Social networks and fake news: who decides what is truth and untruth?
What to do about fake news? This is a hugely complex problem that will not be solved solely through legislation and fines to persuade social networks to eliminate hate speech. Governments that think they can solve the problem through such measures are not so much naive, as stupid.
We are facing unprecedented problems that the social networks themselves have no idea about: on the one hand, they cannot — much less should they — take on the role of arbiters of truth, censoring information based on their own criteria, which would only create more problems. Nor can they satisfy the wishes of individual governments, aside from their universal nature: what is a crime in one country isn’t in another, and free speech in one, is subject to severe punishments in another.
And then there is the question of human nature. Some countries, like the United Kingdom or Germany have a long tradition of sensationalist “journalism”: The Sun and Bild are probably the clearest exponents of which. It is human nature to seek to convert others to our cause, regardless of how extreme or sectarian it might be. And even when fake news is exposed as such by fact checkers, the people spreading malicious or false information will simply redouble their efforts, encouraging the gullible to “share this news the social networks want to censor.”
A complex problem requires complex solutions. Some people naively believe that “algorithms” can differentiate a true story from a false one, as though artificial intelligence could simply replace human intelligence overnight. True, algorithms can recognize and flag up certain distribution patterns between people with very similar profiles. They can also recognize false accounts or when they detect suspicious activity compare versions of the same news and relate them, as Google does constantly with Google News. But to establish what is true and what is not is another matter all together, particularly when we are talking about opinion. Would we really want social networks that algorithmically censor certain opinions? What would the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States have to say about that?
Social networks need to think long and hard about a complex problem that will require more than simple algorithms that cost a lot to develop and train (a field in which we will see infinite errors and false positives), but also require human editors, warning systems and peer labeling, fact-checkers and recourse to reliable journalism and verifiable sources, and above all, a lot of patience.
This is not an issue that can be solved through slapping fines on those who spread fake news: those involved range from uninformed or highly polarized people, through to the political strategies put in place with near-unlimited resources by government agencies. The Russian interference in the US elections currently being investigated by special prosecutor Mueller is not a figment of somebody’s imagination, and nor are the other accusations against the Kremlin of similar campaigns in other countries. We live in times when new and powerful forces are at work in the international geopolitical context.
Before sharing something without having read it, or doing something as human as trying to reinforce your points of view with like-minded others, or exaggerating and polarizing debate, we should bear in mind that social networks have effectively dismantled the entry barriers to manipulation, and that this is an unprecedented and complex problem that requires solutions beyond our means at the moment and that we must work with all the parties involved. It is not about fines or sanctions, but about being creative and trying to think and act with all the available means at our disposal. This is not and unsolvable problem, but without a doubt, it will take time to resolve.
(En español, aquí)
