Cruddy Content and Cascades
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/mark-zuckerberg-is-in-denial.html
http://wtoe5news.com/us-election/pope-francis-shocks-world-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-releases-statement/
Following the 2016 general presidential election, much debate has emerged surrounding the effects of modern media, social networks, and technology on spread of information and disinformation.
One specific area of controversy focuses on Facebook, its arguably significant impact on voter behavior, and the problems that arise when the information being distributed by such a popular communication avenue is just not real. Earlier this fall, numerous news articles that gained traction on Facebook turned out to be ridden with lies, or just completely false overall. Two examples are particularly memorable: an article claiming that the Pope had endorsed Trump, and that an FBI agent who was associated with the leaking of Clinton’s emails was found dead. The pope article gained over 800,000 shares, while the article deeming it a lie gained around 30,000 shares. Reading on these Facebook-related phenomenons of misinformation spread made me think of class lectures on information cascades, and concepts of herding and sequential decision making based upon inferring from the choices made by others.
It is interesting to further analyze this controversy within the framework of informational cascades, attempting to characterize what informational and direct benefits from unknowingly (or knowingly maybe?) sharing faulty information. The informational aspect can be explained by the simple assumption that if an article gains enough momentum, and is shared by enough peers, especially by peers whom one qualifies as in-the-know or possessing a position of authority, it must be accurate and trustworthy. There exists a false sense of security that at some point along the line, things must have been fact-checked before they were let to grow and influence to such a big degree. The direct benefits I can think of from reading and sharing these pieces are primarily social. In joining any sort of movement, whether that be purchasing a popular tech device, or organizing a community for a cause, there is almost always a social aspect, and direct benefits can be drawn from being able to access others, and communicate with them. In sharing a buzz-worthy article, you can garner the direct benefit of discussion and enthusiasm shared amongst peers. There is also the person direct benefit of perhaps confirming your own choice (e.g. “the Pope supports Trump? I always knew it would be the right thing for me to do as well”). Thinking about these benefits also engenders interesting discourse about the intersection between information cascades and tipping points. How many hits, shares, and conversations about an article validate it and deem it worthy of further spread, or deny its substance and deem it irrelevant or faulty?
Perhaps the present moment is a time when we must move forward with what we’ve learned about information cascades, and the vulnerability of human beings to trust the untrustworthy. It is a time to take that knowledge and consider different methods and institutions that could come into play and allow for better, fact-checked information spread — understanding that totally false news does spread on a platform as huge and rich and popular as Facebook, we should begin to ponder who, if anyone, should take responsibility and correct.