Realistic fake news and deep fakes are new phenomena that came to be as an adverse effect of being technologically advanced through the world wide web and enhancements to the technology itself. Fake news and deep fakes can be created by anyone and usually have a personal viewpoint underlying the piece of news that is being presented. In comparison to fake news, deep fakes seem to be even newer and are videos that most times are so well-edited it looks like the person actually said what they are saying in the video when in reality they did not. Highly tuned audio and collections of that person speaking and saying words are used to create deep fakes. Common examples of deep fakes are political figures, one we saw in class, former US President, Barack Obama, spreading a message he never actually intended to say. In this day and age and with the heavy reliance on the internet to provide information about any topic, realistic fake news and deep fakes are increasing and need to be stopped. It very often may and can lead to serious consequences that may not be presented right away but can grow over time.
Spreading information has many other effects besides its use. It garners views which can lead to fame and gives the feeling of being a part of something. This is popular with contemporary memes. It is said that what we read, how we read it, and how long we read something for are all pre-determined actions that are not something individuals are aware of consciously. Something that isn’t aligned with our beliefs, we spend a long time reading. (Britt et al., 2019) and this is perhaps because we simply cannot understand the other perspective because it is different from our own. In the article “A Reasoned Approach to Dealing With Fake News” (Britt et al., 2019), it explores the ways in which realistic fakes news and deep fakes come to be and their effect on the human mind. Because there is no filter on information, it is the responsibility of the reader to be knowledgeable. False information can lead to consequences for personal decision making. Our memory is indirectly driven by our own biases in selecting and interpreting information because we are naturally guided by goals and prior beliefs and any information that isn’t aligned with our beliefs we tend to judge as a lower logical quality of information (Britt et al., 2019). Repetition of information (illusory truth effect), being consistent with our beliefs (belief consistency), not seeking out disconfirming information (confirmation bias), and finding arguments that are consistent with our beliefs are all ways in which our memory remembers fake news.
Incorrect information remains a memory and this is illustrated by the continued influence effect which was proven in a study where participants read about a warehouse fire that was supposedly caused by oil paint cans but was revealed later that that was not the reason for the fire, but people continued to believe it (Britt et al., 2019). Another example that shows the extreme end of things that Britt et al. (2019) outlines is that of Edgar Maddison Welch who in December 2016 fired a gun to save supposed children held in captivity as a part of a sex trafficking ring in the basement of a pizzeria. Fake news spreads faster than real news and it’s always due to the controversial nature of the topic. Hashtags, foreign accounts, and bots all create trending topics, and that further gets divided up into the algorithms of social media user accounts on Twitter and Facebook because of specific user online activity. We are already only 75% accurate in recalling the claim of an argument when asked about it immediately, the errors made at this time change the meaning of the claim. So imagine how accurate someone can be over a longer period of time. When asking witnesses what happened at a crime scene, police only want to know right away as the longer they wait – the more distorted people’s memory gets. Where the source came from can sometimes make someone reject the argument or can also make the initial belief stronger through the backfire effect and this is all due to the fact that we believe we are more unbiased reasoners than others. But your sources of information may also be feeding into your views to keep you coming back for more information.
In the article “The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth in a Post-Truth World” by Barbie E. Keiser, it primarily focuses on exactly what we can do to help with dealing with realistic fake news. Keiser compares restaurant dining choices to the results of a national election to illustrate the severity of fake news and deep fakes and exactly what their outcomes could entail. Non-specific language confuses people and allows them to make interpretations. Reading headlines only is one of the biggest ways of spreading misinformation. This is seen in action because people are so quick to say they heard something but only ever give surface details. “Awareness for effects like this on the human mind and learning accuracy methods to detect fake news and deep fakes should be done through education. Funding should also be allocated to argumentation and persuasion. It is our responsibility to gain control of our own cognitive and affective processing. The use of government sites and looking for reputable sources like M.D. can help. There are even dedicated fact-checking sites.” this approach taken by Britt et al. is similar to Keiser’s.
The education system does not bring awareness to fake news and instead allows students to find evidence from anywhere. Because site architecture influences what we see it can be hard to determine if the site is reputable. This puts our mind on autopilot and doesn’t make us read what we are clicking. Keiser suggests looking for the following information to help you determine if a site is presenting you accurate information: sources funding the effort as money can easily influence what is reported, the background of the person running the site and how verbal they are about certain controversial topics, and the degree to which technology is employed i.e. what are they using that is helping them present this information to you. The International Fact-Checking Network (ICFN) code of principles also needs to be followed to be reputable sources and sources that are reputable do employ these guidelines. Sites like AllSides literally show all political sides of a news topic and can be used to make sure you’re getting the truest form of information without any influence. Keiser also suggests the following to be an informed reader: make sure that what you share is factual and trustworthy because the path of misinterpretation starts with one share, purposefully seek out diversity of opinions and sources to open your own mind, reflect on whether a piece is news, opinion, or humor/satire i.e. how likely is the event to actually happen, and pay attention to where information is published (and who benefits). Keiser states that “Education in critical thinking–whether via games, coursework, or fact-checking operations–holds an antidote to the poison of deliberately false, faked, hoax information.” (2019) and I agree with her, education doesn’t have to be formal with today’s technology and it is important we start young and eventually the thrill of fake news and deep fakes could die out.
In conclusion, fake news and deep fakes are not taken seriously. The rise of fake news and deep fakes is in part due to the nature of people cracking jokes. The influence of all this has long term effects on our mind and could start to alter our goals and beliefs. It is important to keep an open mind about anything that comes into contact with us. If this is not done, people will continue to spread more false news than robots. Keiser concludes that by only interacting with people that have similar world views to our own, we will forever live in an echo chamber of our own making.
2020-4-24-1587754278