What can tech companies do to stem the tide of fake news

what can tech companies do to stem the tide of fake news

Other urls found in this thread:

sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive Summary 11.21.16.pdf
spidr.today/
motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Change search engine rankings and default news apps in phone OSs to only serve the content that the megacorporation controlling the service wants people to see

Use a lot of buzzwords to confuse politicians until there's another, newer ambulance for them to chase.

Why do people differentiate between "fake news" and "alternative facts?"

Fake News = Facts, positions and news that libtards don't like.

> "Fake news is killing people's minds"
> iPhone is the best product you can buy

How is the "fake news" meme so effective? Why aren't people embarrassed to even use the term?
>Other people are out there being deceived by fake news!
>What, me? No, I don't read fake news. But it's a real problem!

Why are they laughing tho?

The idea is fucking stupid.

Cook said "governments need to help" except the US government is lying frequently so who the hell is meant to be the arbiter of info?

to answer your question, nothing really.

Disinformation has always existed, individuals need the brains to disseminate.

Fake news have existed for a lot of time, and they were called "hoax news"... This is just an excuse to give them control over social media like they have in MSM, because now the news are being "factchecked" by Ministry of Truth. Why? There's going to be some major elections in Europe this year is just one reason.

Btw, they've did similar things before US elections. Twitter would promptly remove anti-Hillary trends. Google would hide anti-Hillary search suggests. r/politics on reddit being manipulated by mods and CTR. Etc.

(((Who))) do you think, goy?

They're alternative facts if they support your viewpoint, they're fake news if they don't

Social media has allowed disinformation to spread like it never has before.

Yes we've always had fake news, but it didn't have the reach it does now

>be a good goy and believe the establishment
>despite decades of straight up lying, misinformation, selectively reporting facts, shilling for the highest bidder, etc. etc. etc.
Brought this on yourself, didn't you?

There's a reason a good reputation is valuable; it takes years and years to establish, and can be undone with relative ease.

>Social media has allowed disinformation to spread like it never has before.

cant less the masses do that can we

only vetted sources of information should be acceptable, that way the people will get real news

Easy! They have to figure out a way to shut down CNN, Fox, NBC, CBS and ABC and a few other lame stream "news" organizations because they are all fake news.

The only real news you can get today is on the net, but you have to know what to look for.

Protip: Not (((Alex Jones))) but even he is still much better than CNN which reminds me of a circus act.

Then don't sign up for facebook, a privately owned space where you don't have a right to free speech

>Then don't sign up for facebook, a privately owned space where you don't have a right to free speech

I'm not

What does that have to do with anything though?

B-but they're popular and mainstream, what else are people to watch?

How are we going to influence voters if we don't put a shitton of celebrities there shitting on a candidate? Obviously it's going to work just fine!

It's literally the topic of the thread

Step 1 is to Delete America pretty much

tim cook runs facebook?

wtf I hate apple now

None of this shit is new. "Fake news" is just made-up stories designed to shock or amuse, i.e. Weekly World News, while "alternative facts" are just differing opinions on what the reality of a situation is, i.e. look at any jury trial or fact-finding institution like the Warren Commission.

Why did DJT cause half the world to lose it's fucking mind?

>The only news you need is the ones on the net which confirm my own biases.

Thanks for outing yourself as a massive retard.

The mainstream media has serious issues, but it's disingenuous to put them on the same level as the denver guardian owned by disinfo media

Disinfo media is a real company

>what can tech companies do to stem the tide of fake news
It is the responsibility of the citizenry to discern what is biased/unbias/fake news.

If we have to depend on companies like Facebook to tell us what is fake news, then we are doomed.

they are reading Sup Forums

I agree, I wouldn't put them on the same level. It's worse, because they spread lies to bigger audiences.

My dad isn't going to watch Alex Jones for instance, because the first thing you see when you see him is a crazy man talking about globalism and water filters. But he's going to trust the man in a suit doing the same to him because, well, it's CNN. They couldn't do that, right? They wouldn't be allowed to. Oh wait.

We're absolutely fucking doomed then

sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive Summary 11.21.16.pdf

>sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive Summary 11.21.16.pdf
Hmmm....

>PRODUCED WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE ROBERT R. McCORMICK FOUNDATION
>Colonel Robert R. McCormick, the longtime editor and publisher of the Chicago Tribune
Literally paid for by shills for the establishment media. Holy fucking shit.

Samefagging here. Interestingly, this illustrates nicely an actual problem: fake research. That is, research bought and paid for by interest groups to support their agenda.

Robert McCormick has been dead since 1955 and the foundation doesn't hold any stake in the chicaco tribune, that doesn't mean they don't have biases but it's not quite as crazy as you say

The difference between research and the media is that research is required to say who paid for it

That is depressing.

At least with kids, there is a chance you can try to teach them how to spot bias.

I'm curious how adults (out of university) would fare.

>research is required to say who paid for it
Pretty sure that's not actually required.

Literally nothing.

They can stop spreading it.
/thread

>Not (((Alex Jones))) but even he is still much better than CNN which reminds me of a circus act.
When will Trump be on Infowars to discuss Chemtrails?

>Fake News = Facts, positions and news that libtards don't like.

...

...

>this triggers the Sup Forumstard
I was just pointing out that it's not only used by "libtards".
And Trump literally said that he regards any negative poll as fake news lel.

'Fake news' is a disinfo campaign by the deep state to centralize the gatekeeping of sources on social media in response to them getting rekt during the past election.

They quickly dropped the label after WaPo published 3 major demonstrably fake new stories in Dec/Jan which outed them as obvious hypocrites.

Expect the term to lay low for a bit then re-emerge rebranded once they have ligislation and deals worked out with Facebook, Twitter, etc to be passed at midnight on a Christmas Eve or after a false flag event or whatever.

CNN is a good example of fake news/propaganda. I think most of the mainstream outlets and mainstream networks are riding that line at times. It's hard to tell because the liberal bias is quite strong especially when you factor in the (((Hollywood))) bias. Things are pretty bad right now. I can't even have a hobby that isn't politicized anymore. Netflix? Politicized. NFL? Coffee? Computing? Pictures of tits? It's all politicized now. It's all so tiring (tiredchinaman.jpg).

...

Delete the News App
Create an app that only feeds you raw news wires and let the plebs battle it out.

AP and Reuters are even biased. spidr.today/

...

>there are people out there RIGHT NOW who don't realise this is a PR campaign to give the government and major tech corps more power and control

Where my KGB Today niggas at?

>Why are they laughing tho?

They're thinking about all the dumb goyim who are going to read that shitty article.

Nationalize Apple Now! Inequality Must End!

I'm just sad that AIDS is apparently no longer killing fags.

>bookshops are giving away free copies of Orwell's 1984 in order to help people "fight back" against "fake news".
>"Fake news" is literally the kind of newspeak one of the ministries in 1984 would make up
the irony is so thick

they can start by banning apps from fake news sites like cnn, huffpost, etc.

>you will see the rise of reactionary totalitarianism on a blue and white website with a bird, and a 160 character limit

best timeline 2bh

If you haven't figured out that the media is just a mouthpiece for corporate interests then you are the real retard.

"alternative facts" was a poorly chosen phrase, "fake news" was a targeted attack against a free media

>fake news
More like "Reality Distortion Field"

Fake news originally referred to sensational click bait that would make the rounds on social media.

These clickbaits would be dressed up like news articles from reputable sites. Like there was a "obama is declaring martial law to stop the election" story on a page with "ABC CHANNEL 6 NEWS" logo at the top. There was also a page with a Trump quote purportedly scanned in from People magazine, but again, it was a complete fabrication.

The justification was financial; analytics show the original fake news wave disproportionately targeted Trump.

When the scammers realized that Hillary articles got more shares (the right in general is more receptive to conspiracy theories, perhaps?), they turned their focus to her instead.

At a prayer meeting before the election (yes, I live in trump country...) middle aged ladies were repeating fantastic anti-Obama fake news stories and praying for Trump to save us. These imposters actually may have had a significant effect on the election.

Since then, the right has co-opted the term to merely mean "biased reporting".

Here we go. This is the beginning of global control of internet exchange points by US agencies. HERE WE FUCKING GO. hidden in a bill about fake news.

Huh?

Not true. "Fake News" originated as a defense of politicians as the media, targeting blogs, non-mainstream news sties and similar. When it became obvious that the mainstream media is just as fraudulent as the supposed "fake news" media, they did a 180 and wanted to retire the term. Now the media criticizes the use of the word.

It's because people are stupid and facebook is cancer. Like and share if you agree.

Quite a few of these fake news sites were being shilled on Sup Forums during the election. Some more successful than others. Pic related shows how easy it is once you get a simple retweet that will give you credibility.

There's been a number of reports with interviews of the people behind some of these sites.

motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

I think the biggest issue is that low-information citizens get their news from Facebook. - On social media platforms, it's incredibly easy to affect public behavior (in aggregate) through targeted messages and propaganda.

A steady stream of Russian dezinformatsiya fuels public distrust of otherwise vetted/responsible sources. Simple bias pushes low-trust people toward charismatic figures for guidance in the manufactured confusion. Once these charismatic figures prime their followers against real news and criticism, selective skepticism prevents them from turning back.

Tech companies like google and Facebook will hide it, but they are likely re-engineering their systems to prevent propaganda networks targeted against low-information citizens. The lingering issue here is that political action committees and advertising groups are the highest bidders for personal data from social media platforms.

Stop taking money from leftists/marxists to censor facts.

Because fake news used to refer to clickbait memes, but then leftists started to use it to try to censor opposition and people started calling the legacy media fake news for only reporting fake news.

Alternative facts is an excuse offered because leftists choose to deliberately misinterpret the facts/statements, so rather than spend 15 minutes explaining why they are stupid and/or don't have ethics, shit just gets labeled an alternative fact because its easier.

This won't stop and can't stop because ads don't check for clickbait which has been going on since at least 2009

the article content can just be "penis" as long as you have an edgy thumbnail and title

They aren't just doing this for attention, it's certainly not overnight but you can get rich writing clickbait

...

Worst is when they post something that is just plain wrong with a question in the title and then its own article answers it "no" at the end


>Did Obama run a highly illegal cat reselling business 650 years ago?
>(click)
>We asked some random homeless person. "no"
>Click on our other articles now

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAA
Oh fuck this is priceless!
>media lies about everything for decades
>people start looking elsewhere for actual information
>news panics, calls all new news sources fake news
>internet appropriates fake news buzzword and applies it properly, to the lying media itself
>faggot Tim Cook outs himself as spirit cooking pizza partier
Well it looks like Apple is compromised by shit-eating pedo freaks.

1. Focus on your products and/or services.
2. Stop worrying about who and how people fuck.
3. Stop worrying about skin color.
4. Stop worrying about genital arrangements.

Are you retarted?

the jews ideally

Can you clarify or rephrase your question?

What can tech companies do?
Invest in robots to kill lefty retards. Problem solved.

Fake news is entirely their creation.
Fake "real" news, that is, not satirical news.
Fake news is just anything a lefty retard doesn't want to hear in their little snowflake world of dreams and delusions.

Note that I state lefty RETARDS not all of them.
People are free to have their own political views, but the retards in any group ruin things for everyone.
SJWs on the left, racist groups on the right, extremely boring centrists, every view has their bad sides to them.

I don't even know what's real news anymore, I can't trust anyone.

We used to have real news sources. Now we just have groups of idiots who retweet what someone else tweets, because it's cheaper than actually hiring reporters who verify facts and get stories first hand.

Until people are willing to flit the bill for reputable news sources, you will have this shit.

The only problem is that you can go to all the expense of doing that, but someone will just re-tweet it, and cheap-ass losers will always go with the cheaper option.

tl;dr Actually feel that reputable news services are worth paying for. Most people don't.

here is the low down:
bad buzz words:
racist
privilege
equality
the rich
nazi
drumpf

good buzz words:
cuck
((()))
liberty
opportunity
flat tax
freedom
commie faggot
puppies
MAGA
Tariff based revenue

This has merit. If I had a dime for every hipster/SJW site that expresses outrage over everything that doesn't spread its asscheeks for the liberal dick, I'd be as rich as the Donald.

>Actually feel that reputable news services are worth paying for.

oh, like the nytimes that bought all the bs about wmds in iraq and had to apologize for it after the fact?

>crowdsourcing your fact checkers/editors
I mean... I guess that is a way to stay in the black.

>fake news
>aka "opinions which politicians disagree with"

>(((politicians)))
One type of politician calls opposing views fake news.
The other type calls actually fake news fake news.

Nope. NYT went the way of everyone else. Use services and scale way back on your staff. Recycle what you can sort of verify.

You may think you are disproving my point, but what you're saying is my point exactly.

All of our news services have turned to shit.

BBC is somewhat reliable, but even BBC is not what it used to be.

>BBC is somewhat reliable
..... maybe about natural disasters and when Doctor Who is on, but not about anything remotely political.

right -- hence the "somewhat"

I think they are still state-sponsored, no?

>And Trump literally said that he regards any negative poll as fake news lel.
he won, so all negative polls actually were fake news

>alternative
>real

Are you fucking dumb? Do you not have any idea where the term "alternative facts" even comes from you shill?

whitehouse press secretary.

Ironically the White Houses's alternative facts were more real than the media's fake news.

Hire people to vet news stories for accuracy. It's not that hard.

exactly. Leftists deliberately lied.
The claim was that more people watched (not attended) Trumps inauguration than anyone else.
And the legacy/fake news tried to disprove this by conflating watch with attend and showing a pre-ceremony picture of trumps inauguration many hours beforehand with a picture of obango's inauguration during the ceremony.

you don't know what fake news is, do you? you are just suckling at the donald's teet for your information?

But then how would they be able to publish content?
Those people would be fired for being even mildly competent.

>But then how would they be able to publish content?

By not writing fake stories. Again it isn't that difficult. It's what Facebook used to do before Trumptards made them stop.

>Hire people to vet news stories for accuracy.

this would end most news sites as 90+% of stories is "context"