Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and CEO of Facebook, has been forced to address the issue of fake news and “post truth” and to do something that wasn’t in the plans of the world’s biggest social network: look at editorial mechanisms to limit the spread of fake news, which appear to be having an impact on the formation of public opinion and even on election results. “Post truth” has been defined as an appeal to beliefs and prejudices instead of facts.
Social media like Facebook use algorithms to link users to content shared by the people they have most online contact with, as well as that shared by pages they have “liked” or otherwise interacted with. The world of the algorithm produces an alternative reality in which we end up surrounded by opinions and content which, regardless of their distance from the facts, reinforce our perceptions, protect us from criticism and choke curiosity for other perspectives, all of which ends up reinforcing a system of values and convictions refractory to real information or data which might challenge its truthfulness.
The world of the algorithm on social media is generating intolerance and polarization as we spend more and more time in front of screens of one sort or another. Furthermore, to the extent that we inform ourselves through social media, we do so not only through content produced by established publishers but also by a range of bloggers and “influencers” of various sorts who have emerged in each of these “communication bubbles”. Furthermore, growing distrust of the media in democratic societies, as well as the emergence of ever more sophisticated mechanisms of censorship and self-censorship in authoritarian societies (such as Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Venezuela) have turned alternative journalism on Facebook and Twitter into the main source of information for millions of people. This, in turn, has fostered a constellation of digital channels lacking editorial mechanisms to guarantee journalism with professional quality controls, where information and opinion are clearly separated, in addition to the necessary verification of information based on accredited sources.
Christiane Amanpour, one of the best journalists I know, on receiving the prestigious Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) Prize, addressed this matter with clarity, and added a contribution of her own. The media phenomenon arising in social networks in the context of “post truth” and fake news has imposed a very dangerous agenda on traditional news sources, that of neutrality and false equivalence as a resource to compete. This results in them giving space to the most absurd statements and opinions, in the quest to offer “balanced coverage” and be competitive in a world where audiences are locked in “echo chambers” or alternative realities created by quick access to information that lacks legitimacy but seems to be credible because it comes from social networks often with the endorsement of someone we follow and regard as credible.
Among the effects of this development, which puts perpetrators on the same level as victims, is to create scandals about things which nobody is sure are wrong or even based on real facts, and to provide platforms for fanatics and lunatics to repeat dead ideas and arguments proven to be at odds with the facts, thus normalizing the absurd, the false and simple manipulation of the truth. A good example of this is the question of climate change. It’s definitely happening, that’s the view of science and it’s confirmed by the data on its effects on the planet. And even so climate deniers, whose only credentials are having appeared on TV studio panels, are given a platform to spout their unfounded views, which appeal to our beliefs and prejudice.
A study by BuzzFeed on fake news and its influence on the recent presidential election in the US analysed the stories with the greatest impact on social networks, not only in terms of traffic but also of engagements, that is to say, the number of times they were “liked” shared or commented on by users of Facebook and Twitter. It concluded that none of the twenty most read and shared stories during the campaign on social networks came from a recognized media source or publisher (for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times or The Washington Post). Instead they came from blogs, websites and channels openly devoted to spreading fake news. The bulk of the twenty stories was favourable to Trump or simply consisted of baseless attacks on Hilary Clinton. Perhaps the growth of this market for false information can be attributed not only to the magic of the algorithms; it might also be connected to the fact that most of the major media outlets, outraged either by Trump’s attacks on them or his views in general, endorsed Hilary Clinton’s candidacy, which may have made them less credible to Trump supporters and undecided voters.
Last week, The Washington Post published an interview with Paul Horner, one of the major entrepreneurs behind the channels and digital media dedicated to the production of fake news, a true empire of profitable dirty tricks and fake information laboratories distributing their wares on hundreds of websites and blogs as well as on Facebook and Twitter, with users who validate them by sharing them with those in their digital environment. Horner cheerfully admitted to being the author of much of this fake news and to his pro-Trump bias but said he had no regrets as he never thought Trump would actually win. One of the false news stories that received most engagement on social networks (it was even retweeted by one of Trump’s sons) towards the end of the campaign was written and distributed by Horner’s organisation and falsely claimed that the leaders of the Amish community had endorsed Trump. Most of the Amish community lives in rural areas of Pennsylvania, a traditional Democratic Party stronghold which surprisingly voted for Trump by a narrow margin.
If all of this wasn’t worrying enough, there is the even more serious issue of the stream of false and distorted information directed against Clinton. In many cases this was sourced from supposed e-mails from the candidate to her campaign director John Podesta and others in the Democratic Party published by Wikileaks, and this is further aggravated by the fact that these e-mails appear to have been obtained by a Russian state hacking operation. In fact, The Washington Post published this week the results of an investigation which found Russian propaganda agents as being one of the sources of the waves of fake news. And as well as this, there are the well-known links between one of Trump’s top campaign advisors and Russian president Vladimir Putin, not to mention the claims made by the Clinton campaign that the FBI was in possession of evidence relating to Russian intervention in the election campaign.
This fascinating episode has highlighted one of the most controversial issues for the political, legal and journalistic agendas of these times. In the meantime there are a number of questions that require prompt answers: What can be done to eradicate this perverse tide of false news in the digital field? What role can the media themselves play in eliminating it? And finally, will those businesses that manage social networks assume an editorial role that filters and prevents the spread of false news?
These issues are also relevant for understanding the terrible events occurring in places like Venezuela, where censorship, self-censorship and media hegemonies loyal to the state leave citizens at the mercy of the information jungle on social media as their only alternative. What can all sides in this “post truth” landscape achieve with fake news, half-truths, fallacies and outright inventions elevated to the status of opinion and information by the world of false equivalences?
In the most important democracy in the world this combination of false news, political cyber-espionage and possible foreign interference has already damaged the presidential election. The search for truth and finding a way to prevent technology from becoming a Trojan horse loaded with lies are two fundamental challenges for democracy in these changing times.
Leopoldo Martínez Nucete’s tweets at @lecumberry