Fake-News: A Different Point of View

You've probably seen numerous articles on fake news in the last nine months or so. The majority of these likely fell into one three buckets. They either 1) politicized the issue by dwelling on the hypothetical impact fake news may or may not have had on the most recent presidential election, or 2) sought to lay accountability for this phenomenon on one of a few select social media platforms, chastising them for their apparent failures to adequately sleuth out the fake news perpetrators or 3) dwelt on the motivations of those actually producing said fake-news (i.e. a mix of profit-seekers, culture warriors and malevolent nation-states). While all of these broader narratives are worth being cognizant of, very few of these articles sought to put fake news in a broader social, cultural or economic context. Even fewer sought to address what technologists, professionals, and every-day people can actually do about the problem. Almost none got to the real point: the emergence of "fake news" as a phenomenon in the public consciousness is a symptom (not a cause) of a much deeper problem.

Fake-news in your digital news-feed is of course new-ish. Fake news as-such, however, is not; some analog of it has been around for as long as human beings have had the ability to communicate with one another. We've been creating alt-fact cave drawings, post-truth papyrus financial accountings, and fake news spiritual texts for quite a long time now. Why? Common sense would seem to suggest that the ability to deceive each other presents a clear and immediate (albeit only temporary if you are bad at it) advantage. Under normal circumstances, this benefit lasts only until such a point that the deception is uncovered and one's credibility is damaged beyond repair. Unfortunately, in these modern times, those capable of sustaining prolonged states of cognitive dissonance have discovered it pays more to lie, compulsively, as long as they never concede in public that they are doing it. It's an Orwellian nightmare. The systematic manufacturing of false narratives and mistruths has become a tolerated, almost expected mode of conduct for many people in positions of power in our society. Fake-news is just the most recent instantiation of this force, an expression of those that would seek to use a particular technological means to influence and manipulate the thoughts and opinions of others through the targeted distribution of lies masquerading as truth.

Of course, the social and cultural contexts of this phenomena have changed over time. For most of human history acts of deception have existed in a broader framing of a presumed underlying truth that gives a lie context and renders it comprehensible. Put otherwise, to lie presupposes there is a truth the lie exists in juxtaposition to. This norm is breaking down. The politicization of objective truth and the scientific method are further eroding the foundations of a society that functions best on facts. In this circumstance lies take on a life of their own. To create or assert that something is "fake-news" is to create a new truth, one in which the lie has primacy, often entirely untethered from reason or anything based in reality. It injects the mind-stream of a culture with a seed of doubt and infuses distrust in the institutions and disciplines charged with telling us what is true. The majority of arm-chair intellectuals and pundits like to pin the blame for this era of post-truthiness on 20th-century proponents of postmodernist thought, such as Derrida and Foucault on the grounds that they made doubting the objective existence of truth and fact in-vogue. Those very same post-modernist thinkers have, however, done us an enormous favor in articulating the parameters and intellectual contours of the world as we have now come to know it (one that would come to exist whether or not they thought about it).

Unfortunately, what we as a society are now encountering is no longer about simple truth and facts. Nor is it really about where fake news is coming from or who is accountable for it (this public policy issue does urgently need to be addressed). It is, instead, about an evolution in our individual and collective relationship with the embodied experiences of a world that we can trust. Both the propagation of fake-news and the casual dismissal of legitimate news as "fake" have been weaponized in an effort to sow discord and division between otherwise good people. At a deeper level, the fact that "fake news" and journalism about it are good click-bate speaks to our collective fear of losing a world that appears to have some logical continuity, a world in which we can reasonably predict the future with confidence. We are drifting away from a common set of values in which truth and falsehood have meaning and consequence, one in which powerful people are still held accountable for lies.

The impact of an erosion of faith in objective truth and susceptibility to the mechanized distribution of fake-news is perhaps most severe in societies that are adherents to the political ideologies of economic liberalism (not to be confused with American "liberal" politics). This vein of thought has been dominant in the western world since the early 19th century, framing the values and ideals of societies built on the post-industrial principles of laissez-faire economics. This is not to say fake-news does not exist in places operating under other economic gospels; the interplay between it and the cultural ethos of a totalitarian regime or communist state, for example, is perhaps less caustic than it is to the psyche of an individual not already accustomed to regular doses of state-sponsored propaganda.

A major resurgence of these values, in the form of neo-liberalism, was seen in post-war 20th century thought with an increased emphasis on free trade, privatization, austerity, deregulation, globalism, and regimented intellectual property rights. These values are also the underlying drivers of a systemic state of anxiety the vast majority of the modern world now attempts to sublimate through the soothing power of often debt-financed consumerism. Job insecurity, health care insecurity, stagnant wages, income inequality, chronic debt, rising rents, rampant poverty and homelessness in otherwise wealthy nations, and myriad other social ills leave many questioning the economic policies of their leaders. As a consequence, neo-liberal economic principles have become the soil in which a looming sense of doubt and cynicism has grown, creating safe spaces for purposeless ideological punditry and people who benefit from stirring up hate and cultivating dis-ease. The economic policies our leaders have adopted have acted as catalysts, stoking the fires of urgency in an always-on digital society that tells us technology will solve all our problems while perpetuating and intensifying power structures that largely serve to sow discord and further divide people along political, racial and economic lines.

Don't get me wrong, these economic tenants have also done enormous good for humanity. They have created supply chains beyond comprehension, enabled scientific discovery that may one day save humanity from itself, are feeding entire nations, curing diseases, creating prosperity for some and helping to alleviate poverty and destitution for so many others. They have also brought us limitless two-day shipping and may take us to Mars one day. Unfortunately, they have also fostered a state in which many people are basically afraid of a world changing so quickly that they can't keep their economic or social footing. This can be seen all around us as entire industries are made irrelevant with new technologies. The rate at which all of us must adapt simply to keep-up would seem to be continuously accelerating. This undermines a person's capacity to maintain a coherent identity supported by dignity and pride in what they do and who they are. Left unchecked these forces will create a highly technological society that is basically alienating and destabilizing to human well-being and flourishing for a not insignificant percentage of the populace.

Fake-news is a great test-case for our ability to address a problem that exists right at the intersection of free-speech, technology, commerce, and politics. What will our response as a society be? Are our leaders able to summon effective, cogent, meaningful legislation to address a pressing issue that is eroding public trust in media, destabilizing our democracy, instilling distrust in academic "elites" and "experts", and providing a platform for those with ill-intent to benefit at our collective expense? We are in the heart of a storm where these problems are now infused with potentially irreversible consequences if not dealt with responsibly. Will Washington D.C. and Silicone Valley reach a palatable compromise that achieves some greater good without unduly hampering free enterprise or imposing even greater restraints on our shared values of free speech and privacy? Social media platforms and purveyors of internet news have received very little guidance from regulatory bodies regarding standards for political speech or mechanisms to track and identify the provenance of paid-for content that may be malicious in nature. In the absence of meaningful guidance, technologists are making decisions on our collective behalf that really ought to be a matter of public debate.

Ironically, the digital transformation we are undergoing (i.e. cloud, machine learning, natural language processing, deep learning, etc.) may ultimately be the salves for this collective wound. These and other similar technologies made relevant by almost limitless, efficient and low-cost data storage and processing are an expression of capabilities that could only have come into being in a globalized world of free thinkers, innovators, and profit seekers. These technologies also required a degree of economic scale to come into existence largely attributable to the free flow of ideas and (digital) goods enabled by the very economic and trade policies that are eroding many people's job and income security. Nonetheless, whatever their other consequences, these policies enabled a set of circumstances in which new technologies could bud and mature. If thoughtfully deployed they may also function as the antidotes to the looming existential crises that undergirds issues such as fake-news and the erosion of trust in objective truth as we know it.

What is most imperative is a collective acknowledgment that these technologies are not neutral; their ethical and moral content does not exist solely in their application but also in their creation. All technologies intrinsically have societal implications. As catalysts to change, they place demands upon all who interact with them and are imbued with consequences. Knowledge workers and technologists play a critical role at this juncture in human history. If you have the interest and aptitude you can choose to enmesh yourself in the digital transformation, learn all you can, and put that knowledge to good use. These capabilities could be used to tamp-down broader systems of oppression and curtail people of influence that blatantly and without repercussion eschew truth and fact without shame or consequence. To that end, hopefully, the combined powers of good-hearted capitalists, hardworking technologists and vigilant consumers can abate the tide of doubt, cynicism, and demagoguery creeping across the planet and in so doing catalyze technological forces that have the power to support and embolden principles of truth, virtue and participatory democracy before it's too late. Failure is not an option.

Several imperatives come to mind for the modern information consumer to indirectly address the cultural circumstances allowing for the propagation of fake news, both in narrative form and as potentially aided by technological means. The starting point is how we communicate with others. This including attempting to:

• Seek to understand first.Most people genuinely believe what they believe to be true. That doesn't make them wrong necessarily, it just means they have a different frame of reference. I highly recommend reading Deborah Tannen's The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words. In it she examines the way in which argument as a form of communication has been embedded in American institutions and culture and the consequences it has for our ability to have constructive dialogue and debate. If you find yourself unable to have productive conversations with those of differing political or ideological persuasions this book is for you.

• Familiarize oneself with the history of the cultural propagation of ignorance and mistruth. We all must be equipped to draw distinctions between opinions/beliefs and legitimate points of view. There is a general crisis in popular culture (of which I include most forms of modern media and “news”) in which an understanding of what constitutes information, knowledge, and truth has eroded to such a degree that it poses a direct threat to civil society. The observation of this phenomenon is not new; it was first popularized by Richard Hofstadter, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1964 for his book,Anti-Intellectualism In American Life. In American media, the debate over facts and truth increasingly surfaces as a framing for divisive public policy debates, social wedge issues, controversial legislation, and highly charged judicial action. As a result, it is often misconstrued as a direct extension of party-politics and right vs. left ideology. To our collective detriment, the national dialogue around what fake-news is and what should be done about it is unfurling along those same lines.

• Train in the art of debate and rhetoric to counter deeply held beliefs in others that may be founded on falsehood or misinformation. Outright rejection of “factual” information has become inexorably tied to a social phenomenon in which contrarian positions to arguments felt to be based on deductive reasoning are adopted, with a particularly visceral response towards anything representing itself as “scientific.” The attempts to silence voices garbed in logic and reason creates a trap for well-meaning people engineered by those with Machiavellian intent; it only serves to enmesh them in fervent proclamations and wild gesticulations of their righteous views on divisive political, economic and social issues. How is one to espouse positions of reason and common sense without summoning "science" and "facts" to one's side? Therein lies the art of debate and persuasion founded on more nuanced appeals to our shared humanity and values.

• Do not assume others can discern between truth and falsehood. Perhaps due to their vantage point in the infosphere, many modern information-consumers (not just Millennials), are not adequately equipped for this task. These are ominous signs. Deductive reasoning and logic lack the emotional appeal to seize the attention of the collective audience that is internet users and consumers. The public’s tacit consent to the right to promulgate false information betrays a dearth of will and critical thinking skills. This cannot be emphasized enough. In a recent Stanford University study “a majority of students—more than 80% of them, in fact—could not distinguish between a piece of sponsored content or ‘native advertising’ and a real news article. They also had difficulty determining whether a news story shared on social media was credible, and based their decision on odd or even irrelevant factors.” It is for this very reason that it is incumbent on information professionals to be well versed in tactics to counter this trend, whether it be to dissuade others of their apathy or simply to politely educate the misinformed of the risks of further promulgating falsehoods.

• Avoid the thought traps of technophilia and dystopia. We all exist within our own information ecology. That ecology is subject to pathogens anathema to its health and sustainability. The belief that technological growth and development is possessed with some intrinsic inevitability, or that they will surely produce utopian outcomes only serves to avoid tough conversations about actual human consequences of technological forces of all kinds, including those giving rise to the fake-news phenomenon. Similarly, overly pessimistic and dire prognostications of the negative impacts of technology tend to overshadow the many clear and evident benefits to our collective well-being. Find a middle ground.

Information professionals have a dialectical responsibility to equip themselves as advocates for common sense amidst systematic campaigns of misinformation in the public sphere. This is even truer when bearing witness to technological advancements being co-opted as vectors for misinformation (social media and fake-news being the most obvious examples). To be realistic, however, unless you work at one of a few select companies the vast majority of people cannot directly impact the design of systems and algorithms that decide what version of the truth you will receive today in your digital diet. Nor are most of us leaders in Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning, so unable to shape the trajectory of these disciplines themselves. We all can, however, at least indirectly influence these kinds of issues through our day to day conduct and actions. All of us can vote with our eyeballs by attending to where we put our attention (actual screentime) as that becomes your source of truth.

Going a step further, those in the knowledge management profession are uniquely situated to act as sentinels for sound and ethical information policies that will impact the veracity and validity of information provided to consumers (not just news). Technologists too must advocate for tools and methods that inform product, service, and solution designs that lead to results that are truly in the public interest. This means recognizing and fulfilling ethical obligations that extend beyond the sphere of the office-place, into the realms of civics and culture where the product of one's work may ultimately abide. This includes B2B and professional services, even if they are somewhat obscured from public view. Leaders in the product, UX, and design spaces are best positioned to engage in deep reflection on the moral and ethical implications of decisions about how information is used to impact consumer behavior and decision-making, particularly when faced with the choice between being silent and speaking up when something doesn't feel right.

In an era of ever-increasing computing power, advancement in the areas of machine learning will present a greater and greater temptation to industry to schematize, operationalize and ultimately automate ethical decision-making frameworks, removing many diverse and disempowered voices from the discussion of what is right and wrong (i.e. true and false). This is particularly alarming as it relates to the inevitable and imminent algorithmic deduction and monetization of truth validation itself. We may solve the problem of fake news sooner than not, but at what price? Whose version of the truth will we be speaking of then and what will they pay to make it so?

About the author: David is a Senior Consultant at Accenture, living in Seattle Washington. After attending Whitman College to study Philosophy he entered the business world with a focus on IT project management where he found a passion for data ethics and philosophy of technology. In addition to his day job, he is currently pursuing a masters degree with a focus on Data Science and Machine Learning at the University of Washington. You can learn more about him at www.davidbeckley.me