New algorithms can help, but a skeptical attitude on the part of readers is the best weapon
Pope Francis expressed support for Donald Trump's candidacy for the presidency and shocked the world." "The FBI agent suspected of leaking Hillary Clinton's emails has been found dead; It is suspected that he was murdered or committed suicide." "Radio Broadcaster Reveals Deviations From Michelle Obama's Past After Slandering Trump." These headlines are not taken from The New York Times or CNN. They were probably written by teenagers in Macedonia. These fake news stories were written approxBaits whose purpose is to attract fake news websites, where teenagers from the Balkans earn money by selling advertisements.
And if the elections held in the USA in the fall of 2016 will be remembered in history as elections with theunexpected results, the spread of the phenomenon of fake news is part of these results. They were widely circulated on Twitter and Facebook. In fact, the 20 most popular fake news on Facebook attracted more clicks than the 20 most popular real news. The fake news also fueled an ugly online war between supporters of the various contestants. But worst of all is that they may have influenced the election results. It is worth remembering that Facebook is the channel through which 44% of American adults consume their news.
Fake news is not a subject we would expect to have much controversy about. Don't we all agree that something as important as the presidential elections should be based on truths. So can't we just ask Facebook and Twitter to block fake news?
You can ask, but these social networks can't do that. The problem is not technological but philosophical. "Identifying the 'truth' is a complex thing," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote in response to the fake news phenomenon. "There are scams that can be completely refuted, but there is a larger amount of content, including from accepted sources, where the basic idea is correct, but some of the details are wrong or missing, and an even larger number of news items contain opinions that many do not agree with, and therefore they They are reported as false even when the news is factually correct."
Yes, it was clear that the headline about the Pope was fake. But what about rumors and gossip stories? How can anyone know if such things are true? And what about satirical news like the news on the website The Onion or the satirical articles of Andy BorowitzIn the magazine "The New Yorker"? Neither these nor these are attempts to mislead the readers, but sometimes they are mistakenly distributed as factual, by people who apparently suffer from... humorless disorder.
When fake news hit the headlines, Google and Facebook stopped their advertising business with the fake news sites, ending the incentive for young Macedonians to run such sites.
And despite the early words of Mark Zuckerberg, who claimed that "it is very unlikely that scams and pranks changed the results of the last election," Facebook is now taking additional steps to combat the problem. Among other things, it is creating simpler ways to report fake news, and it is also testing the possibility of adding a warning sign to news classified by readers as fake.
but there is a problem. Remember what happened when news sites allowed users to adjust the news pages to their preferences (for example on sites like Google News) and see only the news that matched their interests? When it started, there were those who feared that as a result, we would never be exposed to the kind of news that we used to come across randomly, for example while flipping through a newspaper.
On Facebook, this problem is twice as big. on social media sites אנחנו The ones who decide who are the people we want to read their posts. On Facebook these people are called friends; On Twitter these are the people we choose to follow. On both sites we follow people who think like us and whose opinions we prefer. In other words, we no longer choose the Topics about which we want to read but which view About the topics in the news we want to see. This creates a situation where we repeatedly hear only our opinions. We build ourselves an echo chamber.
This situation helps to understand the problem inherent in the approach according to which one should "let the community decide" how to filter questionable news. Every time in our echo chamber someone marks news as fake, in the parallel universe of the opposite camp someone marks it as real.
If there are ever another presidential election, we must prepare for fake news to continue to be a part of reality. But three things will be different, and all of them are hopeful. First, Facebook and Google will eliminate the possibility for fake news sites to rake in profits from advertisements and thus eliminate one of the incentives to advertise them. Second, the policies and algorithms that Facebook is planning will filter out at least some of the intentionally spread false news.
But more than that, in the next elections we are expected to be more cynical. After experiencing the first elections held in the shadow of fake news, and after four years of talking about them, maybe next time we will approach the elections with a sharper discernment.
19 תגובות
'The hysteria surrounding global warming is an attempt to market the failed ideas of communism in a different wrapper.'
1) Straw man. This is not hysteria. Only the stupid right tries to present the scientists' position as hysteria in order to lie to the public. The things the scientists are saying are very clear and consistent with the evidence they encounter. Whoever chooses instead of looking at their words to focus on other places in order to create a false representation of their position in order to mock it and serve the goals of interested parties who mainly care about their pockets puts himself in a wrong position.
2) How stupid does one have to be to get from climate science to marketing communism in a different wrapper? This is nothing more than intimidation by a stupid right-wing divorcée who thinks he can buy idiots by scaring them of the communists waiting for them around the corner. Are you really going to let them buy you so easily a simple account?
Simple account
The inventor of a drug that cures cancer also got rich (he made billions). So does that mean there is no cancer?
Simple account
Let's take it slow. Are you claiming there is no warming?
And all this so that the oil gods have more time to make money.
After all, most people have no benefit from warming up.
And that there were those who said nonsense, that doesn't mean anything. Science brings decisive proofs, and they are contrary to what you wrote.
my father
Indeed, what will happen to our children and grandchildren?
The goal of the politicians and the mega-rich who encourage them in inflating the pseudo-scientific bubble called global warming is to establish their position at the top and control and humiliate the masses.
At the end of the day, the hysteria surrounding global warming is an attempt to market the failed ideas of communism in a different guise.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/11/watermelon-climate-debate
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/6496196/Al-Gore-profiting-from-climate-change-agenda.html
Simple account
Let's address what you wrote
49 scientists….
23 of which are management personnel
8 astronauts
7 engineers
5 technicians
4 mathematicians/scientists who are not involved in the field.
That pretty much explains why what they wrote is just plain wrong, right?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-climate-denialist-letter.html
for miracles,
The last check from the oil companies didn't include champagne reimbursement so I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
Instead, please refer to the 49 former NASA employees who sent a letter about global warming.
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
Simple account
Maybe you haven't noticed... but the climate is indeed changing, and for the worse. But don't let the facts confuse you. Continue to be a city, your children and grandchildren will thank you!
Simple account
Sorry, I didn't understand you. You didn't mention that you are a climate expert. and also for biology. And also for paleontology.
I am honored to speak with you.
It's good to hear from you that the experts at NASA, Stanford, MIT and all the other research institutes in the world are a collection of charlatans.
Wow, I can't believe how you got on me so fast.
The truth is that the oil companies pay me millions of dollars to write comments on a site with let's say 100 visitors a day (and I'm optimistic...)
I'm actually writing this comment from my private helicopter while sipping champagne.
Beyond that, the disqualifier in Momo disqualifies.
You don't know basic climate concepts, you didn't really understand what I was saying and you are spewing propaganda that you probably never really understood.
You can read about climate control processes at the following link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback
* Regarding your "refutation".
I do not claim that the plants will eat all the PAD fast enough and its concentration will return to some equilibrium value.
It is easy to see from the graph that this is not the case.
I claim that the change in temperature as a result of the PADF elevator is limited because the plants will be more confused and lower the temperature back.
* After you study the subject of climate control you may understand what I mean when I say that common sense is enough to understand that the feedback is negative and therefore there is nothing to fear from climate change.
* Catastrophes have happened as a result of asteroid impacts, volcanic activity, or maybe even strong radiation from supernovae, but no catastrophe has happened in the past as a result of high carbon dioxide concentration. Humans will survive, plants will thrive and animals will adapt.
Simple account
It is very easy to disprove your claim about the plant. One way to show this is the fact that the concentration of PAD in the air is constantly increasing. Not only do we know that the concentration has increased, we also know the source of this FDF (the proof is simple).
I assume you are an intelligent person and I don't need to bring any further rebuttals. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is the climate system a control system? Can you explain what you mean? Factual - the climate is changing. The ice in the poles and glaciers is melting, the sea level is rising, the average temperature is rising. Again - these are facts and don't make fun of yourself and deny the measurements.
"You don't have to be a scientist"…. It's so retarded that I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You are making "scientific" claims, aren't you? 🙂
Regarding the graph you brought - life can indeed get used to extreme concentrations of gases, but it is a long process, a process called "evolution". The rate of growth of the FDF today is far beyond what it was in the past, and when there were big changes in the past then there were big extinctions.
A warming of two degrees is nothing? Do you know that during the ice age the average temperature was a total of 5 degrees less than today? Another 2 degrees and the amount of rain in the world will decrease by half, and many species in the oceans will become extinct.
I have only one question for you - how dare you bring such strong opinions with so little knowledge and understanding? Who pays you?
More comments:
for miracles,
Even if we assume that the amount of returning radiation is indeed small, this still does not mean that the Earth has warmed significantly because, as mentioned, the climate system is a control system and therefore resists change.
And even if we assume that the Earth warmed up by a degree or two then it is not necessarily a problem.
to my father,
I claim that it is fake news that it has been proven that man is responsible for the warming.
State a reference from the IPCC to substantiate your claim.
for miracles,
1. This is a subtle claim, so it's a little difficult to understand it, so I'll repeat it again:
Carbon dioxide is food for plants.
For a given amount of vegetation (small or large it doesn't matter), more carbon dioxide means accelerated growth.
Indeed, the smaller the amount of precipitation in the atmosphere, the more important it is that the proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases.
2. The climate system is a control system. This is the root of the debate between the Hammists and the rationalists. The hammsites claim that the feedback is positive and therefore warming the earth will lead to catastrophe, while the rationalists claim that this is not the case.
You don't have to be a scientist to at least suspect that the rationalists are right, because the very fact that DNA has supported life for billions of years means that it is almost certainly not a control system with positive feedback.
to my father,
1. Carbon dioxide is not the problem of the human race.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
Look at the amplitude of the rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 500 million years. Plants would have been around all this time and mammals have existed for the last hundreds of millions of years.
A simple account. Life will thrive in high levels of carbon dioxide. The question of whether among the species that will survive will also be the person who caused this is not a hypothesis, it is proven.
The simplest, don't read left-wing streamers
Simple account
The climate system is an open system. We receive radiation from the sun and return radiation to space. In the last 40 years, satellites have proven without a doubt that the amount of radiation we return to space is significantly smaller.
Regarding the vegetation, as a skeptic explained, you are also wrong. Humans have severely reduced the amount of vegetation in the world.
The number 97 percent is also wrong. Most of the scientists who deny global warming are not scientists who understand this field.
to the doubter,
You are confusing several different things:
1. There are several layers to the belief in global warming:
A. Is the Earth warming?
B. If so, is man the main cause of this?
third. If so, is this even a problem?
d. If so, is there anything that can be done about it?
It is possible that a certain scientist believes in A and B, but not in G and D.
2. The number of climate scientists in the world is maybe 50. All the rest research tangential fields. Their opinion on global warming is as good as mine and yours. The figure of 97% was obtained from a partial review of articles in which anyone (including butterfly researchers, etc.) who did not explicitly state that he did not believe in global warming was labeled as such.
Certainly and certainly no distinction was made between the four layers I mentioned.
On top of that, fraud was discovered in the survey and in any case the opinion of most of the surveyed scientists is irrelevant and most of them earned research grants thanks to global warming so they have a personal interest to believe
in so doing.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#3a8f1e783f9
2. There is no doubt that the earth's resources should be used wisely, but it does not follow that a higher rate of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem, despite the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
In the past, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was several meters higher, but this did not prevent life from thriving.
3. For a given amount of forests in the world, we would like them to function optimally. The best way to do this is to provide them with more food, i.e., carbon dioxide.
Indeed, the fewer forests there are, the more important it is to intensify their activity by increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
4. So that they don't work on you 🙂
for simple calculation,
As far as the figure is known, it belongs to the climate scientists who research so that they are the producers of the news and not the consumers of the news,
I didn't check, but it doesn't seem like everyone is associated with only one side of the political map,
Maybe they are wrong in some basic premise, but I wouldn't associate it with fake news, which is basically based on self-deception by the news producers, it is clear that within the general text there will also be scientists who inflate data and draw conclusions beyond what is necessary if this is the general direction that man has a massive impact on the climate according to you understand
The climate is a very complex system and going out of balance can be catastrophic for humanity most of the scientists who research
Climate science believes that man has a significant contribution to climate change and the rapid rate at which it has changed,
Man has already destroyed entire ecological regions not only in the fields of climate already thousands of years ago
Huge destruction was caused by man so this is not some futuristic invention, there are countries we come to and are impressed
From their initial wild appearance and only research between different disciplines such as geological history etc... brings us results that are important to our knowledge for example Iceland one of many examples where man (the Vikings) arrived about 1000 years ago
This island was forested with about 40% tangled forests, within a few hundred years only about 1% of the forests that were there remained,
They used the forests for heating for houses for ships or just burned the trees for pasture for sheep,
The change is so significant that now that they want to reforest parts of the island there is enormous difficulty in doing so they say
On maybe 4% of forests in another hundred years, this is the intensity of the human destruction of out of evil and out of survival needs,
Just like today the destruction does not come from evil these are from our nature maximizing profits using everything with all the power possible to survive
We have not been wise enough to change the way we use the earth's resources,
An example of fake news: global warming is man-made and it endangers the continued existence of the human race and 97% of scientists believe it.
The rebuttal is that the climate system in the Earth is a stable control system if only because it has supported life for billions of years under changes such as asteroid collisions and changes in solar activity. An increase in the rate of carbon dioxide will increase the activity of vegetation on the earth, which will lead to a decrease in temperature and a return to the point of climatic equilibrium