You see this debate regarding the value of, say, a Harvard education: is it
the knowledge gained, or the "signal" of having been accepted to it?

Similarly, when I hear accusations of "virtue signaling", I understand the
person to mean that the action in question was used to _signal_ something, not
to inherently accomplish something.

As an example, consider beliefs about global warming. Whether or not you
"sincerely" believe in global warming is immaterial to most accusations of
virtue signaling. What you _do_ about it is the question. The question to ask
is, what did that action accomplish? So, posting a link to some article on
facebook is likely to not _really_ accomplish anything, and so the point of
posting it was likely to signal. On the other hand, posting about how every
year your family takes a trip to Europe, but you've realized that uses too
much fuel, and instead your family is going to have a nearby "staycation" in
the woods out back: that actually accomplished something, and I wouldn't
expect to see that called "virtue signaling".

~~~
claudiawerner
I think that comes with a certain ideological slant and is highly issue-
dependent and thus inappropriate for the concept of virtue signalling most
generally. To say that one is virtue signalling when one complains about
global warming may be virtue signalling by some definition, but if it is then
I would also say that not all virtue signalling is bad. Telling your friends
about some issues or even letting them know your position can be important.
The idea that one can't care about global warming or loses the right to make
an issue of it when they don't do much themselves seems to say to me that one
must believe individual solutions work to combat global warming. Now I'm not
arguing for or against such an idea, but I'm sure we can both imagine cases in
which it is useful in itself to raise consciousness, or socially useful to let
others know your position. Maybe 'hypocrisy' is a better word for what's
happening, if you feel that way.

It could also be said, using your point of view, that the 'virtue' part is
important, because the virtue isn't held sincerely if you're just posting a
link about it. You tie the virtue signalling to the authenticity of the
signal, as do I but in a different way. The sibling comment to this one makes
the same point.

This issue also comes into play when one is accused of virtue signalling when
in an Internet argument, which I think is mostly a bad faith accusation
lacking evidence (which I mentioned earlier). Arguing for a particular
position isn't necessarily virtue signalling.

~~~
losvedir
> _but if it is then I would also say that not all virtue signalling is bad._

Well, sure, I wouldn't say "virtue signaling" is "bad". Just that on a scale
of 0-10 of virtuosity, it's like a 2 (but not _negative_ , i.e. unvirtuous). I
usually see it in the context of "this is _just_ virtue signaling", meaning
it's only a 2, while the accused is maybe acting like they're doing something
more of a 5. Like, I see it more as calling out someone for being a little
pompous, not insincere.

I've never accused anyone of virtue signaling or been accused, just seen it
thrown around from time to time, so maybe my understanding of its meaning is
different from yours. I see now in the article that the definition they're
using is more aligned with yours, so maybe I'm the odd one out here. I'll have
to pay attention the next time I see it "in the wild".

------
smolder
I like to think about ways we might disrupt traditional advertising models. I
am not too sure about how to get there, but I think the best place we could
end up is with some trustworthy bodies acting as intermediaries between
companies who have products & services to advertise and the consuming
audience. Some ideas about how this might work:

1) Take some small cut of commerce from would-be advertisers and/or
subscribers. Use a not-for-profit model.

2) Provide curated searchable catalogs with aggregated subscriber feedback,
3rd party and internal reviews. Subscribers drive the discovery, and aren't
indiscriminately sold to when they're not interested in buying.

3) Maintain some secondary and unobtrusive method(s) of random discovery, i.e.
trending products, latest additions, or true-random exposure in some limited
format to help underdogs and potential new markets get traction.

4) Help subscribers discriminate by disclosing which products/services are
themselves advertising-subsidized and what their overall funding model looks
like whenever possible. (Generally, help subscribers know who they're dealing
with.)

It almost sounds like Amazon or a similar web store with important differences
being they don't engage in advertising products themselves and they don't have
a profit motive so much as solvency. If such an organization were to be
democratically controlled by its subscribership that might also prove to be a
good thing.

As for the Why of supplanting advertising as we know it, if that's not
something clear:

1) The coupling of content/speech to advertising interests has bad effects on
the trustworthiness of the content. It's a corrupting force.

2) Advertisements are wasteful of time (and money), and low on useful
information. The targeting is awful and not voluntary or transparent. I like
to think of ads as wasting mental space, though that's not a real quantifiable
thing by any means I know of.

3) They incentivize some of the worst microeconomic behaviors and general
human qualities (which have macro scale effects in aggregate) and do it
through exploitative means, using psychology against people.

------
alexandernst
I read somewhere that 90% of the internet is porn. If that is correct, then at
least 90% of the internet is fake. (because you don't really believe that that
pizza guy actually made that beauty fall in love with him, right?)

~~~
alexandernst
So much down votes... Why people in HN don't have any sense of humor?

~~~
smolder
There are lots of internet forums where jokes are king, not many where
consistently high quality discourse is. Then there's the subjectivity of
humor, and the question of novelty of a joke about the internet being mostly
porn in this internet-centric audience... :)

------
creaghpatr
>Fixing that would require cultural and political reform in Silicon Valley and
around the world, but it’s our only choice. Otherwise we’ll all end up on the
bot internet of fake people, fake clicks, fake sites, and fake computers,
where the only real thing is the ads.

The proposed solution, when it originates outside of Silicon Valley, is always
a Shakedown, and “Only” a Shakedown.

~~~
diegoperini
What is Shakedown?

~~~
pvarangot
It's when something is taken by extortion or by making threats, usually in a
subtle but still aggressive style. Think mob protection rackets or shady loan
repayment stuff.

~~~
creaghpatr
Yeah, in this case it refers to people begging for the government to step in
and make the bad people hurt until the problem goes away.

~~~
anigbrowl
If people perceive a problem is getting worse, what else so you suggest?
People expect government to step in because they wish it to function as the
conduit of the public interest, however inefficient. The market is clearly not
doing a good job of regulating itself, so what other proposals should people
consider?

