https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...4604&tid=ss_tw
Summary:
it's an interview with a guy who writes parody news articles and seems to make a good living out of it. I've looked at some of his articles and some of them were pretty funny. Less surreal or absurd than the average Onion article. It's also less obvious that they're jokes at first glance.
Apparently several of his articles were retweeted and forwarded by Trump supporters (including his old campaign manager Lewandowsky) as though they were actual news. The person interviewed in the article is bothered by it because the articles were intended as parodies and he's convinced he inadvertently galvanized support for Trump.
And then there's Google and Facebook which are apparently starting to take the problem serious.
To clarify: I'm not specifically talking about the US election here. On a related note, Facebook has been criticized in the Netherlands for the way their algorithms seem to provide content to people that already agrees with and reinforces their pre-existing views. I assume the criticism isn't just coming from the Netherlands since Facebook seems to have actually noticed.
So:
1) if Google and Facebook stop exposing their audience to fake news articles, would you approve? Should they try to prevent nonsense from becoming part of 'common sense'? I'm mostly thinking about malicious ones rather than (obvious) humorous ones.
2) if they don't follow through on #1, do you think governments should pressure them into doing so?
3) how many people do you suppose are really this stupid? The kind of people I'm thinking of are extremely visible on many parts of the internet. Comments sections of popular news websites come to mind. I used to think they're vastly overrepresented because loudmouthed and pushy also fits the stereotype, but now I'm less certain.
Bookmarks