Jaakko Dickman

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Is Facebook simply a platform that neutrally mediates decentralized information created by its users or is it something closer to a publishing company? This issue has been central to the debate on the need to regulate Facebook and other social networking sites.

The debate has further intensified after the reported Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and after the live streaming of the Christchurch mosque shootings. Actor-comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is the latest to criticize Facebook and offer his thoughts on the issue.

In his award speech for the ADL International Leadership Award, Cohen strongly criticized social networking sites (SNSs) for compromising democratic ideals and promoting hate and violence. He stated that “on the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate” and that this is dismantling our understanding of shared objective facts that are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Cohen concluded his speech by declaring that “it is time to finally call these companies what they really are: largest publishers in history.”[i]

At the heart of Cohen’s speech is the idea that SNSs “should abide by basic standards and practices,”[ii] as do traditional media outlets such as newspapers and TV news. Thus, they should be considered as publishers. To this day, SNSs have evaded responsibility over their content by stating that they are simply platforms that mediate content and thus not liable for the content they host. This indemnity is solidified by the US Communications Act of 1996, which gave an almost complete autonomy for SNSs to regulate themselves (Flew & al 2019, 38).

However, one could argue that the nature of networked communication has changed so drastically that the new SNSs have outgrown the legislation. Furthermore, the growing interference and curatorial work done by the SNSs has made their ‘neutral platform’ nature questionable.

It is obvious that Facebook, among other SNSs, is not a neutral mediator of networked communication. One of the clearest examples of this came in 2016 when Facebook’s “Trending Review Guidelines” were leaked to the press. The guidelines revealed how Facebook’s news operation is perpetrated by human intervention similar to traditional media organizations.[iii] Still, we have seen that the self-regulative practices of SNSs have not been effective enough to tackle the spreading of violence, hate speech, and political interference.

 Without acknowledging the new pressures to regulate these sites in a new cultural, political, societal, and technological environment, these companies will not be held accountable for their shortcomings. So, what is holding us back from insisting that these sites are, in fact, publishers of content and from enforcing governmental regulation on them?

Nowadays, when social media companies are operating globally, nation-specific regulation might cause SNSs such as Facebook to become scattered, with different content available in different parts of the world. Flew, Martin, and Suzor state that this type of a “global Splinternet” might have a negative impact on the free flow of information that has epitomized the period after mid-1990s (Flew & al., 46). As asserted by the CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg in his speech at Georgetown University, social media has become “the Fifth Estate” that allows people all over the world to express themselves.[iv] The power to give voice to people living under brutal political regimes is a feature that we do not want to take away from SNSs.

Presently, the biggest internet companies are regulating the flow of information unelected and without accountability. According to Cohen, this constitutes ideological imperialism.[v] The more SNSs take part in “monitoring, regulating and deleting content” the more dire is the need for public accountability (Flew & al., 45). However, instead of traditional nation-specific legislature, the ability to regulate this new digital environment seems to call for active involvement of global regulative bodies. Nevertheless, the new role of SNSs and their power to dictate the flow of information requires new regulative approaches and ideas as their counterforce.

Bibliography:

Anti-Defamation League YouTube, ADL International Leadership Award Presented to Sacha Baron Cohen at Never Is Now 2019, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=24s> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

Flew, Terry, Martin, Fiona, & Suzor, Nicolas (2019) “Internet Regulation As Media Policy: Rethinking the Question of Digital Communication Platform Governance.” Journal of Digital Media & Policy 10, no. 1: 33, 33–50.

Thielman, Sam (2016) ”Facebook news selection is in hands of editors not algorithms, documents show.” The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

Washington Post YouTube, Watch live: Facebook CEO Zuckerberg speaks at Georgetown University, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MTpd7YOnyU&t=2777s> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MTpd7YOnyU&t=2777s

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

Prunelle Dauty

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Social Media are everywhere nowadays, and whether we like it or not, we need to use them in our everyday life. They are slowly becoming indispensable, and not using them means being isolated from the rest of the world. The question is: is that something bad? Not necessarily. Social media are making our life so much easier, allowing us to communicate across the globe in real time. They are also giving a voice to people who have been oppressed for a long time, and who are finally able to speak up! But – because there is always a but – there is a flip side to those amazing possiblities that social media are offering us. That flip side is that in exchange for all of those advantages, we are giving them our personal information. They have access to our whole life through our phones, and they are using it to make money. I know, it sounds like a lame remake of George Orwell’s 1984, but wake up guys, this is the sad reality.

Social Media are everywhere nowadays, and whether we like it or not, we need to use them in our everyday life. They are slowly becoming indispensable, and not using them means being isolated from the rest of the world. The question is: is that something bad? Not necessarily. Social media are making our life so much easier, allowing us to communicate across the globe in real time. They are also giving a voice to people who have been oppressed for a long time, and who are finally able to speak up! But – because there is always a but – there is a flip side to those amazing possiblities that social media are offering us. That flip side is that in exchange for all of those advantages, we are giving them our personal information. They have access to our whole life through our phones, and they are using it to make money. I know, it sounds like a lame remake of George Orwell’s 1984, but wake up guys, this is the sad reality.

The Cambrige Analytica scandal is generally the first affair that comes to our minds when the misuse of data is mentioned. Indeed, a couple of years ago, it became known that during the U.S. 2016 presidential election campaign Cambridge Analytica, a company that worked with Donald Trump’s election team, harvested millions of Facebook profiles in order to be able to influence them and make them vote for Trump. Following the scandal, Facebook defended itself explaining that it had nothing to do with it. This brings up the question of data protection. How can we protect ourselves from those companies? It seems impossible without quitting social media. As it was demonstrated by CBC News in their very instructive video “Privacy and smartphone apps: What data your phone may be giving away” (you should definitely check it out if you haven’t watched it yet), protecting our personal data is complicated and except if we are ready to read the thousands of pages of users conditions, we are giving away all of our data without even benefiting from it.

Here is the interesting part: if we can’t stop using social media, and we can’t really stop them from using our data either, maybe we could try to benefit from it? 

Andrew Yang, a potential candidate for the presidential election and former tech executive, mentioned this idea during the Democratic presidential debate at Otterbein University in Ohio on October 15, 2019. He explained that “right now, our data is worth more than oil” and that it would be only fair if the users “get a slice” of the money that their data is making. In addition, it would be a good way to gain back power against the large-scale companies. This idea is not new, and several federal lawmakers have already tried to implement it in different states, but as of yet without success.

In my opinion, this would be a solution to all of those data protection problems. It would be a way for the users to gain back the power that they have lost during these last years, and while failing to fully protect our data, it would at least offer us compensation and perhaps also the possibility to choose the information that we share. Indeed, being paid in exchange for sharing data would imply that the users’ permission and maybe even a signed contract is required, because as soon as money is involved, regulations are made.

Sources:

• « Facebook launches app that will pay users for their data | Technology | The Guardian ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/11/facebook-user-data-app-privacy-study.
• « Social Media Companies Collect So Much Data Even They Can’t Remember All The Ways They Surveil Us ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/10/25/social-media-companies-collect-so-much-data-even-they-cant-remember-all-the-ways-they-surveil-us/#5bf058a57d0b.
• « The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn’t change Facebook | Technology | The Guardian ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook.
• « Andrew Yang: Facebook, Amazon, Google should pay for users’ data ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/andrew-yang-facebook-amazon-google-should-pay-for-users-data.html.

Xueying Ma

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.

—Rousseau

Humans have fought for freedom for centuries, and they have made much progress, especially nowadays when social media is playing a more and more important role in daily life.

There is no doubt that social media has given us a platform to express ourselves more freely. Under the UGC (user-generated content) model of social media, everyone has the chance to voice their opinions and debate. It has been a powerful tool for many to fight for their rights, and it provides more opportunities for people to organize activist movements. People are relying more and more on social media platforms to express themselves and participate in social or political debates. Many campaigns have been organized through social media across the world, such as #Metoo, #NeverAgain, #BlackLivesMatter, and many other online activist movements. In social media, more people are encouraged to fight for their rights and speak up to help others. This is a huge advantage of social media.

But how much freedom do we have on social media? In fact, freedom is also limited by many things.

For one thing, as frequent users of social media, we must obey the ethical principles of online communities. Anonymity on social media brings about more and more ethical challenges. Limitless freedom will do harm to the environment of the internet.

Due to the UGC feature of social media, cyberbullying has always been a severe issue and it has led to a lot of tragedies. People are able to bully others online because of the lack of scrutiny and regulation. They may say rude things to innocent people just for fun or to vent their dissatisfaction in life, utilizing the anonymity of social media. Online bullying disturbs the victims’ daily life and can do mental harm. There are many forms of cyberbullying, one of the worst I know of is to publish or post other people’s private information online or threaten to do so. Sounds scary but it is not uncommon. It is a huge ethical challenge that this kind of freedom makes everyone on social media concerned about their privacy and safety.

In addition to cyber-bullying, people post other immoral things online and refer to their freedom of speech. The “freedom of speech” argument can be a dangerous weapon if it is used to disseminate racial or religious hatred or to incite discrimination. This can cause a lot of harm to the safety of the internet. Although we support the right to free speech, it doesn’t mean you are not responsible for what you say or post online. Daryl Morey, the general manager of the NBA basketball team Houston Rockets, recently tweeted about the protests in Hong Kong. The tweet caused a large-scale backlash and lead to much antipathy towards the NBA in China.

On the other hand, media companies and governments also have control over social media. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans say that they think social media companies have too much control over the news on their sites. Almost all Americans – about nine in ten – recognize that social media companies have some control over the news. Many social media users are concerned about the “filter bubble” – that they will be trapped in echo chambers and able to see only what the media companies want them to see. This leads to many people distrusting social media and feeling limited online.

Since June 2019, under a State Department policy, visa applicants to the United States are required to submit any information about social media accounts they have used in the past five years. Aside from social media platforms based in the U.S. – such as Facebook, Flicker, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, and YouTube – applicants are also asked about their activity on international platforms, such as China’s Douban, QQ, and Sina Weibo. Many people feel pressured under this policy because they think their privacy will be violated. The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition, saying that “there is also no evidence that such social media monitoring is effective or fair, especially in the absence of criteria to guide the use of social media information in the visa adjudication process.” Although it is said that this policy is about the country’s safety and anti-terrorism, more and more people feel there is less freedom and democracy even on social media.

All in all, even on social media there are not only ethical codes but also companies or governments with control over the users. Everyone should be aware of the fact that they can never gain absolute freedom on social media, and they should stay alert and critical to all the information online.

Sources:

1. Americans Are Wary of the Role Social Media Sites Play in Delivering the News(https://www.journalism.org/2019/10/02/americans-are-wary-of-the-role-social-media-sites-play-in-delivering-the-news/)
2. US Now Requiring Social Media Details From Most Visa Applicants (https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-now-requiring-social-media-details-most-visa-applicants)

Héloïse Cao

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

You probably know that terrible feeling you get after seeing an ad on your phone concerning the holiday destination you talked about with your colleague during your coffee break. In these situations, we feel tracked by our phones. The most frustrating and frightening thing about this is that we don’t really know how and why it happens. Even if you try to limit the cookies and trackers when using applications and surfing on the web, you feel like this is something beyond your control.

Then again, you might think that it is not so important because you have nothing to hide. But what if your social media data could be exploited in an effort to influence your voting decisions? This is what Facebook and Cambridge Analytica were accused of doing during the American presidential election of 2016. The scandal also demonstrated that users’ data can be collected even if they don’t directly take part in an activity that can be exploited. If your Facebook friends answer a survey, that may lead to your data being collected as well.

If using the incognito mode in the browser is not sufficient, how would it be possible to make social media more responsible towards users? To answer this question, let’s first have a look at how social media work. Social media are platforms on which people can communicate, but they are also what economists call double-sided markets. That is to say, they connect two different customers: the users and the companies that want their ads to be seen. Consequently, the more users and companies, the more efficient the media is. This is the so-called network effect. A social media platform is useful and efficient only if a lot of people use it. And here is the reason why social media appears to be free for users. As the platform leads the double-sided market, it has the power to determine the price for customers. Social media chose to make the services free for us, the users, to attract us but also because we are the product from which social media can extract data and sell it.

The problem with the exploitation of our data remains, but trying to understand the complex economic model teaches us a lot. Several suggestions have been made to reshape the social media model towards a more ethical one. One option would be to stop making the platform free for users. It wouldn’t be easy for us to start paying to use social media, but we are used to paying for our newspaper, so why not others services? Social media could offer several options to users: one could be free from advertisements, another could have more features, and so on. Others have suggested that users could have a “data account” and choose which information to share with platforms in exchange for money. Yet another possible way to make social media more ethical would be to rely on public authorities and to put pressure on social media companies through legislation. Why not draw inspiration from the European General Data Protection Regulation? Among others things, it bolsters the requirement for explicit and informed consent before data is processed, and ensures that it can be withdrawn at any time. Users are thus more aware of what they share on social media.

So, would you be willing to pay to use social media? Do you trust governments to regulate them?

How to recognize and steer clear of fake news? In their blog posts, students Aurélie Dubru, Fredrika Lahdenranta, Cheuk Leung, and Di Gan discuss timely topics, such as the coverage of Hong Kong’s protests, President Trump and fake news, and what to post on social media. The blog posts have been produced as a part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Miten tunnistaa valeuutiset eli “fake news”? Blogikirjoituksissaan opiskelijat Aurélie Dubru, Fredrika Lahdenranta, Cheuk Leung ja Di Gan tarkastelevat Hong Kongin protestien uutisointia, presidentti Trumpin suhdetta vale/vastauutisiin sekä pohtivat, mitä sosiaalisessa mediassa yleensä kannattaa julkaista. Opiskelijoiden blogikirjoitukset on tehty osana Turun yliopiston Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States –kurssia.

Aurélie Dubru

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Albert Camus once said: “A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world,” and I could not agree more. Ethics was one of my favorite topics of the course, mainly because I think that it is in constant change and each society or people have different opinions on what the limits of ethics are.

Regarding social media, it is particularly hard to find these limits. Social media are supposed to be a platform where people can express themselves freely. However, we can ask ourselves whether social media should be more regulated and whether there should be more limits to what people are allowed to share with others. Unlike newspapers, social media are not very strict. They may have some rules but they are not always respected. Moreover, it is very easy to post something that is out of bounds. It might be deleted shortly after, but there is still time for others to see it. Ask anyone on social media, and you will realize that more people than we think have already seen content that they wish they had never seen but they just could not avoid. Whether the post is an extremist or racist opinion or a shocking picture of a dead animal, most people do not want to see it. What are these people even looking for – attention? Or money? I just wonder how people can forget all morality for one moment, just so they can briefly enjoy what they were looking for. The answer might be that they actually never had morality; social media is just a place where everyone can realize that. On the other hand, maybe they have a different view of morality and ethics. It might feel normal them and not pose any ethical questions.

We may ask: who or what decides what is ethical and what is not?

Compared to reality, social media are quite complex when it comes to defining limits and knowing what is ethical. I love this quote from Albert Einstein: “I fear a day that technology will surpass our human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots.” Technology, as well as social media, are now part of most people’s lives and people sometimes forget that it is not the reality. When I see how much people edit their pictures or even spread fake news, I wonder why people do not consider ethical principles as they do in real life. Hiding behind the computer is so much easier than confronting people. I often feel like people allow themselves too much freedom on social media. Maybe they should think more than twice about what the world is about to see because it might have a bigger impact than they think. Related to the many shootings happening in the U.S., it surprises me how often it is possible to find the perpetrators’ racist opinions on their Facebook page and come across pictures of the shootings. When people already have to deal with a traumatizing event, they do not necessarily want to be reminded of it on social media by a picture of a dead body, for instance.

It is definitely time for us all to start being careful with what we post and reconsider what we have been sharing until now.

Fredrika Lahdenranta

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

The era of alternate realities and widespread distrust in media sources has largely become defined by President Donald Trump. The line between truth and falsity has become increasingly blurry, which is highlighted by the subjective reality constructed by the U.S President.^[i]

In the era of unlimited information, it is more and more difficult to discern what is actually true, partly due to social media’s role as a news source.^[ii][iii] The term “fake news”^[iv] is a powerful tool that mainly Trump and other right wing politicians^[v] use for discrediting reliable news sources as biased. This relates to the idea of alternate realities, as it underlines the disappearance of objective fact based truth, and highlights value-laden statements. Consequently, “64% of adults believe fake news stories cause a great deal of confusion” in the U.S.^[vi] Furthermore, “some 46% of adult social media users say they feel “worn out” by the number of political posts (…) they see on social media”^[vii], according to studies by the PEW Research Center. The concern here is that feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information available and beliefs masqueraded as facts on social media, people may abandon critical thinking when making decisions on which news sites – or politicians – to trust.

In addition, the role of social media as a platform that provides not only information related to politics but also different forms of entertainment can be argued to convolute the matter even further. According to Waltzman, “the manipulation of our perception of the world is taking place on previously unimaginable scales of time, space and intentionality” due to “Internet and social media.”^[viii] If social media is a platform that enables this distortion of the factual world, its role as an information source needs to be rethought. Consequently, the importance of critical thinking and information searching skills becomes even more evident.

Furthermore, the platforms that provide a means for disinformation to spread need to be challenged. Despite social media’s several benefits, its free form also offers an inlet for spreading false information, partly due to the fact that “their economics favour shareability over veracity and distribution over retraction.” ^[ix] For example, although Twitter claims “to be a place where people can (…) find reliable information, and express themselves freely and safely,”^[x] it has at the same time allowed the false narratives of Trump, among others, to spread fast and far.^[xi] 

Fortunately, several news media educate people on recognizing fake news and misinformation.^{[xii] [xiii]} The problem is that they are mainly left-leaning liberal media that the right-leaning media often judge as biased rather than objective. Due to the free form and less regulated usage of social media platforms, providing only unbiased and objective information is nearly impossible. Therefore, the responsibility to fact-check and analyze received information rests mainly on the users.

^[i] Leonhardt & Thompson. Trump’s Lies. New York Times. Dec 14, 2017.   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

^[ii] Smith, Silver, Johnson, Jiang. Publics in Emerging Economies Worry Social Media Sow Division, Even as They Offer New Chances for Political Engagement. PEW research center. May 13, 2019.

^[iii] Shearer & Gotfried. News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2017. Sep 17, 2017.

^[iv] “Journalism or information that either deliberately or unintentionally misleads people and distorts reality by spreading false information, hoaxes, propaganda or misrepresentation of facts.” Mastrine. Defining “Fake News” Is Harder Than You’d Think. The Forum Network. Aug 13, 2019. https://www.oecd-forum.org/users/291420-julie-mastrine/posts/52249-defining-fake-news-is-harder-than-you-d-think

^[v]LaBolt. The political right wins by striking fear into its citizens’ hearts. The left must raise their hopes. The Guardian. Dec 3, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/04/the-political-right-wins-by-striking-fear-into-its-citizens-hearts-the-left-must-raise-their-hopes

^[vi] Anderson & Rainie. The Future of Truth and Misinformation Online. PEW research center. Oct 19, 2017.

^[vii] Anderson & Quinn 46% of U.S. social media users say they are ‘worn out’ by political posts and discussions. PEW research center. Aug 8, 2019.

^[viii] Waltzman, Rand.The Weaponization of Information: The Need for Cognitive Security. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 2017. https://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT473.html.

^[ix] Yates. Fake news’ – why people believe it and what can be done to counter it. The Conversation. Dec 13 2016. https://theconversation.com/fake-news-why-people-believe-it-and-what-can-be-done-to-counter-it-70013

^[x] Twitter rules. Platform manipulation and spam policy. Sep 2019. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/platform-manipulation

^[xi] Turner. Trump on Twitter: How a Medium Designed for Democracy Became an Authoritarian’s Mouthpiece in Boczkowski & Papacharissi ed. MIT Press, 2018. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kutu/detail.action?docID=5326880 https://moodle.utu.fi/pluginfile.php/1237847/mod_resource/content/1/18_Trump_on_Twitter_How_a_Medium_Designed_for_Democracy_Became_an_Authoritarians%20_Mouthpiece.pdf

^[xii] Binns, How to spot fake news this election. The Conversation. Dec 6 2019.  https://theconversation.com/how-to-spot-fake-news-this-election-128413

^[xiii] Murray. Cranky Uncle game takes on climate crisis denial and fake news. The Guardian. Dec 7, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/games/2019/dec/07/cranky-uncle-game-takes-on-climate-crisis-denial-and-fake-news

Cheuk Leung

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

The internet and social media have become an extensive, large-scale, easy-to-use, real-time information publishing platform. It has become an open platform for discussion, dissemination of knowledge, expressing ideas, and sharing daily life. One advantage of the immediate dissemination of news and debates is that because the content is no longer controlled by institutions but by the people, the coverage of an issue can be more extensive. Moreover, instead of passively accessing news and content, people actively participate in discussions and share their ideas. Also, mobile technology and real-time streaming through social media have entered the world, changing the way people consume and generate news. With the popularity of real-time streaming media platforms, more traditional social media have expanded into the field as well. Examples of this are Facebook Live and Instagram Live. As mentioned above, as citizen journalism is reshaping the relationship between media producers and consumers, sharing and publishing news is no longer reserved for professional journalists. Moreover, unfiltered video streaming can be an advantage for citizen journalism because there is no censorship involved and journalists can provide their audience with first-hand images of live events. Reporting on social media also generates more audience engagement to create an interactive journalistic experience with direct feedback from the audience.

However, when compared with traditional news sources, such as news channels and newspapers, the credibility of content circulating on social media platforms is questionable due to the contributors’ independence and freedom of expression. Fake news, misinformation, and false information have become by-products of the digital communication ecosystem because of simple forwarding and sharing actions on social networks. This has alarming worldwide ramifications. Various government agencies have implemented regulations to penalize sites that circulate misinformation. Many social media platforms have announced actions to limit the spread of fake content. However, with the aid of clickbait, these problems have still spread across the internet, and this has proven to be very dangerous.

Let’s look at Hong Kong’s democratic protests as an example. Fake online news disseminated carefully edited videotapes and selected stories, exacerbating fear, hatred, and confusion among Hong Kong residents. When protesters at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University set a police vehicle ablaze, photographs allegedly featuring a badly burned police officer at the wheel were circulating online within hours. Chinese state media also released footage of the Shenzhen People’s Armed Police military trucks and tanks, claiming they were heading to the Hong Kong border. However, according to fact-checking by the press, these claims are wrong. Due to China’s online censorship, Chinese citizens cannot read news reports in certain media. Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have also found that state-backed media have spread misinformation through fake accounts and advertisements. We can clearly see what false information can bring about with the aid of social media.

Sources:

Chan, E., & Blundy, R. (2019). Fake news amplifies fear and confusion in Hong Kong | Hong Kong Free Press HKFP. Retrieved 8 December 2019, from https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/11/21/fake-news-amplifies-fear-confusion-hong-kong/

Meel, P., & Vishwakarma, D. (2019). Fake news, rumor, information pollution in social media and web: A contemporary survey of state-of-the-arts, challenges and opportunities. Expert Systems with Applications, 112986. doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2019.112986

Di Gan

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Fake news, one of the most typical representations of deception in the media world, used to be regarded as a type of serious mistake in journalism. However, with the emerging social media, new forms of journalism have been thriving. They are more immediate, individual, and interactive than the traditional ones. The definition of journalists has begun to broaden and to exclude the requirements of professionalism. The amount of fake news is sharply increasing with a flood of citizen journalists and ready access to computer technical skills.

Professor Basyouni Hamada once pointed out the defects of the trendy forms of journalism that seem to have increased the probability of fake news: “The citizen journalist model does not care about accuracy, verification, objectivity, balance, and truth telling; what he is interested in is spontaneous; and quick publication of anything at hands assuming the responsibility of the users to verify or not to verify what they consume.” Therefore, it is time to learn some techniques for spotting the false stories in order to avoid getting duped. Here are six tips for identifying fake news in social media:

1. Check the Original Posters

This is a basic step to make a preliminary judgement on whether the story might be false. Try using the list below to examine the credibility of the news source:

Individuals

• Are you familiar with the poster?
• Does this poster have a history of unusual claims? Does this seem to be a newly created profile?
• Is there a reliable byline, introduction or any information to prove the person’s expertise?
• Do a Google search of the poster for more information about his or her identity and professionalism.

Institutions

• Are you familiar with the institution?
• Does the organization have an “about us” link? Read the “About Us” section for more insight into the publisher, leadership, and mission statement.
• Is the author listed on the site, or is there an “about me” section?
• What is the domain name? “.gov,” “.edu,” and “.org” appear more credible than “.com.co,” “.net,” and other unusual top-level domain names.
• Don’t be distracted by official-looking forms or trademarks.
• Don’t let your guard down even if it is a well-known or influential institution.

2. Scrutinize the Headlines

Nowadays the headlines on social media are designed to be eye-popping in order to induce users to share posts rather than evaluate or even read the content. Fake news frequently use headlines as clickbait. Be critical and try your best to avoid complete trust at first glance. Skepticism helps you to stay alert to unauthentic reports with outrageous, misleading, or suggestive diction in their headlines.

3. Apply Common Sense

UFOs, aliens, ghosts, time travel, zombies, and other abnormal or supernatural phenomena could be elements of fake news that are easier to spot than manipulation or falsification rooted in the material world. However, you might still be fooled if there is a trace of belief in their existence hidden in your mind.

4. Verify with Multiple Coverages from Different Sources

This is probably the most useful and convenient approach to confirming whether a piece of news you read is fake. Peer comparison is an effective way to expose those that are unauthentic. Be cautious with possible opposing viewpoints related to ideologies, political systems, religions, traditions, etc. behind different coverages. There could be controversies on certain issues and it may be hard to define which ones are false news.

5. Utilize Tools to Debunk Fake Images

Don’t rely on graphics or videos because your eyes can be deceived with the support of technology. Editing photos and videos or even using “deepfakes” and “shallowfakes” are witty means to convince people to believe the fake news. Fortunately, there are tools that can help you check whether an image is real or manipulated. Here are some you can try:

• Google’s Reverse Image Search
• Fake Image Detector
• TinEye

6. Ask Professional Fact-checking Media Organizations

• FactCheck.org
• International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN)
• PolitiFact.com
• Snopes.com