Being asked to rate fake news may help stop social media users sharing it, study finds
- Reference: 1616157011
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/03/19/rating_fake_news_may_help/
- Source link:
Sandwiched between an instinct for a less costly hands-off approach to information monitoring, and the unpalatable prospect of draconian policing of news content, social media giants such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram, which boast billions of users between them worldwide, have done little about it.
[3]
Only relatively recently has [4]Facebook launched a campaign to help users spot fake news .
However, Gordon Pennycook, professor at Canada's University of Regina, and his team have shown there is more social media companies could do to stem the flow of fake news.
[5]
"Although misinformation is nothing new, the topic gained prominence in 2016 after the US Presidential Election and the UK's Brexit referendum, during which entirely fabricated stories (presented as legitimate news) received wide distribution via social media," the [6]paper published in Nature said .
The researchers first performed survey experiments in which American individuals using crowdsourcing website Amazon Mechanical Turk to recruit workers were asked to rate the accuracy of news and whether they would share it, controlling for political affiliation.
Although true headlines were rated as "accurate" more often than false headlines, experimental subjects were twice as likely to consider sharing false headlines that fitted with their political outlook than they were to rate such headlines as accurate, implying that on some level they were happy to share information they knew was inaccurate.
However, most of them also said it was "extremely important" to share only accurate information on social media, leading the researchers to conclude some people may not intentionally spread misinformation.
Sharing while 'distracted'
A subsequent Twitter field experiment involved 5,379 users who had recently shared links to websites that regularly produce misleading and hyper-partisan content. They were sent an unsolicited message asking them to rate the accuracy of a single non-political headline. Researchers then compared the quality of the news sites shared in the 24 hours after receiving the message to the sites shared by participants who had not yet received the message.
The research showed that when individuals were sent a private message asking them to rate news accuracy, the accuracy and quality of the news sources they shared improved.
"These studies suggest that when deciding what to share on social media, people are often distracted from considering the accuracy of the content," the paper said.
The current design of social media platforms means users get instant social feedback for sharing snippets from the mix of serious news and emotionally engaging content they have quickly scrolled through.
It's a model which "may discourage people from reflecting on accuracy," they said.
*Shocked face*
"But this need not be the case. Our treatment translates easily into interventions that social media platforms could use to increase users' focus on accuracy. For example, platforms could periodically ask users to rate the accuracy of randomly selected headlines, thus reminding them about accuracy in a subtle way," the paper said.
It might also avoid users reacting against guidance debunking fake news, which has been a recorded phenomenon. The authors cited an upcoming paper*, "Perverse Consequences of Debunking in a Twitter Field Experiment", which shows that "being corrected for posting false news increases subsequent sharing of low quality, partisan, and toxic content."
Using the approach of reminding social media users about accuracy, the authors wrote, "could potentially increase the quality of news circulating online without relying on a centralized institution to certify truth and censor falsehood."
We can but hope.
Whatever the solution, the problem of fake news is more than a political irritant. YouTube has removed more than 30,000 misleading COVID-19 vaccination videos in the past five months, [7]according to reports .
At the height of the global COVID-19 pandemic in April, 82 websites spreading health misinformation attracted an estimated 460 million views on Facebook. [8]Research by US-based global activist org Avaaz found that bogus health claims on Facebook accrued an estimated 3.8 billion views in one year.
The latest study may provide a tool to help social media giants curb the spread of misinformation on their platforms. Whether they will choose to use it or not might depend entirely on their business models. ®
Bootnote
[9]
*We don't have a link yet: it will be presented at this year's CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, which is to take place in May 2021.
Get our [10]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/14/twitter_ceo_jack_dorsey_explains_trump_ban/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2018/02/09/google_facebook_twitter_grilled_over_fake_news_algorithms/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YFTYsLZcX40yMqrqCRBHWAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-53228343
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YFTYsLZcX40yMqrqCRBHWAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03344-2
[7] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56372184
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/19/facebook_medical_misinformation/
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YFTYsLZcX40yMqrqCRBHWAAAAFQ&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Gaming
What happens when the reviewing process starts getting gamed? Either by Bots or by some faction who manages to pile a load of reviewers in under the radar.
A sticky plaster at best....
This is all the result of the friction of sharing communication being reduced to near zero. Our social and intellectual models haven't evolved to cope yet. Metaphorically we are still at the point of pointing and grunting on the plains of Africa as far as our ability to handle electronic communications is concerned.
Re: Gaming
The trick is to let people rate random news headlines. Whatever your pet conspiracy or fake news feed is, there will be more conspiracies and fake news feeds that you consider bogus.
If you cannot predict what type of headline you will be asked to rate, you cannot team up to promote your pet fake new stories.
Pointless.
Can't speak to everyone, but I know a lot of sane minded people who previously used to enjoy using social media, but are now abandoning it for the right reasons. If that continues en masse then eventually it'll just leave the already toxic contingent in their own echo chamber marking their own homework... so to speak.
Re: Pointless.
The consequences of which simply leads to more extremism and delusion. See flat earth nuts.
Re: Pointless.
In practical terms it depends on the actual numbers who quit and who stay.
Re: Pointless.
That's one of the reasons I deleted my Facebook account. The video feed in particular was full of crap such as flat-earth videos, covid deniers, anti-vaxers, creationists, soft porn, lame clickbait and general "Oh look at me" garbage. Facebook has become an open sewer of misinformation and floating turds.
Asking the people that consume fake news to rate it as fake news when they don't realise it's fake news. That's like asking the person that doesn't pick up their dog shit to look out for people not picking up their dog shit.
Getting people to read is difficult too
Fake news spreaders are not being asked to rate fake news as fake. They are being asked to decide for themselves if carefully selected news is fake or real. The selection process discards partisan topics so there is a chance the fake news spreader will make a reasoned decision instead of an emotional response. The selection process also includes real news.
The intention is to get the fake news spreader to firstly consider the possibility that some news could be fake and secondly to care about whether the news they are spreading is fake or real. The study shows some promise but does not handle all the possibilities. Some people knowingly spread fake news simply to get likes or up votes or to show they are a part of the a particular flock.
This may seem like insanity but there are places where social inclusion depends on donating to the dominant religion and publicly disapproving of people who do not. It is why some people drive a different state to buy a COVID vaccination and then loudly refuse the free local vaccination.
Re: Getting people to read is difficult too
I understand that but the fake news spreader is going to spread it if they think it's real and report it as real so it defeats the purpose. The fact they are going to spread it anyway means they don't consider it to be fake in the first place. People are difficult to understand sometimes. I think it's a lack of critical thinking and most importantly common sense. I'm not perfect but I always verify news myself by using multiple sources.
Re: Getting people to read is difficult too
I think that the article was pointing out that most people share these social media posts without stopping to think whether they're fake or not. When they're prompted to consider whether a random headline or post is fake or not, they begin thinking before sharing other posts.
I don't think this solution is designed to completely remove fake news, or to not be gamed at all. I think it's more designed to help modify people's behaviour by giving them a gentle nudge.
You can't drag a horse anywhere, but you can gently steer it.
Fine until...
People will start to rate messages from bbc.co.uk, .police.uk and .gov.uk as fake news.
Re: Fine until...
People will start to rate messages from bbc.co.uk, .police.uk and .gov.uk as fake news.
Well, to be fair, the latter one has been getting less accurate since the early eighties, the middle one has been iffy on and off and the former isn't what it once was either.
Re: Fine until...
You don't class them as fake news sometimes? I'm not talking covid btw but some of the stuff they say is tenuous to say the least. The BBC during the last election was appallingly biased. Gov.uk loves to play with statistics and police.uk want to get paid to go out for drinks while spying on unsuspecting plebs.
Nothing new today
"False opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doing." - Joseph de Maistre (about 200 years ago)
'Fake News' is news the Establishment disapproves of; and a gateway to Censorship
When old Trump initiated the term 'Fake News' it merely meant whatever he disagreed with; and then his opponents use it regarding his effusions.
All any of them want to do is control the message and control the common people.
.
There are many --- MANY things and statements I disagree with [ from the slanders about Edward II, to the Baby in the Warming-Pan, to the modern era from all ( both ) the major parties in each state ] but whilst I would have been, and still should be, delighted if the utterers were strung up, I am not capable of deciding which statements should be 'allowed' and which on an abstract level are 'true'; and which should be suppressed to the common man.
It is extraordinary that the proponents of alleged democracy don't simply trust the judgement of the masses. I don't, but then I don't believe in such a thing as desirable: they are devout believers in the Wisdom of the Peeple. If they want the ordinary person to be in charge of state policy, en masse , then they must accept that he and she are capable of discerning truth from falsehood and right from wrong, infallibly.
.
Does it matter if some people believe lies ? 'Twas ever thus.
As with the Stasi tracking from the US State, and others; and War on Whistle-blowers, this is just another way to effect Bolshevik total thought-control in a way the Bolsheviks [ and Nazis ] could only envy helplessly.
Remind me again of the difference between the tabloids and Twitter...
People get paid to write for the tabloids.
We need
A Ministry of Truth
Its obvious why people share fake news
If it fits their political biases, then it very likely fits the political biases of the majority of their followers. So they get "likes" from it. Most people only post/share things in pursuit of likes.
If Facebook hid the number of likes/etc. from everyone from the person who made the post, so it wasn't seen as some sort of junior high popularity contest, I'll bet a lot less crap would be shared. But that would destroy Facebook's business model, they want people addicted to the drug of getting "likes" and having their friends see how many they get.
Unfortunately EL Reg is guilty of showing the number of thumbs up or down on the comments section which is very similar to FB likes and perhaps this encourages some people to tailor their responses to fit in with what others have written for fear of getting down voted?
Personally though I write how I feel on a subject and if others don't agree then that their right to do so, but is it necessary for that to be recorded publicly with the number of thumbs up/down next to it?
"Although misinformation is nothing new, the topic gained prominence in 2016 after the US Presidential Election and the UK's Brexit referendum, during which entirely fabricated stories (presented as legitimate news) received wide distribution via social media,"
Yes, entirely fabricated stories presented as legitimate news happened well before that in whatever paper BoJo was writing for at the time.