The key challenges raised by algorithms on Google, Facebook and Twitter: How do they facilitate the spread of fake news, polarization and critical debate?
With the growth of the internet, online portals such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google and so on, have become a great source of spreading information among people. According to Statistica, the online source for statistics, the number of users online was calculated to be 3.39 billion users, compared to a world population of about 7 billion. The large number of people sharing and receiving information are also giving way to the opportunity to share a lot of information that is considered incorrect or false, especially if the matter revolves around nations, religion, social and health beliefs. In the US alone, 6 out of 10 online users receive their information from social media and online databanks (google, yahoo etc…) (Gottfried & Shearer, 2016). According to Will Moy, director of Full Fact, people are most likely to assume they are being lied to but are less quick to assume that people within their circle are lying to them (Grey, 2017). With that being said, the spread of fake news online is more likely to be accepted if it comes from a person you know and trust. The ethics of spreading fake news on online portals has always been a matter of debate, especially as the online world is evolving. Some argue that online sources are open sources for everyone and the spread of fake news is most likely to happen, while others believe that online databases are influenced by algorithms that can protect people from fake news. The aim of this paper is to point out the algorithms in several online portals in counter attacking the spread of fake news. A lot of examples will be demonstrated to draw out the basis behind fake news, the algorithms used in open source online portals and the effects portrayed behind it.
the left, is an article posted by National Report in the United States of America prior to the US presidential elections. The article targets Hilary Clinton, a runner up for the presidential elections, in an attempt to affect the voter turn over for Clinton. The publication has led to an enormous debate especially that Clinton stands far from Marijuana legalization. Hilary’s stance also comes in difference with the democratic voters who are with Marijuana Legalization. (Lopez, 2015). The time frame of this article pushed and peaked its appearance on social media, and circulated among many during early voting stages of the US presidential elections. The sole reason of this article is to affect voter turnover during the early stages of the US presidential voting and affects the running candidates for round two. By searching Facebook alone, the number of people who solely posted this article is noteworthy. The sharing of this article comes with counter claims by the republican parties and supporters of other presidential candidates as appeared directly on the news feed (demonstrated to your right). The work posted mainly was targeted by individuals (supporters, campaign runners and many more). On the wide scale, such news wasn’t really reflected by other online news sites and portals, as news sites tend to be the first to claim news and deflect away if they didn’t. Mixed opinions were revealed behind this article, but mostly were of personal background.
This article however, is fake news. The National Report advertises itself as “America’s Number One News Source”, set up by Allen Montgomery. The National Report is one of many fake news websites that appear in search engines, and imitate real newspapers and news agencies and mainly targets political figures and social concepts. The article, let alone of many articles, alone recorded a high spike on google, and then followed clicks from Facebook to Twitter posts (Thomson, 2016). There are several portals that share the same quality of sharing fake news. One of the many questions asked here is why? The answer is simple: these sites feed on clicks from social media shares and search engines peaks. In mass communication, this results in a major response by the people accepting this information and cause a controversy among them. The moral and ethics behind this is that fake news is a result of open source online outlets that are not closely monitored to counter attack such inputs. The findings above as well as many demonstrated later in this paper shows the keys challenges rising from fake news spread and the outcomes branching from it.
The internet being an online portal for everyone, gives away the idea that anything can be posted online. Anyone can start a website with few clicks and start posting information regardless of what information it is. However, like everything else, the internet has its taboo, and there are many laws and regulations that are enact to protect the consumer using the internet. The international law of Journalists and Newsrooms gives away some regulations that are put in place to modify the way people work online. Such laws call for prohibition in the abusing use of open data rights; people are exposed and are more likely to believe it when they see a news headline online. However, those advocates of fake news don’t come majorly from fake news outlets, but from the people who are interacting online. This brings in the freedom of speech theory and questions such as those of what cannot be put online become absolute. According to an article posted on the foreign policy, Suzanne Nossel explains that in usual cases free expression advocacy centers on the defense of the ideas claimed and tries to eliminate any forms of suppression, and free speech should be a question of finding out the truth regardless of what the content of the claim is (Nossel, 2017). Another article posted by Vox’s author Brain Resnick states that online sources are more likely to give you what you want to hear and impress you at first, before digging into a real world of ideas and facts (Resnick, 2017). However, like the freedom of speech, people have the right to choose what they see is correct. It might sound hard to start with, but it’s true. People have the right of receive and send out information. “Both the First Amendment and international law define free speech to include the right to receive and impart information,” states Nossel in an attempt to balance both sides of the issue. But the question here is that at what rate does each one follow? Can the freedom to release amounts of information be equal to the rate of those being received? The answer here is not clear, for it varies from one issue to the other. The concept behind this is to see who’s getting a better benefit and who isn’t. Fake news is usually politically driven and is most likely to be questioned by many. An article posted in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research shows that, politically driven fake news are usually easily debunked and are placed there for humor (Brewer, Young, & Morreale, 2013). There clear understanding of what is the real purpose here is merely exposure, and in return you have a curious receiver who wants to know more and can’t block them from knowing more.
The harms verses benefits here can’t be easily calculated. There are many external factors affecting the receivers and at the same time those emitting such information. According to Aidan White an editor of the Ethics in the News, the people are living in a post truth era. This means that people are more likely to know the truth now because they are exposed to a large number of data, thus their resources are not limited (White, 2017). People are not restricted and are open to a large number of outlets to get credible data from. Also, people have the right to assign credible sources, disregarding the number of online sources available. Counter measures have risen to help people deal with fake news. For example, Snopes is an online credible source for debunking fake news, which makes people more aware of the information they receive. The weight of the benefit VS the cost of spreading fake news is not related to the fact that fake news spreading is wrong, but to the fact that people are connected to the internet and “will receive information regardless” (White, 2017).
All in all, as the online realm expands and gets easier to access, so does the number of people using the internet. Whether connected on a smart phone or on the laptop, people will receive information and will have to do a proactive role of judging whether to believe or not. Fake news will spread widely and the context will get even more intense with new world politics. The key portals are trying to as much as they can to monitor the data entering, but this is a job well underestimated, it needs time and a lot of effort. The ethical challenges debated in this research has demonstrated the theory of fake news verses online portals. The results were note-worthy and the call for more extensive research is called upon.
References
Brewer, P., Young, D., & Morreale, M. (2013). The Impact of Real News about “Fake News”: Intertextual Processes and Political Satire . Retrieved from Oxford Academic: IJPOR: https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article-abstract/25/3/323/786961
Gottfried, J., & Shearer, E. (2016, May 26). News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016. Retrieved from Pew Research Center: Journalism and Media: http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/
Grey, R. (2017, March 1). Lies, Propaganda and Fake News: A Challenge for our Age. Retrieved from Future Now: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170301-lies-propaganda-and-fake-news-a-grand-challenge-of-our-age
Lopez, G. (2015, June 13). Democratic voters love marijuana legalization. Hillary Clinton doesn’t. Retrieved from VOX: https://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8393495/hillary-clinton-marijuana-legalization
Nossel, S. (2017, October 12). The Pro-Free Speech Way to Fight Fake News. Retrieved from Foreign Policy: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/10/12/the-pro-free-speech-way-to-fight-fake-news/
Resnick, B. (2017, October 31). The science behind why fake news is so hard to wipe out. Retrieved from VOX: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/10/5/16410912/illusory-truth-fake-news-las-vegas-google-facebook
Thomson, J. (2016). Fake News Virus Wide Spread. The BBC Journal, 13–14.
White, A. (2017). Post Truth Era of Fake News. Retrieved from Ethical Journalism Network: http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/resources/publications/ethics-in-the-news/fake-news
