Jonathan Albright, a Digital Sleuth Exposing Fake News(wired.com)
wired.com
Jonathan Albright, a Digital Sleuth Exposing Fake News
https://www.wired.com/story/shadow-politics-meet-the-digital-sleuth-exposing-fake-news/
44 comments
I was once in a restaurant waiting for take out reading a newspaper and a guy came up to me to tell me all newspapers were fake and you couldn't trust them (before going on a rant about the Rothschilds). I asked him where he got his information about the world and he told me "videos on the internet."
I don't even know how you begin to have a real conversation with that as a starting point.
I don't even know how you begin to have a real conversation with that as a starting point.
The thing to recognize is that they are not using the same truth-finding-function that you are. That may in fact mean that you can't meaningfully compare truths. You are being empirical; they are either relying on "it makes sense" (rationalism, probably) or they are relying on their trust in the person making the statement. I'm not sure what the solution to this problem is, but it's probably not empirical evidence, since that isn't what they consider to be valid. Mostly I think the solution is to teach children science and history, and that if they get to be adults without having those frameworks of understanding, there's no real hope of acquiring them. I'd like to believe that's just cynicism though.
That's the problem isn't it -- fake news is generated for the people who want to believe it. Censoring it won't make them suddenly become rational.
Ever since last winter I am a bit cautious when articles like this pop up. I was on a conference where one of the handful tracks was fact checking, and a keynote speaker used images like the one in the article to illustrate how news media has failed during the 2016 election. One image that specially caught my attention was a word cloud made from polls about what voters knew about each candidate, and the speaker made a big point that all the major scandals was missing from Trumps side but the Clinton side was full of it.
This rang all kind of warning bells, so I went and looked up the source and suddenly it made all good sense. The polls was done between the start of the preliminaries (which happen to be around the time wikileaks started publishing their stuff) and ended a couple months before the election day, and all those "missing" scandals about Trump that made international news are all more or less during those last couple of months. In that context the word cloud perfectly matched more or less everything what international news had been writing about the two candidates during the preliminaries and shortly afterward before the election campaign had really started. The researchers even noted this in their original paper, pointing out that if the polls had been done closer to election date then the data would look very different.
I could have used many of the same material to hold my own keynote about how news has successfully informed the public correctly. I notified the conference organizers, but I doubt it had any effect since the message followed the political tides right now. People want to believe that fake news caused the election results, and that is to me a very worrying. First we need to establish if it did, and it seems that everyone is skipping that step.
This rang all kind of warning bells, so I went and looked up the source and suddenly it made all good sense. The polls was done between the start of the preliminaries (which happen to be around the time wikileaks started publishing their stuff) and ended a couple months before the election day, and all those "missing" scandals about Trump that made international news are all more or less during those last couple of months. In that context the word cloud perfectly matched more or less everything what international news had been writing about the two candidates during the preliminaries and shortly afterward before the election campaign had really started. The researchers even noted this in their original paper, pointing out that if the polls had been done closer to election date then the data would look very different.
I could have used many of the same material to hold my own keynote about how news has successfully informed the public correctly. I notified the conference organizers, but I doubt it had any effect since the message followed the political tides right now. People want to believe that fake news caused the election results, and that is to me a very worrying. First we need to establish if it did, and it seems that everyone is skipping that step.
Informing the public correctly, or accurately parroting one candidate's desired message about the other candidate(s)? It seems clear to me that the media are afraid of losing access and retaliation at the business level for granting unfavorable coverage. It's all become a circus.
This only surprising if you think the media's positive feedback mechanism is accurate and reliable news. They're only requirement is to make money - information is secondary.
This is a thought-terminating cliché by now. "The media" is not one thing that has a single requirement for existence. Generalizations break down upon examination, but this is just useless cynicism.
I'm not sure why you're so critical of what I posted. It's not meant to be thought-terminating or useless. I think it's important to recognize the system is not oriented to dry, fact-dense information. TV doesn't generate research papers or doctoral theses. It requires entertained viewers; it's only as "news" as it is because that's what the demographic wants, but no more.
It's the same reason why Hollywood doesn't produce less formulaic or smarter movies. It's a business, and their first priority is making money.
I posted this before but after reading about all this "fake news" phenomena, I came across this TEDx talk by Sharyl Attkisson: "How Real Is Fake News?" [1]. She's a former reporter for CBS News and in the video, she explains where the term comes from, who's behind it and what the long-term consequences are. If you have 10 min of free time, give it a watch.
She also gave another amazing talk on corporate astroturfing and media manipulation [2]: "Astroturf and manipulation of media messages"
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
She also gave another amazing talk on corporate astroturfing and media manipulation [2]: "Astroturf and manipulation of media messages"
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU
>where the term comes from
Apparently it wasn't really used before November 9th, 2016 and then suddenly it became a talking point on certain US news networks:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
Apparently it wasn't really used before November 9th, 2016 and then suddenly it became a talking point on certain US news networks:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=%...
The term was popularized from reporting by Craig Silverman which he had been going on for years as described here https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/i-helped... .
It started to become widely used after this article https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fa... , showed the top 5 "fake" stories had more Facebook engagement than the top 5 "mainstream" stories.
The term and coverage was grounded in a real phenomenon, though many people in the field (myself included) prefer to use other terms.
It started to become widely used after this article https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/viral-fa... , showed the top 5 "fake" stories had more Facebook engagement than the top 5 "mainstream" stories.
The term and coverage was grounded in a real phenomenon, though many people in the field (myself included) prefer to use other terms.
The term itself dates to the late 1980s, and formerly referred to corporate-produced propaganda in the form of audio- and video- news releases (AVRs and VNRs).
A search of the Nexis media database indicates that the term was initially used more broadly. In May 1989 Adweek writer Barbara Lippert panned ads in which former newsreader Linda Ellerbee appeared "in a fake news setting" hustling Maxwell House coffee. In August that year Ad Day's Ed Buxton criticized the use of "the fake news bite" where reporters re-enacted news events as part of a news story.
However, it was a cover article by David Lieberman titled "Fake News" in the February 1992 edition of TV Guide that popularized the term. In his article Lieberman took the media and PR industry to task over video news releases. He argued that if footage from VNR's were used in news it should be labelled so that viewers were aware of its origin. If not, he argued, media outlets risked undermining their own credibility if they "pretend out of pride that what they broadcast is real news, instead of labeling it for what it is."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fake_news
A search of the Nexis media database indicates that the term was initially used more broadly. In May 1989 Adweek writer Barbara Lippert panned ads in which former newsreader Linda Ellerbee appeared "in a fake news setting" hustling Maxwell House coffee. In August that year Ad Day's Ed Buxton criticized the use of "the fake news bite" where reporters re-enacted news events as part of a news story.
However, it was a cover article by David Lieberman titled "Fake News" in the February 1992 edition of TV Guide that popularized the term. In his article Lieberman took the media and PR industry to task over video news releases. He argued that if footage from VNR's were used in news it should be labelled so that viewers were aware of its origin. If not, he argued, media outlets risked undermining their own credibility if they "pretend out of pride that what they broadcast is real news, instead of labeling it for what it is."
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fake_news
[deleted]
> He discovered a trove of exposed Cambridge Analytica tools in the online code repository Github, long before most people knew the shady, defunct data firm’s name.
Anyone know what this is about?
Anyone know what this is about?
[deleted]
Sigh, I admire the data analysis stuff this guy does and it's nice he tries to track how many people follow Russian made accounts or what not, but I feel the article/mindset here is still the same as in every political article recently:
People only voted for Trump because they were 'tricked'.
It's like media folk and political pundits cannot fathom the idea that the political system is simply broken for many people. Yes it's likely trolls and state sponsored propaganda helped, since a situation where people are so heavily divided is easy to stir up controversy in.
But at the end of the day, what was on offer in the recent election? Four years of 'more of the same' or someone who claimed to overthrow the system. A choice between an insane person and a bunch of career politicians with no charisma.
Just feels like it's a constant set of searches for a nefarious conspiracy rather than accepting that the current system isn't offering much to anyone outside of large corporations and that people were getting sick of it.
People only voted for Trump because they were 'tricked'.
It's like media folk and political pundits cannot fathom the idea that the political system is simply broken for many people. Yes it's likely trolls and state sponsored propaganda helped, since a situation where people are so heavily divided is easy to stir up controversy in.
But at the end of the day, what was on offer in the recent election? Four years of 'more of the same' or someone who claimed to overthrow the system. A choice between an insane person and a bunch of career politicians with no charisma.
Just feels like it's a constant set of searches for a nefarious conspiracy rather than accepting that the current system isn't offering much to anyone outside of large corporations and that people were getting sick of it.
>> People only voted for Trump because they were 'tricked'.
This narrative implies we lack free will and is really insulting to people. They’re using fear to position the reader as a potential victim who should continue reading their articles to avoid a similar fate.
This narrative implies we lack free will and is really insulting to people. They’re using fear to position the reader as a potential victim who should continue reading their articles to avoid a similar fate.
Did this guy pay for this article? It's a pure personal branding/ego piece about a guy who watched a lot of YouTube and had also happened to write for Washington Post (owned by Amazon) and The New York Times, known for publishing absolute reprehensible garbage op-ed pieces justifying atrocities perpetuated by neoliberals while ostensibly still being on the left.
I agree, reads like a pure bio PR, the title says it all. Lots of trust building about his personally,the usual pantomime of nazi's and Russian bots, no bias there..
So we should't trust content pushed by people centric platforms, and only trusted news sources with well written introductions..
So we should't trust content pushed by people centric platforms, and only trusted news sources with well written introductions..
“Albright, who looks at least a decade younger than his 40 years”
> It’s Albright’s research that helped build a bruising story in The New York Times on how the Russians used fake identities to stoke American rage.
OK, so Albright has done outstanding work. His map[0] is mind-blowing.
But there's another key aspect: This isn't new. For sure, Russian propagandists are using the Internet very effectively. However, Russian influence on US culture and politics goes back many decades. Communist groups in the US during the 30s-60s. US anti-war movements in the 60s-80s. The anti-draft movement, with heavy Quaker involvement. And the Soviet-American Friendship Society. That Ramparts article about Johnson and JFK's corpse.
And since the 90s, they've been focusing more on the radical right. Pushing distrust of the US government. I saw that developing in cypherpunk communities. But I wasn't sure, until RT appeared.
And by the way, I'm not arguing that Russia isn't justified in doing all this. It's arguably just defense. Because the US does it too. In Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban. In the Balkans. In the Ukraine. In Chile. I mean, they broke up the Soviet Union, and one aspect was propaganda.
Anyway, just sayin'.
Edit: I'm not arguing that those were all Russian front groups. Just that they were Russian influenced. And here's another example: Mad Magazine :) Also, the US did the same. I mean, the US promoted modern/abstract art as a Cold War weapon!
Edit: I'm not making this up.[1] Also, re support offered to the JFK campaign.[2]
0) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-de...
1) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/ru...
2) http://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-history/
OK, so Albright has done outstanding work. His map[0] is mind-blowing.
But there's another key aspect: This isn't new. For sure, Russian propagandists are using the Internet very effectively. However, Russian influence on US culture and politics goes back many decades. Communist groups in the US during the 30s-60s. US anti-war movements in the 60s-80s. The anti-draft movement, with heavy Quaker involvement. And the Soviet-American Friendship Society. That Ramparts article about Johnson and JFK's corpse.
And since the 90s, they've been focusing more on the radical right. Pushing distrust of the US government. I saw that developing in cypherpunk communities. But I wasn't sure, until RT appeared.
And by the way, I'm not arguing that Russia isn't justified in doing all this. It's arguably just defense. Because the US does it too. In Afghanistan, supporting the Taliban. In the Balkans. In the Ukraine. In Chile. I mean, they broke up the Soviet Union, and one aspect was propaganda.
Anyway, just sayin'.
Edit: I'm not arguing that those were all Russian front groups. Just that they were Russian influenced. And here's another example: Mad Magazine :) Also, the US did the same. I mean, the US promoted modern/abstract art as a Cold War weapon!
Edit: I'm not making this up.[1] Also, re support offered to the JFK campaign.[2]
0) https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-de...
1) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/ru...
2) http://time.com/4851449/trump-jr-russian-kennedy-history/
Speaking of news. Anyone know why CNN "leaking" debate questions to presidential questions was quickly forgotten. Atleast with Russia we somewhat know who the enemy but who is behind insidious actors who are leaking questions and why are they doing it. Was it really just one bad actor?
IMO, the question leaking is interesting because it highlights the information asymmetry in the DNC leaks.
Donna Brazile was able to get a copy of the debate questions not because someone hacked in and got them for her, but because CNN just... gave them to her. Because she was a contributor to the network that was going to be talking about the debate. There were Republican contributors in the same role who presumably also received a copy of the questions (we would have heard if they didn't, I'm sure), so I personally work on the basis that both candidates have known the questions for (at least) CNN debates for quite some time. The only reason we know the DNC did is because of the e-mail leaks, we certainly don't know that the RNC didn't. I don't say this to excuse anyone involved, just that it's often sold as a left vs right scandal and I really don't think it is. I think it shows how little CNN cares about the integrity of things like this.
On a broader level, it isn't talked about that much because IMO it just didn't have that big of an effect. The topic of the debate was known in advance (economy, foreign policy, etc) and it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to prepare a list of very likely questions. Certainly, it could have fueled distrust in the mainstream media, but that's something people do talk about at great length, so in a way it's just become one evidence point in a much larger debate.
Donna Brazile was able to get a copy of the debate questions not because someone hacked in and got them for her, but because CNN just... gave them to her. Because she was a contributor to the network that was going to be talking about the debate. There were Republican contributors in the same role who presumably also received a copy of the questions (we would have heard if they didn't, I'm sure), so I personally work on the basis that both candidates have known the questions for (at least) CNN debates for quite some time. The only reason we know the DNC did is because of the e-mail leaks, we certainly don't know that the RNC didn't. I don't say this to excuse anyone involved, just that it's often sold as a left vs right scandal and I really don't think it is. I think it shows how little CNN cares about the integrity of things like this.
On a broader level, it isn't talked about that much because IMO it just didn't have that big of an effect. The topic of the debate was known in advance (economy, foreign policy, etc) and it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to prepare a list of very likely questions. Certainly, it could have fueled distrust in the mainstream media, but that's something people do talk about at great length, so in a way it's just become one evidence point in a much larger debate.
> The only reason we know the DNC did is because of the e-mail leaks, we certainly don't know that the RNC didn't.
This is prototypical of politics in America, and it's mind boggling: "the current president said he'd do something and then didn't do it!" Said by every D and R about every R and D. I wish we could examine systemicly, instead of along party lines.
This is prototypical of politics in America, and it's mind boggling: "the current president said he'd do something and then didn't do it!" Said by every D and R about every R and D. I wish we could examine systemicly, instead of along party lines.
Yea what you said makes sense to me.
> so I personally work on the basis that both candidates have known the questions for (at least) CNN debates for quite some time.
People prlby already assume these debates are already staged like WWE matches. MSM is just tasked with organising this farce. I never paid attention to these debates before but I found it shocking that such ridiculous farce can be organised at such high levels. Why can't they just reveal the questions to everyone beforehand instead of pretending like they are some sort of secret. Makes me wonder what else is staged. Is this whole russia thing also staged by both parties.
> it could have fueled distrust in the mainstream media, but that's something people do talk about at great length,
Can you link me one high level article talking about this. I almost never hear about it.
> so I personally work on the basis that both candidates have known the questions for (at least) CNN debates for quite some time.
People prlby already assume these debates are already staged like WWE matches. MSM is just tasked with organising this farce. I never paid attention to these debates before but I found it shocking that such ridiculous farce can be organised at such high levels. Why can't they just reveal the questions to everyone beforehand instead of pretending like they are some sort of secret. Makes me wonder what else is staged. Is this whole russia thing also staged by both parties.
> it could have fueled distrust in the mainstream media, but that's something people do talk about at great length,
Can you link me one high level article talking about this. I almost never hear about it.
The Trump campaign and his right wing supporters tried to present it as a scandal which should not only disqualify Hillary Clinton from running, but which proved a criminal, possibly treasonous, conspiracy by the DNC and Clinton to undermine the American political process and "rig the election."
It was quickly forgotten about because the right wing overplayed the anti-leftist outrage card, as they tend to do, and only people already invested in their conspiratorial rhetoric could muster the effort to care.
It was quickly forgotten about because the right wing overplayed the anti-leftist outrage card, as they tend to do, and only people already invested in their conspiratorial rhetoric could muster the effort to care.
why don't regular people care about though. Isn't it a big deal? Why aren't such acts considered 'fake news'.
No, it wasn't a big deal, certainly not as big a deal as Trump supporters want to imply - a scandal on par with Watergate.
The fallout and consequences were in correct proportion to their relevance. Donna Brazile resigned, CNN cut ties with her, the news cycle eventually moved on.
The fallout and consequences were in correct proportion to their relevance. Donna Brazile resigned, CNN cut ties with her, the news cycle eventually moved on.
Can your tell me why it isn't a big deal without framing it wrt to "trump supporters".Surely its possible to look at this without partisan lens.
As a regular citizen I think its a big deal because
1. It eroded publics confidence in MSM giving rise to alternative/fake news sites.
2. What about Donna Brazile's collaborators. Surely she didn't pull this off all by herself.
3. What were the motivations of collaborators at CNN, why did they do it.
As a regular citizen I think its a big deal because
1. It eroded publics confidence in MSM giving rise to alternative/fake news sites.
2. What about Donna Brazile's collaborators. Surely she didn't pull this off all by herself.
3. What were the motivations of collaborators at CNN, why did they do it.
> Can your tell me why it isn't a big deal without framing it wrt to "trump supporters".
Can you tell me why you believe it should be a bigger deal than it was? Numerous articles were written about it, someone lost their job, what else do you believe should happen?
Can you tell me why you started this non-sequitur thread to begin with? TFA isn't about Hillary Clinton's campaign or the scandal surrounding her having been given advance notice of questions, so why bring it up?
>Surely its possible to look at this without partisan lens.
It is possible, but partisan politics is inextricably linked to the subject at hand, and the only people still bringing it up are people with a partisan agenda.
Can you tell me why you believe it should be a bigger deal than it was? Numerous articles were written about it, someone lost their job, what else do you believe should happen?
Can you tell me why you started this non-sequitur thread to begin with? TFA isn't about Hillary Clinton's campaign or the scandal surrounding her having been given advance notice of questions, so why bring it up?
>Surely its possible to look at this without partisan lens.
It is possible, but partisan politics is inextricably linked to the subject at hand, and the only people still bringing it up are people with a partisan agenda.
> Can you tell me why you believe it should be a bigger deal than it was?
I explicitly stated why I thought it was big deal.
>> As a regular citizen I think its a big deal because
>> 1. It eroded publics confidence in MSM giving rise to alternative/fake news sites.
> what else do you believe should happen?
Also addressed this
>> 2. What about Donna Brazile's collaborators. Surely she didn't pull this off all by herself.
>> 3. What were the motivations of collaborators at CNN, why did they do it.
I want answers to those questions. And possibly releasing the debate questions to everyone instead of pretending like they are secret. I really want to know why they are pretending that they are secret when they are not. Regular ppl are just idiots to be fucked with?
Merely firing one sacrificial lamb is not enough, why would i possibly care about a multimillonare's job at CNN. More honesty and not taking people for idiots would be a good outcome. You know like a change that would prevent this from happening in future.
> Can you tell me why you started this non-sequitur thread to begin with?
As I mentioned it many times, this to me was one of those things that "trump supporters" used to discredit the media and create fakenews. CNN never coming clean didn't help the case.
I explicitly stated why I thought it was big deal.
>> As a regular citizen I think its a big deal because
>> 1. It eroded publics confidence in MSM giving rise to alternative/fake news sites.
> what else do you believe should happen?
Also addressed this
>> 2. What about Donna Brazile's collaborators. Surely she didn't pull this off all by herself.
>> 3. What were the motivations of collaborators at CNN, why did they do it.
I want answers to those questions. And possibly releasing the debate questions to everyone instead of pretending like they are secret. I really want to know why they are pretending that they are secret when they are not. Regular ppl are just idiots to be fucked with?
Merely firing one sacrificial lamb is not enough, why would i possibly care about a multimillonare's job at CNN. More honesty and not taking people for idiots would be a good outcome. You know like a change that would prevent this from happening in future.
> Can you tell me why you started this non-sequitur thread to begin with?
As I mentioned it many times, this to me was one of those things that "trump supporters" used to discredit the media and create fakenews. CNN never coming clean didn't help the case.
[deleted]
It's quite strange to complain about YouTube and call its front page" fake news. That's pretty much like blaming "television" is fake news.
Youtube is a carrier, rather like UHF frequency is a band for transmitting carriers. Your television can show anything, depending on which channels you choose to watch. YouTube service also contains just about anything, and there's no such thing as a "YouTube front page" like you have front page of a newspaper. It's your own front page that comes up, based on what you've previously been interested in.
If you are interested in fake news, you'll see fake news in YouTube. Just like if you're interested in supermarket tabloid stories, you'll buy National Enquirer and read that. It's your choice.
Youtube is a carrier, rather like UHF frequency is a band for transmitting carriers. Your television can show anything, depending on which channels you choose to watch. YouTube service also contains just about anything, and there's no such thing as a "YouTube front page" like you have front page of a newspaper. It's your own front page that comes up, based on what you've previously been interested in.
If you are interested in fake news, you'll see fake news in YouTube. Just like if you're interested in supermarket tabloid stories, you'll buy National Enquirer and read that. It's your choice.
YouTube is not a clear pass-through from one's truly held interests to the computer screen. I am not interested in fake news, Peppa the Pig, superhero movies, Logan Paul, Lil Durk, Time Magazine, and yet, loading up the YouTube home page just now, there they are.
YouTube profits from showing people things they might be likely to click on, and from collecting money from people who want people to click on their things. This has something to do with "interests" in some sense of the word but I do not think YouTube's recommendation engine is an unmediated expression of a user's true desires.
YouTube profits from showing people things they might be likely to click on, and from collecting money from people who want people to click on their things. This has something to do with "interests" in some sense of the word but I do not think YouTube's recommendation engine is an unmediated expression of a user's true desires.
> YouTube is not a clear pass-through from one's truly held interests to the computer screen. I am not interested in fake news, Peppa the Pig, superhero movies, Logan Paul, Lil Durk, Time Magazine, and yet, loading up the YouTube home page just now, there they are.
With respect, there is no way this is correct - at least not in a meaningful sense.
Are you logged in with a YouTube account? Does anyone else pass YouTube traffic through your IP address, ie do you have children, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc? Do you purposefully block ads and analytics that would make suggestions like this random? Lil durk and Peppa pig are simply not going to be recommended next to each other without reason.
I just loaded YouTube.com and scrolled for _dozens of pages_. There is nothing remotley bizzarre. The most annoying thing is that it supports cut-and-pasters, who take clips from source videos that I watch and repost them.
With respect, there is no way this is correct - at least not in a meaningful sense.
Are you logged in with a YouTube account? Does anyone else pass YouTube traffic through your IP address, ie do you have children, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc? Do you purposefully block ads and analytics that would make suggestions like this random? Lil durk and Peppa pig are simply not going to be recommended next to each other without reason.
I just loaded YouTube.com and scrolled for _dozens of pages_. There is nothing remotley bizzarre. The most annoying thing is that it supports cut-and-pasters, who take clips from source videos that I watch and repost them.
> I do not think YouTube's recommendation engine is an unmediated expression of a user's true desires.
Cynically, I disagree. i think their recommendation engine is a reflection of a collection of people's true desires. People reveal their preferences through actions (clicking on things) more than thought, which is generally rationalization for a decision already made.
Cynically, I disagree. i think their recommendation engine is a reflection of a collection of people's true desires. People reveal their preferences through actions (clicking on things) more than thought, which is generally rationalization for a decision already made.
UHF does not have an algorithm behind it recommending you content. No one goes to YouTube because they are interested in fake news, they go with the intention of being informed but watch a video with false content in it. Then YouTube's algorithms show them more and more fake content in an attempt to keep them watching.
> Then YouTube's algorithms show them more and more fake content in an attempt to keep them watching.
Have a source for that claim? I watch a lot of YouTube with one account and it only recommends things similiar to what I already watch. There's no sudden fake news switch to Fox news or CNN or... anything, really.
Have a source for that claim? I watch a lot of YouTube with one account and it only recommends things similiar to what I already watch. There's no sudden fake news switch to Fox news or CNN or... anything, really.
This is a pretty interesting account of the recommendation algorithms at work:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po...
It links to this WSJ investigation:
How YouTube Drives People to the Internet’s Darkest Corners https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-youtube-drives-viewers-to-t...
I suspect people who watch a lot of YouTube aren't as badly affected as there is a large dataset to recommend from.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-po...
It links to this WSJ investigation:
How YouTube Drives People to the Internet’s Darkest Corners https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-youtube-drives-viewers-to-t...
I suspect people who watch a lot of YouTube aren't as badly affected as there is a large dataset to recommend from.
While not a source for OP's claim, there's evidence[0] that YT's algorithms incentivise viewers towards ever more extreme content. [ß]
The logic is simple: the more reactions a piece of content generates, the more it will be recommended. "Fake news", at least in the form of incendiary propaganda, is designed to invoke strong emotions. In the case of YouTube (probably applies to FB too), the compound effect is pure amplification.
In a way one could say that YouTube and propaganda thrive from a perverse symbiotic relationship.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtu...
ß: You can easily find other news items on the same topic, but they tend to have either have a paywall or GDPR modal.
The logic is simple: the more reactions a piece of content generates, the more it will be recommended. "Fake news", at least in the form of incendiary propaganda, is designed to invoke strong emotions. In the case of YouTube (probably applies to FB too), the compound effect is pure amplification.
In a way one could say that YouTube and propaganda thrive from a perverse symbiotic relationship.
0: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/02/how-youtu...
ß: You can easily find other news items on the same topic, but they tend to have either have a paywall or GDPR modal.
It's not though, you do not write the algorithm, YouTube does.
Before I gave up and unfriended them, I used to try and debate some FB friends that believed in chem trails, flat Earth, and other ridiculous things. I wasn't arguing against logic, reason, or science. I was arguing with YT channels Richie From Boston and others ( I wont link it; that rabbit hole is left to the reader).
The last thing that was said to me before unfriending was "i see what you're doing. That's real low energy, man."
I think arguing for the public's hearts and minds has more to do with the former than latter.