Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
EVER SINCE THE election of Donald Trump in last Tuesday’s American presidential election the topic of fake news has never been far from the headlines.
The suggestion that the proliferation of purely fabricated news was to blame for the billionaire’s victory has built up a head of steam, with the oft-quoted statistic being that 42% of Americans get their news from Facebook.
The problem with this is that Facebook’s algorithms (automated formulas which trace your browsing history) operate a sort of echo chamber – the site tailors your newsfeed towards the sites and topics for which you’ve shown interest previously – so you rarely see anything which contradicts your worldview. This is especially a problem if the sort of things that interest you tend to be fabricated.
This is similarly a big problem for Google, which has faced intense criticism for including faked news in its search returns – a specific example coming at the weekend when a series of sites reported that Donald Trump had won the popular vote in the election by a clear margin (the voting hasn’t even finished counting yet, and Hillary Clinton appears the clear favourite to win it).
There is a lot of money in fake news – hence why popular topics are targeted for stories whose entire aim is to go viral.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for his part insists that fake news on the social network had no effect on the election’s result.
But given the capacity of such stories to influence public opinion, what steps are Facebook and Google taking to combat the phenomenon?
70News
The fake news story that emerged last week concerning Trump’s purported popular vote victory was first seen on a site called 70News. Within two days it was the top returned search on Google concerning the popular vote.
A link to the site appeared at or near the top of Google’s influential rankings of relevant news stories for searches on the final election results.
Google acknowledged the problem, although as of this morning the link to 70News remains prominent in its results.
Although Google rarely removes content from its search results, the company is taking steps to punish sites that manufacture falsehoods.
In a move disclosed yesterday, Google says it will prevent its lucrative digital ads from appearing on sites that “misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information”. The action could give sites a bigger incentive to get things right or risk losing a valuable source of revenue.
Fake news on steroids
False information is nothing new on the internet, where debunkers have been batting down unfounded claims and urban legends for more than two decades.
But the problem has gained more attention in the post-mortem of the bitterly contested presidential election in which Trump emerged victorious over Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Trump wound up prevailing in enough key states to win the Electoral College’s decisive vote, but Clinton’s lead in the popular vote has become one of the flashpoints in the protests against Trump’s election being staged in cities across the country.
Fake news stories uncritically circulated during and after the election on Facebook have sparked a debate over the role of social media companies, which are key sources of news for large numbers of people. Critics suggest that these companies should be more careful to ensure they aren’t passing along misleading information.
Social media and the news
Google’s dominant search engine is the leading source of traffic to media sites, according to the online analytics firm Chartbeat. Meanwhile, a study by the Pew Research Centre found about 60% of Americans get at least some of their news from social media sites such as Facebook, which now has 178 million users in the US and Canada.
Last summer Facebook fired a handful of journalists who oversaw its “trending” news list and replaced them with an algorithm; fake news stories quickly began to trend.
CEO Mark Zuckerberg brushed off that criticism as “crazy ” in his appearance last week. He elaborated in a weekend post on Facebook in which he asserted that “more than 99% of what people see” on Facebook is authentic. Zuckerberg conceded more needs to be done to block bogus information, but said that determining what’s blatantly wrong isn’t always an easy task.
“Identifying the ‘truth’ is complicated,” Zuckerberg wrote.
While some hoaxes can be completely debunked, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted.
Google’s search results are also powered by algorithms that the company regularly revises to thwart sites that attempt to artificially boost their prominence.
More, better algorithms?
Google conceded its search engine misfired with the 70News story that falsely declared Trump the popular vote winner in both its headline and the body of the text.
“In this case we clearly didn’t get it right, but we are continually working to improve our algorithms,” the company said in a statement.
Bad information in an online headline or at the top of a story can be particularly damaging. Roughly 53% of the people who land on a web page stay for 15 seconds or less, according to Chartbeat’s findings.
Incorrect information is bound to ripple across the internet as more people rely on their phones, computers and other digital devices to read news that is picked out for them by automated programs, says media analyst Ken Doctor of Newsonomics.
“What we are seeing is the failure of the algorithm,” Doctor says.
These algorithms bring a lot of things into our lives that humans cannot do. But when algorithms fail, it highlights the fact that they are not just some kind of neutral technology. They are programmed by human beings and they have all the failings of human beings.
It’s difficult to know what happened when an algorithm goes awry because Google, Facebook and other internet companies closely guard how they work, much the way Coca-Cola protects its recipe.
But the growing power that Google and Facebook hold over the flow of information could increase the political pressure for them to be held more accountable, Doctor said.
In the meantime, most people remain skeptical about what they read online. Only 4% of Americans have a lot of confidence in what they read on social media sites, according to Pew. Local news organisations fared better in Pew Research’s survey earlier this year, with 22% of Americans saying they trusted the information there.
With AP
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Pity that wasnt around seven years ago , I lost my mam to mouth cancer, there’s absolutely nothing more horrific than what she went through for eighteen months and to visibly see what cancer does was something I will never get over or forget.
Sorry for your loss Michelle
@nucky – you should get your mouth checked – teach you how to keep it shut.
Would getting me to open my mouth in order to show me how to keep it shut not be a bit silly?
I was at a routine dental check when the dentist saw suspicious lesions in my mouth. I was sent to the dental hospital for a biopsy which showed precancerous cells. I was advised to give up smoking which I did and luckily the cells returned to normal. I was so lucky. I advised a lot of people to go for that free check up. I got the fright of my life being told those results.
Well get your facts right and read the article properly.. It says FREE oral screening … and your comment hit a nerve with me..sorry if I insulted you..
Apology accepted. I appreciate the check is free but my experience is that dentists often use this as an opportunity to get you in the door, open wide and then sting you for a shit load of fillings, de-scaling and dental work ‘cha-ching’!
Just sayin’
In that case Nucky, go into the dental hospital when the next screening day is on, all they will do is examine your mouth for cancerous or precancerous lesions. You will be advised to have a family dentist for regular check ups but its entirely up to you if you want to go or not.
No need. I go to my friendly dentist every six months for my twice yearly check up and cleaning.
(AKA: We are dentists and we need some extra cash)
@ nucky..What an idiotic thing to say .. ! Its obvious no member of your family have been affected by oral or throat cancer.. Well my family have but, luckily at a routine dental check- up, (you know what they are do you??) our local dentist spotted a lesion and referred on to an oral surgeon who treated it.. Alls well now thank god.. So keep your uneducated opinions to yourself or change your dentist.. You’re obviously not happy with the one you have…
Its my opinion, no need for the insult.
It points out that it was free service, not a lot of money in free services.
Read all the comments before offering your glib comment.
No need for the insult:) but i like you, you tell it as it is. Its a good quality in a person. A+.
I never insult anybody, not my style.
these checks were done free of charge as part of a cancer awareness day.
@ mucky .. God.. You must be the patient from hell!!
Tks lucille , @ nucky, I’ll gladly show you how to do it!!! ;))
Having seen my dad go through oral cancer, I’d advise anyone to avail of this free check up.
He’s come out the other end because of wonderful advancements in surgery and a remarkable dedicated team of doctors, nurses and surgeons ( angels all of them ).
Wish this check up had been there for him a few years ago as his cancer was found at a very advanced stage.
His life is greatly compromised now, but we still have him and treasure our time together.
have your say