Fake News

Last week some real news came out about fake news.  A recent study at MIT using Twitter data from 2006 to 2017 found some surprising and somewhat shocking results – and should be of interest to anyone that believes critical thinking is not a necessary part of everyday life.  “False news reached more people than the truth; the top 1% of false news cascades diffused to between 1000 and 100,000 people, whereas the truth rarely diffused to more than 1000 people. Falsehood also diffused faster than the truth.”

The Washington Post reports:  “In a statistical model that kept variables like Twitter followers and account age equal, falsehoods were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than the truth. The study authors hypothesized that falsehoods contain more novelty than truth.”  The theory is that new and different items are more interesting or amusing than the dull, boring truth so they spread faster and farther.

Some blame the proliferation of fake news on automated computer programs, “bots” that are built with the intention of spreading rumors or pushing certain stories to go viral.  But the MIT researchers also considered this and discounted the impact of such tactics.  “Using techniques to identify bots, they determined that software-run accounts spread falsehoods and truths equally. Put another way, only human activity could explain the preferential spread of false news.”

But this report is in a sense also misleading.  The headline read: “Fake news spreads ‘farther, faster, deeper’ than truth, study finds.”  But the original study carefully avoids calling it fake news because “the term has lost all connection to the actual veracity of the information presented, rendering it meaningless for use in academic classification. [The authors] have therefore explicitly avoided the term…and instead use the more objectively verifiable terms ‘true’ or ‘false’ news.”  They distinguished between true and false by looking for a consensus of fact-checking agencies.

Both MIT and the Washington Post see no easy solution to the spread of this false information.  Twitter, Facebook and the rest can’t and shouldn’t be expected to police the Internet.  Not only would this be an infringement on free speech but also an inordinate amount of power held by a few to define truth.

Furthermore, the study does not consider the overall failure to distinguish between news and opinion as well as the frequent attempts to disguise advertising as news.

So, as I have argued many times in the past, it’s left up to the individual ability and inclination to separate fact from fiction.  Though the study focused on fears of false news affecting elections, stock market swings and reactions to terror attacks, the dangers are closer to home and more within our personal control.

We continue to be challenged by outright false or unverified claims about health and wellbeing.  Despite advances in medical science, the presence and the reach of the “snake oil salesmen” is greater than ever.  Not only outright fraudulent products but also many so-called alternative and complementary products have no scientific basis and may be dangerous, yet many Americans are devoted to them.  A majority of Americans believe GMO foods are not safe, while most scientists strongly disagree.  The battles about chlorinated drinking water and vaccinations rage on in small segments of the population.  All these erroneous beliefs are reinforced by false stories reflecting firm opinions.  The physical and financial health of individuals and societies rise and fall on the ability to show strong behavior in the dimension of critical thinking.

As I wrote just a few weeks ago (and many other times), in this modern age as we are overwhelmed by half-truths, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and sloppy reporting; critical thinking, being skeptical and doing good research from reliable sources, is more urgently needed to protect your health and your wallet.