Fake news menace: Blame yourself, not Facebook or the rest of social media

Among the few things I’ve been pondering over the past couple of months is the recent spurt of stories around fake news online . It all began when the United States elected Donald Trump as its 45th President. As the world looked closely to details around counting, we were surprised at the momentum that Donald Trump was gaining.

Admittedly, a lot of us were confused at the outcome. All the analysts and popular media that mattered predicted  a Hillary win. We were so conditioned to believe social sentiment was a reflection of popular sentiment. But we were all proved wrong. And how.

A few quick laughs don’t hurt

Since I’m a part of Firstpost, and in the business of news, I like to take a break and read some lighter updates. I read Faking News (Disclosure: Tech2, Firstpost and Faking News are a part of Network18). And I enjoy a good laugh. I also read The Onion . Humour is good for life. You need to have a few quick laughs. The more, the merrier. What I’m really emphasising here, is the distinction between humour, parody, media and analyses needs to be clear. Take the case of Twitter, for instance. We all have our favourite stars, and we also enjoy reading a funny take on personalities. To give a more relevant example from technology. There’s Sir Jony Ive. The guy who’s responsible for product design at Apple. I’ve not been able to find him on Twitter. But I do manage to laugh at the tweet updates by @JonyIveParody . What I’m absolutely sure of is not to mix the two. But there may be a few who do tie in what is seen published from parody accounts and think it’s real.

Not long ago, a Faking News article was on Facebook trends, casting doubts on the efficiency of the algorithm used by Facebook. Soon, it blew into a huge discussion on social media.

Reality and fantasy isn’t the same

To you it may be obvious, but it isn’t true for the larger online audience. As individuals, consumers of content, and as users of social media, we need to push the world forward with a rational sense. We may continue to overlay it with our own prejudices, and experiences, but we must base our opinions on deeply rooted facts.

To quickly clarify, if you think fake news is funny news, well, no it isn’t. What does stand out though is malicious intent. Or the selfish motive of exploiting naivety across millions of online netizens to consume whatever content is thrown at them to earn much more in the form of advertising revenue.

What we need is sense of discernment that serves as our barometer in what’s true credibility and what isn’t. It could be encouraging to see how many Indians currently have a deep sense of awareness around economics at a macroeconomic level. And a domineering command over the cash and credit markets. The impact on bullion and the future looking prospects of the Indian economy. Only, most of the opinions out there are based on an emotional outburst, rather than facts or analyses.

What happened to credibility? Loud news anchors riling up emotions. Excited journalists getting carried away by online sensation, and social media pranks. I remember seeing a video of a few journalists talking about the new Rs 500 and Rs 2000 notes. There was a hoax about a unique passive GPS chip. The hoax claimed that even if buried 200 feet deep, it could still transmit the location of the note. Besides, it could track who received the note from you and where it went on further. This is where I need to take a deep breath.

If journalists are supposed to present the story, then it needs to be based on facts. There may be multiple sides to the story, and there could be multiple stories around each news development. But when the source is based on a hoax, then it’s deplorable.

The uninformed fall prey. Popular appeal, especially viral content, could impact users so heavily that touts could exploit people to make a quick buck. What do you do when the result is a handheld device, like a wallet that shields currency notes from transmitting your location? You and I may know this doesn’t exist. Moreover, it’s not needed. But who’s responsible for the mess it’s created? It helps to be informed.

The options for regulations aren’t in the best interests of freedom. If an ombudsman deals with the credibility of news sources, it gains the privilege to ensure facts are reported. But in a multi-polar world, you stand to put people against people, views against views. Although it seems like the best possibility in an ideal world, it also does pose the risk of corrupting social peace if not reducing the average IQ levels of people around us.

Coming back to the problem of fake news. Here’s a piece in the New York Times that sheds some light on the menace of fake news . It’s all about the money. As long as content is going viral, as long as millions view content on the website, the implications are immaterial. But they are. When they begin to influence elections, policy, law and order and peace in society. The Internet is democratic, and must be. We’ve had several attempts at curbing that freedom. What is needed is due diligence before sharing random posts on our social media profiles.