What Is Fake News V Real News

What is Fake News v Real News  BS, simple nonsense, rumor, public opinion o This has always been around o No matter how you slice it, if we talk about the average person – one of average intelligence, training, education, moral and social beliefs – in the world or country today, they are not smart, well-trained, well-educated, exceptionally moral, and especially good citizens (?good at social?)… by definition. The average person isn't any of those things. o The Internet, WWW, and Facebook have connected all of those people (and everyone else) in a global community where the sharing of lurid tidbits is easy. o People believe what they want to believe . Looks at all the climate change deniers, evolution deniers, racists, homophobes, misogynists, etc. . What has always quieted the nonsense down is a lack of acceptance by the rest of society  Something that seems real or legitimate – spoofing/phishing o The key difference is that this "item" is not offered as individual opinion, it claims legitimacy based on the backing of an organization which has their views/beliefs/tenets… Some organization SPLC or the KKK . Each can claim they are as legitimate as the other, just as the National Enquirer is as legitimate as the NYT or the WP . We have determined who we are going to listen to based on a fairly common understanding of those sources: one liberal, one conservative, one a bit whacky. . Everyone needs to do this for everything they read or watch on the Internet (or TV) – why would it be any different today than ten years ago  Legitimate news… whatever that is o What most people have traditionally called "news" sources had as a basic tenet providing unbiased, important information . Media bias is a whole conversation. We have generally dealt with that by labelling the organization in our own minds as being liberal, conservative, a government mouth organ, or whatever and then accepting the "news" in that light.  Lately, the media seems to be trying to fight that perception by allowing "alternative views" to go unchallenged in their media space. Anyone can say anything. The problem is that that isn't news, unless the point is whacky opinions. . How important something is varies greatly. Probably within the organization, but certainly to the diverse audiences or consumer groups. . Deal. That is your chosen task. o If news organizations want exceptional status, they have to stick what actual news is. Walter Cronkite would spit to hear that any particular 24-7 news organization doesn't have time to adequately cover real news. And the proliferation of (supposed) news organizations is amazing.

Need a tool to immediately tell people what is "legitimate"  Register legitimate sites. This doesn't have to be terribly restrictive, 16, 100, 1600, whatever. o We don't care if the National Enquirer, the SPLC or the KKK is one of them. o Our goal would be to simply say this is from that particular real organization  News from those sites is crawled and hashed (ala a search engine) o Full article, videos, pics, text, paragraphs, sentences. o Something that claims to be from Fox News, CNN, WhiteHouse.gov,… that actually isn't simply doesn't get displayed – replaced by an icon (fish??) o Anyone claiming to be citing them . Get an ok for providing a legit link . Get an ok for whole article – copyright is not our concern . Get a video-ok for an unedited video . Get a pic-ok for unedited pic . Get a text-ok based on percent match o Initially, a separate tool that user drops a link onto (or directs to follow a link by clicking on it), but eventually a browser a browser add-on  Similar stuff o Search engine or AV software "certifying" a web site as not dangerous o Plagiarism scanner that rates the "legitimacy" of an originally authored paper o Phishing attacks & detection software  Issues o Why believe us? Anyone can create their own tool that will compete for the users trust. o No one has to use it or believe it – maybe clicking the fish icon shows the original (suspect) article. o Proprietary sites won't let us scan and hash their material. Then they are not included. Not our problem. Maybe a question mark icon to indicate, not (dis)approved. o Someone hacks the tool (or a browser) to show apparent approval for crap – secure coding techniques. o Is 1600 too many? Consider how many legit newspapers, radio, TV, government, organization, or corporate outlets existed ten or twenty years ago. Users had to decide if they wanted to trust the Youngstown Vindicator, hp.com