{"id":62798,"date":"2018-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-10-03T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/foxtail\/2018\/10\/03\/ifcn-article\/"},"modified":"2021-02-03T01:40:13","modified_gmt":"2021-02-03T01:40:13","slug":"ifcn-article","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.mozilla.org\/en\/internet-culture\/deep-dives\/ifcn-article\/","title":{"rendered":"In the fight against misinformation, the more you know the less you\u2019re certain"},"content":{"rendered":"

In 2015, finding enough material to fill a weekly newsletter about fact-checking<\/a> was often a struggle.<\/p>\n

This was one of my tasks as head of the newly-launched International Fact-Checking Network. And despite all the Google alerts, Twitter lists and RSS feeds I was monitoring, it wasn\u2019t an easy one.<\/p>\n

Many fact checks were being published (and many falsehoods disseminated), but there was precious little analysis of the field itself by researchers and reporters.<\/p>\n

Today, the newsletter essentially fills itself.<\/p>\n

A combination of factors turned fact-checking into something of a growth industry: increasingly brazen falsehoods on the campaign trails, the demise of the gatekeeping role of traditional media and the explosion of viral misinformation.<\/p>\n

Since 2015, the number of active fact-checking projects around the world has almost tripled<\/a>. Facebook has partnered<\/a> with fact-checkers in 17 countries to reduce the reach of viral hoaxes on its platform. Google highlights<\/a> fact checks in search and its news platform. Legislators from Brasilia to Singapore have discussed (and sometimes enacted) actions against misinformation<\/a>. And lots more research<\/a> has been published about the impact and reach of falsehoods and their corrections.<\/p>\n

The pervasiveness and reach of misinformation has led some to throw up their hands in despair, with dozens of headlines around the world heralding a \u201cpost-truth\u201d era<\/a>. At a conference in Brussels last week, several senior European officials declared with a straight face that \u201cBrexit\u201d won in the United Kingdom because of fake news.<\/p>\n

While some view misinformation as all-powerful, others think solutions are just one algorithm away. I\u2019ve lost count of the improbable techno-utopian solutions I\u2019ve been pitched. One of my favorites is a product that promises to \u201cautomatically determine the trustworthy [sic] of any news webpage, in seconds.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019m wary of these black-and-white attitudes. If the past three years have convinced me of anything, it’s that there is value in grayscale.<\/p>\n

The heightened attention on fact-checking has greatly expanded our understanding of the instrument \u2014 while at the same time greatly complicating it. Every nugget of good and bad news contained in new studies is tempered by a slew of caveats and limitations in study design.<\/p>\n

This insistence on paying attention to caveats has made me unpopular with at least one commenter<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201con the one hand, here are some of my thoughts. on the other hand, here are other thoughts of mine that are in opposition to the first set of thoughts. any fair minded person will tell you that somewhere, halfway, between my first set of thoughts and my second, is a perfect and measurable truth. also, the earth! half round, half flat!<\/i><\/p>\n

thanks alexios for literally less than nothing.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Point taken. Yet with a field as young and (relatively) understudied as that of online misinformation, moderation isn\u2019t a cop-out. It\u2019s a recognition that the evidence out there isn\u2019t incontrovertible.<\/p>\n

For instance: While 2015 research found that Facebook users can be prone<\/a> to burrowing into conspiracy-driven echo chambers, a more recent study<\/a> of Americans\u2019 internet consumption found that internet habits were less segregated. Per the study, 13.3% of users only consumed fake news and 11.3% only went on fact-checking websites \u2014 but 14.0% visited both and the vast majority, 61,4%, saw neither.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Image: Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, authored by Andrew Guess, Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It is similarly hard to evaluate the results of Facebook\u2019s partnership with the fact-checkers in a definitive manner. (Disclosure: I played a role in making it happen.)<\/p>\n

In December 2017<\/a>, BuzzFeed found that viral fakes were still reaching huge audiences. This finding was somewhat replicated by my colleague Daniel Funke in a July deep dive<\/a> of two pages that have frequently posted hoaxes and conspiracy theories.<\/p>\n