Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report published

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/digital-culture-media-and-sport-committee/news/fake-news-report-published-17-19/

by Anon84 • 7 years ago

130 148 7 years ago

parliament.uk

Anon84• 7 years ago

PDF of the report https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmcu...

dsl• 7 years ago

   Calls for:
   Social media companies obliged to take down known sources of
   harmful content, including proven sources of disinformation

It will be interesting to see how Reddit addresses The_Donald or 8chan deals with the QAnon nonsense in the wake of this.

Edit: Feel free to disagree with the law, but you don't do that with a downvote.

sarcasmOrTears• 7 years ago

How do you prove something is disinformation? Time for a ministry of truth? I can imagine already imagine for example which version of the Convington kids case would be considered official and information.

docdeek2• 7 years ago

This is exactly right. Trusting a government to determine what is true and what is not, and enforcing that version of truth via shutting down certain speech and penalising those who speak it, is a bad idea. I’ve no problem with a government announcing that they believe something is true or false, but I have a big problem with them restricting the speech of people who happen to disagree.

pjc5012• 7 years ago

Court cases? Ultimately that's where Sandy Hook has ended up.

More seriously, if you believe that it's impossible for courts to establish truth or that they are the same thing as Party members of the elected government, you've already given up on the possibility of rule of law and arguably democracy as a whole.

abainbridge• 7 years ago

The report recommends, "tech companies assume legal liability for content identified as harmful after it has been posted by users".

If they do that, the existing laws and court system would be used decide what is disinformation, in the same they are currently applied to traditionally published media.

res0nat0r• 7 years ago

Reddit-wise I doubt nothing honestly. That subreddit has been a hateful cesspool for years now, but the community and the money/traffic it bring in for the site due to the sheer amount of traffic, and backlash from big name rightwing nutters that use it for their propaganda launchpoint is more than reddit management wants to deal with, thus it's not going anywhere.

mikeq1011013• 7 years ago

Who decides what is a "proven source of disinformation"?

The media that are currently paraded as trustworthy were all in on things like "babies out of incubators", "weapons of mass destruction", Libya, etc. And everyone who tried to go against them was smeared as conspiracy theorist.

I can not trust the media that was integral in lying about and manufacturing consent for endless wars, when they have not learned from their mistakes and are still beating their drums.

Giving the elites power to decide what is a "proven source of disinformation" sounds like a really bad idea.

lisper2• 7 years ago

Who decides what is a "proven source of disinformation"?

That question doesn't get nearly enough attention among those decrying the rise of fake news. Even the NYT occasionally gets it wrong. Does that make them a "proven source of disinformation"?

The answer is not to throw your hands in the air and concede to factual relativism. But the first step to solving this problem is to recognize that it is a very, very difficult problem.

Pimpus• 7 years ago

While the rest of Reddit was lying about Hillary's favorability, only The Donald was posting accurate polls. They've continued to be more accurate than the other subreddits, most recently with the Jussie Smolett thing. I think at this point people are willfully ignoring reality, though it's getting harder (the Russia collusion conspiracy theory is no longer cresible).

fzeroracer12• 7 years ago

Considering the amount of damage anti-vaccine hysteria and disinformation has caused, I can't say I disagree with their conclusions. If debating them with facts and logic actually worked, then we should've seen the movement fade away years ago.

It's not, and it's growing as a result of faulty search algorithms being used by people to spread conspiracy theories and fake nonsense. It's exactly why flat earth nonsense is spreading as well [1].

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/feb/17/study-blames...

alexis_fr2• 7 years ago

The media has its own disinformation. For example the wage gap « at equal work » is the biggest statistical error ever made (never were basic criteria taken into account), thousands of researchers voiced that the way the media presented it made people think women were paid less for the same work...

...and yet researchers couldn’t get their voice to be heard. Given the number of unfair laws and bylaws that were passed on the understanding that women were paid less, the wage gap has been a lie at a huge scale.

cm2187• 7 years ago

Or Cohen being told to lie to congress. Or the Covington kids. Etc. One could make a pretty convincing case against pretty much every major newspaper and TV station. Fake news is really the news published by the other side.

robbick2• 7 years ago

I regularly quote said statistic - can you link me some reliable sources supporting your claim?

cinquemb2• 7 years ago

Snippets from 2014 CFR discussion:

"…So the question I'm asking myself is can we figure out a way to accelerate the second curve of human response in a fashion -- in -- in -- in identical ways to the way DARPA accelerates the first curve of technological challenges."

"… What about Facebook? What about Twitter? I have no idea what Twitter is good for. But if it flips out every tyrant in the Middle East, I'm interested."

Funny how tools work…

wsgeorge• 7 years ago

Source on this?

cinquemb2• 7 years ago

http://web.archive.org/web/20140531073143/http://www.cfr.org...

sbhn• 7 years ago

Fake news is new media. It must be really important if google news has a special section dedicated to it on the right column where you can see it without needing to scroll down the page. The uk has the bbc to spread its agenda, mostly in favour of further colonisation and to protect its weapons supply network across the middle east , and doesnt want the competition. Fake news is actually competition that makes the ‘real’ news try harder.

growlist3• 7 years ago

further colonisation

What? UK has been de-colonising for decades. Other former colonial powers held on much harder, e.g. France.

MaysonL• 7 years ago

Medical disinformation often rises to the top of search results:

https://www.wired.com/story/the-complexity-of-simply-searchi...

hamilyon2• 7 years ago

I found something like this when searched for antibiotic resistance in russian.

Mainstream, 70-years old boring truth is not the top result. Top result is fringe controversial study, that is reported all over recent news. This is so frustrating.

Const-me2• 7 years ago

What did you expect? Antibiotic resistance is a new phenomenon. There's no science in modern Russia, and good sources on the subject like "The Lancet" and NIH's pubmed are in English.

BorRagnarok2• 7 years ago

I think censoring the "fake news" is far more dangerous than to just let it exist and have people think for themselves about what's true or false.

stuartaxelowen• 7 years ago

Why?

AstralStorm3• 7 years ago

Fake news is known only after the fact. (After verification.)

If you can accept only really verifiably sourced news, things become really inconvenient for both journalists and political opposition.

And where do you put the bar? No interpretation allowed dry facts? Court rulings?

justwalt• 7 years ago

I’d guess he’d answer that it’s hard to be sure the people verifying the news are not just censoring what they don’t like.

michaelt• 7 years ago

There is a theory that says people will be inoculated against fake news, if only they're exposed to enough of it. That critical thinking skills, like immune systems and website security, are made strong by unrelenting attacks.

After all, it's unlikely we'll ever see a day where everyone agrees on everything so completely that no two humans disagree about anything! And as long as that's the case, we'd better know how to deal with people telling us things that are wrong.

The theory goes that seeing social media messages with obvious lies like "Put nails in your tyres for better winter traction" and "Shoot yourself with small calibre bullets to build an immunity to larger bullets" teaches people scepticism and rational thought they can apply to much more complex statements like "inflation is caused by the fed printing money" and "the highest crime areas are those with a lot of immigrants"

Does it work? Have we seen it working hitherto? You be the judge!

frereubu6• 7 years ago

Just set a high bar. There are cases where the science is settled - vaccines, for example - where the spread of false information is already leading to direct harm such as a higher rate of measles outbreaks. I think people are too scared of decisions like this. It just doesn't feel complicated. There are laws that control speech - fraud, libel and so on. Why is this any different?

BorRagnarok2• 7 years ago

Good example, but I still think it's better to have conflicting information out there, let people write what they write and read what they read. And above all, think for themselves, or at least try. Sure, a couple of people end up not vaccinating their kids. The rest shouldn't have a problem with that, after all, they do vaccinate, so their kids are protected. It's an extreme example but I don't see anything that warrants curtailing free speech here.

And also, I think science is never settled. Science is a never ending stream of questions, with every answer evoking multiple new questions to be answered. The idea that the "science is settled" has reared it's ugly head multiple times in the past, to be proven wrong every single time. What if bloodletting was as some point considered "settled science" and no discussion of alternatives was allowed? We would still be doing bloodletting, wouldn't we?

frereubu6• 7 years ago

Interested by the downvotes here. Genuine question - are people OK with anti-vaccine content being displayed unchecked? Or is it more a reaction to "doesn't feel complicated," which I can understand might feel like it's minimising an ethically fraught issue.

tim3332• 7 years ago

It'd be hard to legally separate things like vaccines where the industry says it's ok and activists say they cause problems with things like lead in fuel where for decades the industry said it was ok and activists said it caused problems.

TomMckenny• 7 years ago

If we're not even going to flag completely false yet carefully crafted propaganda from hostile countries designed solely to wreck our democracy, then we are screwed.

And be aware that nations that censor aren't flagging a meme or two. They conspicuously hound reputable outlets and reporters into silence. And everyone living in such places knows it's happening.

They're not wringing thier hands wondering if holocaust denial is not ranked high enough by google, they talking worriedly about Maria Ressa being suddenly jailed etc.

repolfx2• 7 years ago

You have no idea if such propaganda even exists.

Here is the UK culture minister today writing about the need to control the internet because of "disinformation"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/17/era-self-reg...

But he admits that there is no evidence any foreign power has tried to target the UK via disinformation in any way.

And there is no real evidence that's been happening in the USA either. Those claims always fall apart when studied.

raverbashing2• 7 years ago

The current Measles epidemic is the result of letting people ""think for themselves""

buboard4• 7 years ago

what do you think would be the extent of it if people read "government hides the truth about vaccines"

drawkbox4• 7 years ago

The truth is the internet is teaching the biggest lesson ever in critical thinking and getting your information from many sources across spectrums, countries, divides and more to find out what is really going on.

People must think about why they are hearing about something and the layers and goals that are behind it and drive it.

Let's hope that people see these disinformation and misinformation efforts as a lesson and not somewhere they can bask in their confirmation bias all day, or make decisions based on fear, in those cases the populace is easy to manipulate, divide and conquer.

When something it too salacious or fits a narrative too perfectly, someone/group is marketing you in a direction and has you possibly in an active measure.

frereubu6• 7 years ago

"People must think about why they are hearing about something and the layers and goals that are behind it and drive it."

But do they or will they? The proliferation of flat earth videos on YouTube suggests otherwise. In a perfect world everyone would critically examine what they hear, but a lot of people just feed their existing biases.

(To be clear, I'm not suggesting that flat earth videos are banned because they seem harmless, if stupid. Anti-vaccine content, on the other hand, needs some additional context at the very minimum.)

drawkbox4• 7 years ago

It is a hard problem.

The answer is it will never fully be solved but if there is enough competing information and facts are out there, you might just get most of the people to hold down the fort.

There will always be people fooled by disinformation/misinformation and everyone probably has been fooled by some, even highly skilled intel agents that purposefully look for it and have access to more info.

As long as most people can differentiate fake/real fact/fiction/bias then we are good.

I do think it is better to have this information out to be fought, when you hide it, critical thinking skills aren't improved over time, and we become more susceptible to it.

We need to solve it before AI and neural networks target and learn about each one of us, and where we are gullible or biased. Some of the disinformation/misinformation/fake news out there is already algorithm driven and when it can be tuned to each individual's psychology that is when it gets scary. Already these networks are grouping people in smaller and smaller target groups and the result is highly effective.

Education and critical thinking is the only way, people need to challenge all authority and all information, especially after emergencies/disasters/shock/attacks as that is when the hoards emerge the most.

pjc5012• 7 years ago

I think one of the lessons of the history "accelerate the contradictions" ( http://acceleratethecontradictions.blogspot.com/2010/04/acce... ) is that putting the public in a situation where they have to improve lest there be a huge disaster, is a good way to get a huge disaster.

dandare• 7 years ago

Especially when the change must happen quickly (in this case in terms of years)

dredmorbius• 7 years ago

All the children cannot be above average.

Gokenstein• 7 years ago

Funny, I thought the lesson here is that if you take away the barriers to the entry, all regulation, most of the financial burden, and provide nearly complete anonymity for disseminating news and information then foreign state actors will abuse it.

I can point my finger at the problems above. I can clearly articulate the problems above. I can even propose some clear and limited solutions to those problems.

But there are monied and powerful interests who do not want to solve those problems. So we will end up blaming "stupid people" or give a "blank check" of regulatory authority that ends up being abused to line the pockets of bureaucrats who will craft laws that damage free speech and the rights of common people.

Before we go start a class war about educating the unwashed masses, or create a new "TSA for the internet" let's just stop and think about how this problem has been solved reasonably for "old media" without hampering free speech or redesigning school curriculum across the globe.

joesb• 7 years ago

People must think about why they are hearing about something and the layers and goals that are behind it and drive it.

The truth can be benefitial though. So "the drive" for spreading information doesn't necessarily means the information is wrong.

matt4077• 7 years ago

People aren’t perfect. Asking for large-scale, across-the-Board improvements in critical thinking is identical to just advocating for the status quo.

It’s also destructive. People prefer their existing believes to be verified. Making „trust no one“ popular just gives them license to discount any evidence contradicting them. So Wikipedia says illegal immigration is at a 30-year low? Those numbers must be fake. Homeland Security has the same numbers? They are in it together!

And how would you, even in principle, verify anything if you trust no one? I have absolutely no proof that El Chapo has anything to do with cocaine. I can’t examine any documents from the trial myself. And even if I could, they could just be fake anyway. Who knows how big the anti-Chapo conspiracy is? The recordings may just be voice actors, and why should I trust the translator?

raxxorrax4• 7 years ago

Because people aren't perfect, I am heavily opposed to the idea of creating an authoritative institution with the task of defining truth.

Having that wouldn't magically solve the problem of climate change, this is a stupendous stupid straw man argument. On the contrary, the lack of trust would increase the number of people being more skeptical in self defense.

The status quo isn't reinforced if people are free to create and share content unrestricted. Again to the contrary, an institution defining truth tends to reinforce prevailing powers. Obviously and evidence for that is numerous.

chvid• 7 years ago

The truth is that there has always been misinformation, lies, and manipulation through media in politics.

Just look at the history of TV and radio regulation in the US and Europe. Look at how so many future leaders moved from media careers into politics.

The problem is that this time it didn't work as usual and the process had the wrong outcome (Brexit and mr. Trump). So now "we" are looking for excuses and reasons to expand government power.

willyt• 7 years ago

Do we need a trust system of some kind? Maybe journalists should be held accountable in the same way that doctors, structural engineers, architects etc. An article should be cryptographically signed by the journalist. If a journalist publishes incorrect information, report it to their professional body. Factual inaccuracies should be corrected in the reported article or the journalist should withdraw their certificate from it. Several egregious uncorrected factual innacuracies, as judged by a jury of their peers and lay people, causes a journalist to be struck off and their certificate revoked forever lableing everything they have written as questionable. Protect the word ‘News’ in law so that you can’t use it without having certified journalists writing the copy. People can still publish and read anything they want just like you are free to go to a homeopath if you want, but there would be a trust structure in place.

buboard4• 7 years ago

a blockchain trust system for reporters (i think the profession of journalist has come full circle and it's time to retire the label)

buboard4• 7 years ago

is it me or does the committee seem lazy? their report is basically a collage of NYtimes articles, which they quote as evidence , even when it is speculative

their facebook emails 'evidence' isn t particularly related to their conclusions either. i mean facebook has been treating its small publishers unfairly since the age of zynga, just search facebook's forum to find developers actively calling them out. it's not really related to disinformation.

i would expect a little more work based on their own secret services about the extent of russian trolling in their own referendum.most of all i would expect at least some evidence that these campaigns can change people's opinion. not liking an electoral outcome cannot be used as evidence that they were effective

that said, i do hope they ban political advertising to death, because the ones who benefit from it are the politicians who write this report themselves. however, regulating the truth? i thought george orwell was british

ImaCake• 7 years ago

I strongly disagree with your claim that the report is lazy and doesn't use many resources outside the NYTimes.

A quick skim through sections on the report reveals extensive collaboration and referencing of material from other think tanks, committees, and companies. The sources are eclectic and varied, but I feel they are very relevant to this particular topic. I particularly note this comment from the report:

"This Final Report is the accumulation of many months of collaboration with other countries, organisations, parliamentarians and individuals from around the world. In total, the Committee held 23 oral evidence sessions, received over 170 written submissions, heard evidence from 73 witnesses, asking over 4,350 questions at these hearings, and had many exchanges of public and private correspondence with individuals and organisations."

This report strikes a serious and alarming tone, which is appropriate. We can only hope that our democracies can organise themselves to combat this threat effectively, and without destroying press freedom in the process.

pjc5012• 7 years ago

basically a collage of NYtimes articles

This is such an inaccurate statement that I'm tempted to joke about it being fake news.

This report is about as serious as it gets in terms of professional investigations. There's almost 100 pieces of written evidence and they called a number of witnesses to give primary evidence (famously including Zuckerberg who refused to show up). Where they have referred to the NYT, it is properly cited in the footnotes. Eight of the 349 footnotes refer to the NYT. Care to retract your accusation of laziness?

ban political advertising to death

It largely is, in the UK. Certainly by American standards of "free speech". There's one huge exception: Facebook adverts were unregulated...

buboard4• 7 years ago

i was actually expecting something more related to the UK and brexit. Particularly, evidence that misinformation can change or has changed the minds of people regarding the EU, or brexit in general . Instead this seems to be a hodgepodge of well know information about facebook and cambridge analytiuca and the US elections. they use some very speculative quotes from nytimes such as this

allegedly to spread anti-semitic information about George Soros and his campaigning activities, afer Mr Soros called Facebook “a menace to society” in early 2018.

and some very spurious data such as this

is interesting to note that, as of 30 November 2018, the online Government response to our Report received a total of 1,290 unique page views and the PDF has been visited 396 unique times from the website.265 In the month following its publication, over 63% of views of the report online were from foreign IP addresses (whereas, on average, 80% of viewers of Reports are UK-based), and of these, over half were from Russia

in which they seem to be downgrading russian interference to spam bots. Their own conclusion with regards to interference in UK elections is that "Te Government should be conducting analysis to understand the extent of Russian targeting of voters during elections". i.e. "we don't know"

that said i m not disputing the accuracy of what is stated. it's just not enough, and not surprising at all

lbj• 7 years ago

Compulsory Code of Ethics for tech companies overseen by independent regulator

I would have loved to see strong moves in favor of critical thinking, rational argumentation, scientific analysis/study.

The suggested actions will leave us with a government that dictates what it believes is good ethics and penalizes everyone who does not agree - Not quite the opposite of what I'd hope for, but its scarily close.

raxxorrax4• 7 years ago

As a European I would be strongly in favor of the UK leaving the union as fast as possible if anything of that kind gets implemented.

pjc5012• 7 years ago

The UK is currently subject to less of this kind of regulation than several other European countries.

yunruse• 7 years ago

The problem is and always will be that truth is tricky to define, and “blocking fake news” is immensely easy to exploit for nefarious purposes.

Perhaps the better solution here is not to try to block the flood but to manipulate it by using market incentives. Notice how high-quality journalism tends (again, quite subjective) towards subscriptions and sponsorships, as users will actively want to participate whereas lower-effort content has to lean heavily on black-box advertising networks. This could be solved with a few changes: tax advertising a lot more, and use these funds to subsidise subscriptions and sponsorships in media.

AlexTWithBeard4• 7 years ago

The problem is not fake news. The problem is extremely biased news.

Is everything Trump does is great? Hell, no.

Is everything Trump does is stupid? Probably not either.

But will hardly ever hear from CNN that "actually, Trump's idea here was good, let's give him a credit".

Same goes the other way round.

Disinformation and ‘fake news’: Final Report published

Related Stories