What's going to stop the growh of fake news?

[Eaglerising]

What is going to stop unsubstantiated beliefs from overshadowing or replacing substantiated facts? Over the past several years there has been a rapid growth in the number of media outlets reporting unsubstantiated beliefs and various ideologies as being factual. The growing popularity of these outlets appeals to both the educated and uneducated. Neither audience is able to distinguish what’s real from what is fake or inaccurate.

[wanabe]

That is a question that can only be answered on a case by case basis. The truth prevails because the truth is actually useful. The truth bears fruit. You can do real things with the truth.

With lies you need a support network to keep them going.

I think that people who genuinely care about "the issues" take the time to read multiple sources, especially direct from primary sources, and thus truth prevails. Even if truth is met with the static of deception, the truth still exists for people to stumble upon among the static of deception.

Nothing can stop the growth of fake news outlets, but individuals can know the truth by diligently seeking it.

[JamesOfSeattle]

The answer to the OP is education. Fake news is a product of a large number of unsophisticated users having access to social media. Those users need to be a bit more sophisticated. Someone needs to teach them the difference between a journalistic news site with a reputation for accuracy (even though that site may also have a political bias) and a "news" site that has no reputation and may be some schmoe (or some govt.) making stuff up from whole cloth with the hopes that lots of eyes will see it, and the damage be done, before anyone gets a chance to verify it. Someone needs to teach them that if some news seems devastating if true (powerful people running a child sex ring from a pizza joint?), then they should wait until that news is confirmed by other sites before posting it to social media.

Maybe there should be a test before being allowed to use social media?

*

[Nick_A]

What is going to stop unsubstantiated beliefs from overshadowing or replacing substantiated facts? Over the past several years there has been a rapid growth in the number of media outlets reporting unsubstantiated beliefs and various ideologies as being factual. The growing popularity of these outlets appeals to both the educated and uneducated. Neither audience is able to distinguish what’s real from what is fake or inaccurate.

Society is structured on fake news. Can you imagine what would happen if people for some reason only told the truth for one day? Humanity would destroy itself. What would happen to the advertising industry without fake news? Fake news is just normal for what we are and how we express ourselves. It is up to an individual to acquire the means to see through it. But as long as we remain as we are, fake news will always be.

[Sy Borg]

Society is structured on fake news. Can you imagine what would happen if people for some reason only told the truth for one day? Humanity would destroy itself. What would happen to the advertising industry without fake news? Fake news is just normal for what we are and how we express ourselves. It is up to an individual to acquire the means to see through it. But as long as we remain as we are, fake news will always be.

George Carlin put it less delicately :) but I agree. Life competes. For intelligent beings, that competition often manifests as manipulation and trickery.

When people prepare for war, there is a period of propaganda where the necessary disengagement of normal empathetic impulses is suppressed. Consistent lies and exaggerations encourage enough objectification to wish to go to war, to not care about innocent children, families and friends. This switching from empathy to objectification is present in all predators that live in social groups, where they empathise with the in group (potential allies) and objectify outsiders (potential competitors). We, as consumers of others, switch from "saint" to "psychopath" every day seamlessly and unconsciously.

The only thing that will slow down the game-playing is increasing sophistication, for a broader understanding of the kinds of social games played, and how and why they are played, and by whom. This may end up being somewhat Darwinian as climate change bites - aside from the luck of geography, societies that are more in touch with reality will be best placed to minimise and alleviate damage.

[Eaglerising]

Nick_A, I agree that there is a certain amount of fake news or false information. Governments couldn't exist if they were honest.

There is fake news and there is really FAKE news that has a specific agenda. The latter's agenda is to confuse and numb people so they can be easily manipulated. People consume it because it is appealing to them. Just as potatoes chips are more appealing than spinach or carrots.

It all boils down to this – We always do what we want to do or what we perceive to be in our best interest. We may not want to go to work, but we know it is in our best interest if we want to eat and pay our bills. Nothing is going to change until people EXPERIENCE that it is in their best interest to challenge the information they are receiving and see that consuming it isn't in their best interest.

[Nick_A]

Nick_A, I agree that there is a certain amount of fake news or false information. Governments couldn't exist if they were honest.

There is fake news and there is really FAKE news that has a specific agenda. The latter's agenda is to confuse and numb people so they can be easily manipulated. People consume it because it is appealing to them. Just as potatoes chips are more appealing than spinach or carrots.

It all boils down to this – We always do what we want to do or what we perceive to be in our best interest. We may not want to go to work, but we know it is in our best interest if we want to eat and pay our bills. Nothing is going to change until people EXPERIENCE that it is in their best interest to challenge the information they are receiving and see that consuming it isn't in their best interest.

Yes, but how? Simone Weil wrote:

The Great Beast is introduced in Book VI of The Republic. It represents the prejudices and passions of the masses. To please the Great Beast you call what it delights in Good, and what it dislikes Evil. In America this is called politics.

We see and hear what we want to see and hear and politics manipulate this tendency even with obvious fake news which serves to justify the transient desires of the Beast. I fear the experience you suggest requires hitting bottom which I can assure you we won't want to experience.

[ThatOneKid]

That is a question that can only be answered on a case by case basis. The truth prevails because the truth is actually useful. The truth bears fruit. You can do real things with the truth.

With lies you need a support network to keep them going.

I think that people who genuinely care about "the issues" take the time to read multiple sources, especially direct from primary sources, and thus truth prevails. Even if truth is met with the static of deception, the truth still exists for people to stumble upon among the static of deception.

Nothing can stop the growth of fake news outlets, but individuals can know the truth by diligently seeking it.

Lies can be useful too. For example, a person who seeks authority can lie to their followers and gain respect. Fake health trends arise from companies putting out fake facts, and while most are debunked with time, some are still lasting, because companies gain money from them.
Even when lies aren't useful, they still prevail. We lie to ourselves, and while you can't "do real things with this," we still embrace these lies because they make us feel good.
Yes, with lies you do need a support network, but just because you need one doesn't mean that lies will be irradicated. Sometimes when lies are beneficial enough to the liar, they are willing to build support networks.
I think if there were a specific business, structured on debunking fake news, it might be slightly possible, but for the most part, I think you're right on how there will never not be fake news.

*static of depression* that's awesome, like actual props for coming up with that

[wanabe]

ThatOneKid,

Lies can be useful to individuals.

Life is almost never benefited in the long run by lies. I imagine the only exceptions are when life preservation is at stake in some way. Thus truth is actually useful for all life. Not simply an individual or select group of individuals. That is real.

It's not that real things can't be accomplished with lies. For there to be a lasting beneficial impact for life though, only the truth suffices.

This "feel good" is people deceiving themselves. Perhaps believing they are part of some kind of exceptional group. Everyone has a breaking point when they simply can't deceive themselves anymore. Generally it's when the lie doesn't feel beneficial to them. Such as when they have negative material consequences.

Deception can only be buried so deep before the truth resurfaces in some way. Deception is naturally self destructive.

Lies will never be eradicated in all likely hood. We can bring balance though. Truth is a laborious process, and the most rewarding in totality.

Creating another watchdog has been done. It's not a real solution. Just a temporary partial workaround that blatantly acknowledges a greater ongoing systemic problem.

This problem only begins to be solved when people individually and collectively seek the truth through every life benefiting means. Not always going to be pretty but there can be far greater balance.

[Lark_Truth]

What is going to stop unsubstantiated beliefs from overshadowing or replacing substantiated facts? Over the past several years there has been a rapid growth in the number of media outlets reporting unsubstantiated beliefs and various ideologies as being factual. The growing popularity of these outlets appeals to both the educated and uneducated. Neither audience is able to distinguish what’s real from what is fake or inaccurate.

This will only stop when people no longer pay any attention to lies and instead accept the truth. Of course, that will only happen when certain groups of people will stop being so gullible and susceptible to such fake news outlets, and wake up to the real world.
Honestly, how many people fell for the story that the world was supposed to end in December 2012? How many people are being fed false information about political candidates and leaders? Religions? Ethnic groups? Factions? etc.

[Eduk]

What is going to stop unsubstantiated beliefs from overshadowing or replacing substantiated facts?

I recommend you listen to a skeptics guide to the universe as a kind of easy going starter course.
Science based medicine is an interesting site.
Read up about scientific methodology in general. Things like double blinding and why that is a good thing, or things like P hacking, etc etc.
Read up about biology and evolution in particular.
I like the selfish gene by Dawkins, not just a good book on genetics but also introduces memes.
Influence: science and practice is also a great book. This really pin points many unconscious traps people fall into I heartily recommend it.

Then learn to think unconsciously in a less harmful way. Most of your thinking is unconscious so you need to protect yourself.

'everyone is doing it' = fallacy I must stop doing that until I've checked for myself. Example everyone leaving crowded room through double doors but only using one door, should check unused door (it probably works). Or on the motorway you will see car after car in the middle lane all driving far far too close to the car in front while the inside lane is empty. In my experience the inside lane is not actually broken like it seems to appear to others.
'an expert is doing it' = fallacy, what makes them an expert. If they are an expert are they an expert in the specific field, is their a consensus of experts. From a layman's point of view can you be sure. Appeals to authority are very hard to prove reasonable so don't assume. Oh and is it even possible to be an expert at what they are claiming to be an expert in. All those experts in the non physical have no more expertise than anyone else on the planet.
'an old thing said it's true' = fallacy, I don't won't old medicine I want new medicine.

I could go on and on and on. I guess my point is that you need to remain conscious. Once you have accepted something as true. that isn't, it's hundreds of times harder to correct that mistake. So maybe don't assume anything is true. Don't have a true and false pile in your head, have a more true and more false continuum in your head.

[Steve3007]

This will only stop when people no longer pay any attention to lies and instead accept the truth.

Unfortunately, as a general rule, news stories are not provided with labels marked "true " and "false". I think stories that are quite clearly and obviously nonsense, like the faking of the moon landings or the Mayan Calendar 2012 thing, or the "Birtherism" thing aren't as much of a problem as the general phenomenon of "competing narratives" on almost every geopolitical issue.

I guess the modern sound bite that's more appropriate to this is not so much "fake news" as "post truth" - the idea that we have given up on the idea that there is a single objectively true version of what actually happened in any given situation and just accept that there are different truths for different people. Use the modern communications age to quickly and conveniently pick the truth that suits you. I think that's how it works.

[Nick_A]

"When a man joins a political party, he submissively adopts a mental attitude which he will express later on with words such as, ‘As a monarchist, as a Socialist, I think that …’ It is so comfortable! It amounts to having no thoughts at all. Nothing is more comfortable than not having to think." Simone Weil

People want fake news. It supports their emotional convictions. Who wants to think when it gets in the way of prestige? Fake news supports prestige.

[Steve3007]

Alternatively, some people might join a particular political party because they have a genuine desire to help make the world a better place, have an opinion as to the best methods for achieving that goal and are pragmatic enough to realise that the most effective way to achieve it is with the support of a political party. I guess that would be the glass-half-full view.

If, for the sake of argument, I find my views on the best way to make the world a better place to be roughly aligned with the position of the Labour Party (for example) then it makes sense for me to join that party with the aim of standing for elected office under its banner because I know that standing for elected office as an independent leaves me with a negligible chance of success. I'd probably also aim to influence the party's position on issues where I disagree with its official line.

Joining a gang can be pragmatic not just ovine.

[Eduk]

I don't believe this theoretical person you are talking about exists Steve. I just think there are too many mutually exclusive things going on.

You don't talk about competence but that would have to be a key factor. I think you can have what you are talking about and be totally incompetent for example.

But as soon as you introduce competence then the person would need to be so Machiavellian that this would seriously put into doubt any genuine desire to make the world a better place.