After the alarm the publishing of fake news by Facebook has caused, ranging from death hoaxes about Tiger Woods to lies regarding the US presidential candidates, it's now being put into question whether they should actually be the ones drawing the line as to the news that is being published. This has been brought about with it now being asked whether we'd 'be revolted if one company owned all the newsstands and decided what was proper and improper reading fare.' Problems with these stories on Facebook crop up firstly through the fact that if a friend shares a fake article, it's presented as a standard post with the picture of the person who sent it. This presentation as a 'standard post' entail it having the top image, headline, and sometimes an introductory paragraph. This unified presentation essentially 'average(s) out' the credibility of all stories on the site, which only particularly attentive readers being able to identify giveaways as to them being fake. The 'like, share and comment' buttons all help to make the story circulate even further as the Facebook algorithm values engagement as justification for showing it to more people. All of this has been done in a way that readers are sure to return to the social network and engage with the content on it which inadvertently will lead to them clicking on adverts which helps Facebook as an institution - ad revenue.
- Over the course of the 10 months leading up to the election, the top 20 fake news articles being shared on Facebook skyrocketed from 3 million “shares, reactions, and comments” to nearly 9 million, while mainstream media articles declined from 12 million shares, reactions, and comments in February to just 7.3 million by Election Day
It''s suggested by the writer of this article, that the most effective way for Facebook to deal with this whole situation is 'de-emphasise who shared a story into your timeline, instead branding it with the logo and name of the publication itself, and encourage readers to, well, read, before or instead of liking, sharing and commenting.' This appears to be a particularly useful way of lessening the circulation of fake news that occurs since it means that Facebook don't get the power of as well as presenting users with stories, also determining which ones are 'proper and improper reading.' Regardless of whether Facebook adopt this specific scheme or not, they are going to have to do something to stop the slander it's now being to receive as a social network.
No comments:
Post a Comment