Last semester I participated in a class wide debate on the subject of fact checking. What is fact checking? According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, fact-check is the action "of verifying the factual accuracy" of data or statements presented in any form of debate or conversation. To be specific, my class debated on the use of fact-checking for political advertisements on any and all social media platforms, with a specific interest in Facebook.
Facebook vs Representative
As a part of the argument I used the following video of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Facebook CEO Mark Zukerberg to argue that the act of fact-checking itself still has a ways to go before it should be considered an actual resource to base one's research.
As seen above one of the largest social media platform creator and monitor can not confidently confirm, deny, or answer the questions presented about fact-checking. Zuckerberg was asked about Facebook's system of fact-checking political advertisements and to what extent the act of fact-checking would be done. His answer was confusing and left no clear picture as to how Facebook actually goes about making sure that people are not targeted in any way, not given false information, and not discriminated against.
Fact Check the Fact-Checkers
This video also sparked another piece of evidence that I debated with; Who exactly fact-checks? In class I talked about how everyone has their own intention and agenda when it comes to persuasion. No one can be 100% unbiased when it comes to public conversations due to our human nature. For example, Congresswomen called into question the fact that Facebook hired the "Daily Caller, a publication, well documented with ties to white supremacists as an official fact checker for Facebook" (2:59 time stamp). To which Zuckerberg responded that Facebook does not hire whom fact-check its website's advertisements, but instead holds a third party company responsible.
Another piece of information used to prove wrong the idea that fact-checking is an all around reliable and 100% trustworthy way of researching is that there are so many sites and so little constancy. Widely popular fact-checking websites such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and Washington Post's Fact Checker do not always agree or provide consistent information on the same statement(s). To prove this, Chloe Lim, a PhD student from Stanford University wrote a paper titled Checker How Fact-checkers Check in May of 2017 that covered the plan and results of testing fact checking websites with the same information. It was discovered that out of "1065 fact-checks by PolitiFact and 240 fact-checks by The Washinton Post's Fact-Checker, there were only 70 statements that both fact-checkers checked" (Lim, pg 3).
Heres a fun fact I find very interesting. If you were to check out "Top 10 Sites to Help Students Check Their Facts" there is not only a list of 10 websites to be used to fact check, but there are also descriptions of each website! What a bonus, right? Words such as "left-leaning," "liberal," and "left-centered bias" proves that the people who run the fact-checking websites are not bias to the news they advertise and report on! So pay attention to which website you use when it comes to far right and far left professors.
So, the Issue is...
So why is this an actual issue? Why does it matter if there are false advertisements or misinformation spread around the Internet and social media for trillions and trillions of people to see? Well the problem is just that! The fact that trillions and trillions of people see it! We live in a global community and our technology has the ability to connect us with people from all across the world! Our instant-sharing social media allows for people to see new things SECONDS after its posted, and then share it with friends and followers. Think of what could happen if Person A posted false information that could ruin Person B's name, image, life, or social standing. Within minutes of sharing that false information millions of people have already seen it, shared it, liked it, and will never forget it.
So I conclude by asking you, the reader, these questions; What do you think? Should fact-checking be monitored more closely or is it fine how it is currently? Is there any information you deem as important that I didn't consider in my debate?
I think this post did a great job at explaining what fact checking means and how it can apply to a multitude of things. One of the main arguments that always interests me pertaining this idea is: who does the fact checking? As you stated, it's so important to keep in mind that no person comes 100% without their own bias towards certain ideas/topics, and I personally believe that we need to have fact checkers to all kinds of information, so then how do we decided how to fact check it all? People have brought up using AI (controversial because AI commonly pulls it's knowledge from a shared database and could easily get "infected" with a certain bias, people have discussed people to manually fact check from both sides of the bias (problematic because, like most things, opinions and bias exist on a vast scale and also humans are easily persuaded). I think it will take several trial and error periods where people who run websites, social media, and apps try out different methods and see which gives the most factual answers. Overall, I just think it's important that people acknowledge that fact checking should be monitored more closely and to always consult a multitude of sources when researching or forming your own opinions.
ReplyDeleteThis post details a very real and important topic that we face every day in our electronic-media and Internet-centered world. Some part of me is bothered by the debate of fact-checking simply because there is no clear, clean answer to be found. Since social media is still very new to us, we are still in the very early stages of trying to figure out how exactly it fits into our societies and how we can approach it in a fair, respectful, and enjoyable way. Possibly false information is just another component of social media that we have yet to figure out entirely. Personally, I believe that it is important for fact-checking to be monitored, but I also believe that there is a high amount of responsibility on the consumer to go out of their way to check these facts themselves as much as possible and form their own, independent opinions.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the detail of this post. I also really appreciate the effort to not be biased in any which way. I think we should be having our AI checking the information for us and then that would be followed up by humans to create the most possible unbiased for fact checking, there is so much data available online to the point that it should be monitored, the only issue is how much is too much. Trial and error will properly determine that and I am excited to see how this changes in the next couple of years. Personally, I will always favor doing your own research on anything you read about online and do your best to fact check it yourself.
ReplyDeleteI do think fact-checking is important, especially for content like political ads. I think that because fact-checking isn't a "science" as of yet, it is important to do your own research. One specific place that fact-checking becomes difficult is when people alter source material and present it as fact--especially when the source material was originally private. For example, people will post edited DMs with celebrities. I'm gullible, so sometimes I will believe posts like these until I check the comments and see people dissecting the screenshot in question. This situation is potentially very harmful, because if a lot of people like me see posts like these (especially those who don't think to check the comments), it can ruin someone's reputation--over something that isn't even true! Similarly, I remember a while ago, people use to edit pictures of Millie Bobby Brown and add homophobic captions to them. Most of the people who circulated these images were themselves a part of the LGBT community, and their defense was that they were just joking about it. But the celebrity in question saw the posts, and they became so popular that many people legitimately thought she was homophobic and had said the things people had edited over her photos. I feel like in that case the line of free speech had been crossed--the simple joke of sharing memes had become almost a form of impersonation. I don't see memes like that anymore, but issues like this really raise a lot of questions about comedy (which we discussed in detail today), the difficulty of fact-checking in the online world, and free speech.
ReplyDeleteThis post and the discussion in class makes it clear we live in a internet-centered world where anyone can post anything and anyone can read and believe it and that is a problem. I agree people should be able to read things on the internet without having to concern over whether it is true or not. However, I wonder if the blame of incorrect information should be put on the creature of the site. I agree the creator of Facebook is controversial and he should take responsibility for some of what happens on his website, but I also think that he could be compared to the inventor or builder of a podium or a stage. Do we hold the builder responsible for what is said at the podium or on that stage? Probably not. Perhaps we, as consumers of what is on social media, want one person to be responsible for false information being posted on their site instead of holding the person,who makes the post or ad, responsible. False information is not a new concept, there have been many books proclaiming to be telling the truth but only telling fictitious stories disguised as true events, like Marco Polo. His story was published and it seems rather unlikely his tales were true, but I have never heard of anyone ready to attack the inventor of books for allowing his story to be published. His story gives reason for a person to do their own fact checking and to take in information with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteTo my understanding, social media platforms tend to consider users' demographics and previous posts before presenting them with an advertisement, as targeted ads which consider their users are more likely to generate interest which, in one way or another, benefits the advertiser and the platform. Although advertisers promoting controversial ideas can take a "scattershot" approach to interacting with potential consumers by indiscriminately disseminating information with signs, fliers or small-scale campaigns in a real public space, they are forced to interact with social media platforms, or at least agencies working on the behalf of those platforms, when they wish to say something online. Admittedly, these platforms probably aren't too picky about who they host when advertisers are offering them money; anyone peddling goods, services, or ideas can get hosted, so long as they aren't promoting something illegal.
ReplyDeleteStill, one can assume that advertisers are going to focus their campaigns for maximum impact. As an example, let's say that there is a politician who wants to be the mayor of Muncie who has purchased 20 ads on a social media platform. Assuming that the platform hasn't automatically optimized the distribution of his ads, the candidate could choose to run a national campaign, a state-wide campaign, or a campaign localized to Muncie. Since the candidate knows that his candidacy is only relevant in Muncie, he's almost certainly going to restrict his ads to Muncie. In much the same way, he's going to have his ads target people based on their political affiliations (or at least their predicted beliefs) in order to have the highest possible chance of informing people who might vote for him. Ultimately, people are going to see what some algorithm suggests they want to see, and the algorithm is usually correct.
I appreciate this post because I have a hard time wrapping my head around the problems that go along with fact-checking. In a time when so much communication is instant, constant, and ongoing, it is impossible to keep up with all the information being spread, let alone control it. As you said, humans cannot do anything without bias. So when an average individual has a large audience, it is inevitable that the message will be influenced by their opinions. What AOC talked about in the video is happening. People can play into the algorithm and feed certain demographics misinformation. I think of the concept of the post-truth-era, and how emotional appeals are given more credence than factual evidence.
ReplyDelete