Fake news is not something we have to accept

I think this article has some good as well as bad points.

The main bad one is that it tends towards a Nirvana fallacy : regulation won't be perfect, so (by inference) let's not do any. That is not the relevant question. The relevant question is : does regulation make things overall better or worse ? I further disagree with the strong implication that because it's very difficult to determine what's really "fake news" and what's parody and/or opinion, it's impossible to remove the worst content in a way which overall does more good than harm. Of course mistakes will be made in the process. Of course removing clickbait isn't a magic bullet. That is obvious, but the author seems convinced that's what everyone's expecting.

On the other hand :
"much of the most insidious content out there isn’t in your face. It’s not spread widely, and certainly not by people who are forwarding it to object. It’s subtle content that is factually accurate, biased in presentation and framing, and encouraging people to make dangerous conclusions that are not explicitly spelled out in the content itself."
This is a much better point. If you look at the Daily Mail, for example, although there are clearly many cases where their statements are factually inaccurate, much of the content is subtler. It's biased reporting presented as objective truth with no attempt to examine the alternative viewpoints. It's not that they confuse opinions and facts (though this is also a problem) it's that they're selective in their reporting of the facts.

Certainly, this is much harder to regulate than which results Google and Facebook prioritise with their search algorithms. I further agree that "we’re all trapped up in a larger system that’s deeply flawed." Yet I think this underestimates the extent to which the media influence our lives. It's true that, "hate will continue to breed unless you address the issues at the source" is correct, but I think that in many cases the source of that hatred is the media. No-one is born believing that foreigners are evil or that Muslims are all terrorists. They learn that through the media : in this respect the media create social ills where none would otherwise exist.
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2017/02/on-sharp-pointy-objects.html

Now, the extent to to which people are susceptible to believing in scapegoats in the first place is much harder to address. It's likely a combination of factors : strong media bias towards normalising hatred, poor education in teaching critical thinking skills, and under-regulation of capitalist policies leading to an unjust wealth increase for those at the top at the cost of hurting - literally hurting - those at the bottom. No amount of media regulation will solve this completely, but I do think it would be a good start.

Final point :
"In my head, the design imperative that we need to prioritize is clear: Develop social, technical, economic, and political structures that allow people to understand, appreciate, and bridge different viewpoints."
Yes, to a degree I think this works very well. If you have people saying, " I think we need to regulate business more strongly" as opposed to, "I think we should reduce the regulations", then bridging viewpoints works. However it does not work if one or both sides are saying, "LOCK THEM UP ! BURN ALL THE CAPITALISTS/SOCIALISTS !". "Appreciating" different viewpoints does you no good if the other viewpoint is, in fact, mad.

Rant over.



'Let’s start with a common “fix” that I’ve heard in the solutionist mindset: Force Facebook and Google to “solve” the problem by identifying “fake news” and preventing it from spreading. Though I appreciate the frustration over technology companies’ ability to mirror and magnify long-standing social dynamics, regulating or pressuring them to find a silver bullet solution isn’t going to work.'
https://backchannel.com/google-and-facebook-cant-just-make-fake-news-disappear-48f4b4e5fbe8