I'm sorry, I am an ex-journalist now for several years, and this is laughable. The NYT, WSJ, Fox News, and each of the major news outlets have regularly and clearly been caught writing submarine stores, special interest news slants, and general just being played by PR like a fiddle -- all while claiming some sort of "only true access to news." Viral misinformation has been a part of published news since Edward Burnays used to incite invasions for hire using manufactured sources and rumors
They don't validate sources, rarely investigate, heck they barely even copy edit these days. They re-report entirely false stories published in questionable sources, using their name to validate it. Obviously everyone knows how deeply inaccurate any story becomes once technology is involved, now imagine that level of inaccuracy spread across all the topics they cover.
Its painfully self-interested for them to be claiming to be such a clear source of truth.
Having worked among journalists(not a journalist myself), a lot of them are completely unaware of their biases. They're quick to point out biases in others, but then they can't see how radicalized they are when it comes to how they believe it's up to them to determine how other people should be thinking. Social media being the prime example, they believe it's their duty to sway the public when the public's own thoughts don't align with popular politics, when in reality their primary job should be to report the news and now view themselves to be saviors of the common person. I knew journalists who both overtly and covertly believed that they were just in writing information in a slanted way in order to bolster their credibility as a source of truth, and they'd even acknowledge how it contradicts the idea of checking their biases because they thought the ends justified the means.
Time and time again, I've caught insanely biased or flat out wrong headlines that these news outlets sheepishly "correct" later down the road after the story has trended and most people remember what the original headline said. It's abominable, but they have no shame at all. HuffPo is possibly the worst, but I've seen this happen just about everywhere.
No, they're definitely not all like that, but it always seemed to me that enough of them are that it's a problem.
I remember at one point in conversation it was mentioned that some people in the newsroom, who remained nameless, were more conservative than liberal. The prevailing reaction in the room was astonishment, which is troubling since there's no reason why both conservatives and liberals wouldn't be interested in the production of accurate, slant-free news.
> have regularly and clearly been caught writing submarine stores, special interest news slants, and general just being played by PR like a fiddle
Including the one we're commenting on. There's a narrative being driven here, and it's sad so many even in our industry can't recognize it. We can argue levels of harms by these open content platforms (I often reside on the most-people-aren't-stupid, sticks-and-stones, please-no-gov-interference side), but there's no arguing what harms interests want you to think are occurring.
Sorry, proverbial "here" meaning the consistent mass-media anti-web-tech narrative of late, much of which is sans substance. Unrelated to HN in particular.
> The public knows about each of these incitements because of reporting by news organizations. Social media misinformation is becoming a newsroom beat in and of itself, as journalists find themselves acting as unpaid content moderators for these platforms
Externalise the negatives, privatise the profits.
Alternatively, newspapers are in the business of telling ""truth"", and are getting increasingly out-produced by myth. Myth is cheaper to produce and often sounds more true to the uninformed listener. But it's dangerous to build a society that makes its decisions entirely on myth. Ultimately it will end up with a lethal myth like the blood libel, or anti-vaxxerism, and people start getting killed in large numbers.
(Someone will now point out that newspapers themselves have an unreliable track record of truth, and they're not wrong - this is also a serious problem.)
The problem is not different. Large newspapers in the US are consciously propagating narrow, misleading, and sometimes outright untrue narratives. The only different between this and "social media misinformation" is that it is backed by big money and power, and they have think tanks to shore up the narratives against scrutiny. It's information warfare. And it's asymmetric. The small time social media narrative peddlers are either freedom fighters or terrorists depending on who's side they are on.
It's funny how comments criticizing major newspapers are downvoted. How about addressing any perceived issues with my comment through a response rather than trying bury it.
edit: And this comment gets two downvotes 5 minutes within posting it, despite the story already being off of the front page. There are obviously gatekeepers actively monitoring comments and trying control the narrative here on HN as well.
To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, "Fake News is the Last Refuge of the Scoundrel".
The "fake news" meme itself is the last desperate attempt to preserve the fake news monopoly which giant publishers enjoyed for so long. There is really nothing left when this one wears out.
Before "fake news" we had massive injections of noise to drown out information, but that didn't work quite well, not in the long run.
The current trend of turning giant social platforms to Disney-like dystopias is not working well either. People are flocking back to ... web sites!
So what can we expect after "fake news" ? Probably Disneyfication of DNS, and that's where it ends.
Because audiences will shift to the lowest commeon denominator - IP addressing, as they did in the beginning (Napster, Gnutella) and still do (Bittorent, Tor).
Isn't this the nytimes and friends complaining that they don't get to monopolize poison like they used to?
A company that hires someone like sarah jeong has no business complaining about poison.
The sooner the nytimes goes out of business, the better the country will be. The nytimes has poisoned so many minds and caused the nation to be so terribly divided that it will take years to recover from the mess they created. God knows how long it will take us to recover from the endless wars they propagandized for.
I wish zuckerburg, dorsey, brin/page would grow a pair and fight back against the media posse attacking them. Or deplatform the nytimes to lower the poison on their platforms.
> caused the nation to be so terribly divided that it will take years to recover from the mess they created
The nation is divided, but NYT isn’t to blame. There are two sets of people, with very strongly held yet divergent ideas of what this country stands for, and what direction it should go in. The New York Times has nothing to do with that.
Childing them for spreadig disinfo is missing the point.
When you incentivise 'engagement' above all else, this is the inevitable result. The core business model is broken (in relation to being a social good), not their stance on poor information.
Virtually all business models could make more money by throwing in some immorality. I don't think that means that nearly all business models are broken, just that morality and social good have to be higher priorities.
Facebook and Twitter are not public services. They are there to make money off of people clicking images and text that other people pay them to show. It does not require truth but is easier to get people to click through if you play on their fears.
If it is a poison, which I think it is, stop using it. It’s akin to an abusive relationship. At some point you (journalists) have to just help get the abused out of it. You’ve tried to get the abuser to stop but it hasn’t worked. The abuse has not only continued but it seems to have increased dramatically. Stop empowering the abuse and GTFO. Boycott if you have to. The Internet is not Facebook nor Twitter.
We, don't, it is the guys who have money to pay for writing such articles.
The problem is automated newsfeed, which makes users read "recommended" content and ads instead of allowing them to choose which sources they trust.
The real solution is to switch to Mastodon and similar federated networks, where everyone can select who to follow and receive nothing else. It is easy to subscribe to actual people with similar interests who "boost" (repost) the kind of content you like. They filter out misinformation way better than any of those Facebooks and Twitters can ever do.
> The real solution is to switch to Mastodon and similar federated networks, where everyone can select who to follow and receive nothing else. It is easy to subscribe to actual people with similar interests who "boost" (repost) the kind of content you like. They filter out misinformation way better than any of those Facebooks and Twitters can ever do.
You think that only listening to people with similar interests, will filter out misinformation? What?
I think that actual people interested in some topic and having some expertise in it filter out misinformation better than Facebook and Twitter will ever do. Persons repost news from less trusted sources such as news sites with their opinion about it.
On the other hand, social media platforms inject content that is popular, according to the number of "likes" and "reposts" into your newsfeed. It means the content has gone viral and it has already spread to several clusters around you, most of them centered around some other topic and, therefore, unable to properly evaluate it.
To answer your question, I don't think it will completely filter misinformation, but I think this strategy is better than anything Facebook and Twitter can come up with.
"Arbiters of truth" goes too far. They ought not be, whether through public consideration or by market force, the sole determiners of fact or fiction. The article stresses that journalism has a place in that process, after all. But it's clear that Facebook and Twitter could be doing more than they are. They essentially outsource abuse of their platforms to external parties, and don't seem to be doing any strategizing on how to predict and prevent such abuses.
There is a place in this discussion for granular analysis of what is abuse and what isn't -- edge cases, grey areas -- but we're not there yet. We're still working on preventing nation states from wholesale hijacking of platforms to spread propaganda. Let's get closer to solving that point before we we discuss adding friction to the slippery slope.
> Do we want the current status quo, where misinformation runs rampant, filling eyeballs of people who don't know better with utterly fake news?
Do we want freedom of speech, and an even playing field for freedom of expression between common people and media conglomerates? Because that's what those look like, for better or worse.
Common people and media conglomerates are going to have an increasingly hard time getting heard over corporate astroturfing and foreign intelligence services.
"Fake news" is simply an excuse for introducing government control of media, which leads to political censorship. Otherwise government would not care about it more than average citizen do.
Sure, but back in reality it's literal fake stories spread to a susceptible portion of the population by national or foreign interests to confirm their biases and influence their decisions.
You can find numerous examples of this under the lists of Reddit accounts banned for this exact thing.
> If your arguments lose to fake news, then you should get better arguements.
It’s not arguments vs fake news, it’s real news vs fake news. And that’s the difference between real news and fake news—if you don’t like your fake news, you can get new fake news, again and again and again, until you end up with a lie so beautiful it makes your heart sing. But you can’t get new real news, this is the only reality there is, no matter how ugly it is. But it’s still harsh reality, instead of a beautiful lie.
In lieu of them removing obviously false remarks and hate speech, are you comfortable with them being removed from the marketplace via government intervention?
While the current administration won't step in, I fully expect future administrations will - you cannot run a tool that enables foreign meddling in elections and not expect regulatory antibodies.
Please don't ask such questions. Parent comment already has positive score, but your comment remains. There is actually a rule saying you should't do this on https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please don't comment about the voting on comments".
They don't validate sources, rarely investigate, heck they barely even copy edit these days. They re-report entirely false stories published in questionable sources, using their name to validate it. Obviously everyone knows how deeply inaccurate any story becomes once technology is involved, now imagine that level of inaccuracy spread across all the topics they cover.
Its painfully self-interested for them to be claiming to be such a clear source of truth.