In today's political disputes carried on public media, it is quite
common that one source accuses another source of spreading "fake news"
or "misinformation". Although it seems rather obvious that some of these accusation are true,
how can a by-stander tell who is actually trying to deliver fake news and spreading the misinformation:
the accused or the accuser?
From another perspective, if one person is accusing another of lying, who actually is lying1 and who is telling the truth?
If Y is lying then X is telling the truth. But if Y is not lying (that is, if Y is telling the truth) then X is lying1, and his accusation of Y is a projection (like in the phrase The thief cries "Thief!", in which the thief is calling someone else a thief).
Thus one, and only one of the two, X or Y, is lying1 and the other is not (that is, he is telling the truth). But who is lying here and who is not?
In some specific cases falling under the above scheme, we may be able to figure
our who the liar is. For instance, if Y knowingly negates a
tautology (saying, for instance, "2 is not equal 2") then we know that Y is lying and X is telling the truth.
But in general case, there is no way to tell who is telling the truth and who is lying.
Never mind that the
sentence "He is lying" cannot be precisely formulated in any language
that is rich enough to allow expressing theorems of first-order
arithmetics. The so-called "Liar Paradox" proves that.
More specifically, in the case of standard arithmetic PA of non-negative integers (the so-called first-order arithmetic, a.k.a. Peano arithmetic), there is no formula P(n) with one free variable n expressible in PA that for every sentence Q expressible in PA, Q is true if, and only if, P(`Q') is true, where `Q' is a suitable code (the so-called Goedel's number) of the sentence Q.
So, if comeone (say, A) tells you the news X that Y is a "fake news" then, unless there is a clear and definite evidence that proves X, take X with a big grain of salt, as X can be fake news itself and Y can be the true news.
Moreover, if A has a record of knowingly and intentionally delivering or fabricating fake news, A's statements should be doubted
unless proved. Which does not imply that it should be rejected; it
would be an invalid inference to reject the statement just because its
source has little or no credibility.
Apparently, Google's management is not aware of the above facts.
Alphabet's Eric Schmidt: It can be 'very difficult' for Google's search algorithm to understand truth
In
the United States' current polarized political environment, the
constant publishing of articles with vehemently opposing arguments has
made it almost impossible for Google to rank information properly.
So
says billionaire Eric Schmidt, Chairman of Google's parent company,
Alphabet, speaking at the Halifax International Security Forum on
Saturday.
"Let's
say that this group believes Fact A and this group believes Fact B and
you passionately disagree with each other and you are all publishing
and writing about it and so forth and so on. It is very difficult for us to understand truth," says Schmidt, referring to the search engine's algorithmic capabilities.
"So when it gets to a contest of Group A versus Group B - you can imagine what I am talking about - it is difficult for us to sort out which rank, A or B, is higher," Schmidt says.
Ranking
is the holy grail for Google. And when topics have more consensus,
Schmidt is confident in the algorithm's ability to lower the rank of
information that is repetitive, exploitative or false. In cases of
greater consensus, when the search turns up a piece of incorrect or
unreliable information, it is a problem that Google should be able to address by tweaking the algorithm, he says.
Comment (MS):
Mr. Schmidt apparently doesn't know about general unexpressiblity and
undecidability of truth. He seems to base his believes on a simplistic
model where all questions can be answered by a software program that
his company (Google) is - according to his believes - about to deliver.
Based what is scientifically and mathematically known, this is not
gonna happen.
Even worse than the above, a California senator is trying to make government-apointed agencies decide what is true and what is false. This is not just arrogance; it's an obvious attempt to impose speech control, a.k.a. censorship, on the people in order to prevent them from questioning validity and rationality of governmental actions and policies.
Lately, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security established Disinformation Governance Board that is charged with prevention of "misinformation" by, reportedly, policing free speech online,
Below, is a short description of how the alleged claims of prevention
of "misinformation" may itself become an actual misinformation.
The Campaign Against Misinformation Is Disinformation https://townhall.com/columnists/laurahollis/2022/04/28/the-campaign-against-misinformation-is-disinformation-n2606459 Here’s how it works: They disseminate lies that become the official “narrative.” When others raise questions, point out facts that controvert that narrative or attempt to bring the truth to light, that truth is called “misinformation” or “disinformation.”Those who challenge the narrative are smeared as liars, kooks and conspiracy theorists.
And when that fails to stop the truth-tellers, the social media
companies (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others) shadowban them, hide
their content under false “warnings” or kick them off the platforms
outright. Comment (M.S.): Now, the actual liars accuse those who unmasked them as the spreaders of "misinformation".
The proof of the pudding is in the eating
An example of widely spread fake news were reports of voters'
preferences on the eve of presidential elections 2016, and categorical
predictions of Mrs. Clinton certain win (some, like New York Times, with probability of 85 percent).
Here is an example of the New York Times predictions (on the day of presidential elections 2016) that turned false (according to the New York Times):
On April 17, 2017, "CNN ranked No. 12 in total prime time viewers, and No. 8 in total day viewers this past week." As a comparison, "Fox News finished No. 2 in average prime time audience behind TNT. Fox News was the No. 1 basic cable network [...] in average total total day audience."
So, be very careful before accepting any media claim that something is a "fake news" as such a claim itself may well be a fake news.
Media do not have a spotless record of truthfully reporting the news, particularly when it comes to presenting samples (as opposed to whole data) of the reality. If such samples are significantly biased, the statistical conclusions from such samples are likely to be invalid and, therefore, may become fake news, or - more specifically - fabricated news.
Some attribute the above pathology to groupthink,
"a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people" that
attempts to "reach a consensus decision [...] by actively suppressing
dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside
influences". In particular, the resulting "disconnect" between the media and the reality was blamed on "political correctness", among other non-verifiable factors.
Here is a CSUDH BulletinOp/Ed on DH students' sentiments about Mr. Trump:
In LA County, Mrs. Clinton had 12 / 3.75 (or 3.2 to 1) votes' advantage over Mr. Trump, not even close to 12 / 0 reported by the CSUDH Bulletin Op/Ed.
If a government or its
agency attempts to protect the public from "fake news" then you can bet
a horse an carriage on it that the result will be a restriction imposed
on your First Amendment rights. Remember what Nazi did in 1933.
Restricting First Amendment rights in order to prevent some from spreading "false news" would be a bit like getting rid of the presumption of inocence in criminal trials in order to make sure that the guilty do not get away with their wrongdoing. (It is the idea that was considered mainstream in Soviet Union.)
If that happens then who will protect you, a vulnerable individual constrained by government-imposed (and, say, Google-administrated) test of truth, from your protectors?
For instance, one of recurring excuses for censorship has been a necessity for prevention of "fake news". In the past, such "prevention" included harsh punishments of the so-called "heretics" who spreaded the "fake news", for instance, the allegedly fake news that the universe is infinite and that other solar systems exist. Burning Giordano Bruno alive on stake was one of the infamous examples of such "prevention".
From a more general perspective,
an advocacy or imposition of authority-based prevention of "fake news"
(for instance, by means of censorship or intimidation) is a sympthom of a larger pathology. It signals a distrust directed at freedom of speech
and the looming denial thereof. Not surprisingly, those in the
mainstream of the said pathology (for instance, collectivists; in
particular, Marxists and neo-Marxists) often claim, without a proof, that free will does not exist. With this kind of ideology, it is not surprising that our individual freedoms, including freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, are being systemically curtailed
and - eventually - eliminated. If you would like to see where does such
a "progress" lead to then you may wish to study the history of Soviet Union
- an example of system that promissed abundance of goods and liberation
of all but delivered economic misery and submission of the majority of
its captive citizens to dictatorship of the ruling class.
It is free society's basic responsibility to sort truth from falsehood. We the People have a very good record in this respect.
Mathematics is a good example of an impressive and large collection of very useful true statements the development and verification of which never resorted to censorship and other form of "disinformation/misinformation prevention".
There are powerful methods and tools for the People to sort truth from falsehood. Some of them were mentioned in the Closing Remarks for Introductory Material in this class, for instance, here.
Governments and organizations with an authority to decide what is true and what is false do not have good record in this respect.
For instance, some deceivers often disguise themselves as "anti-deceivers" and project their own sinister intentions on those who try to resist deception.
I particular, some organizations that promote Marxism or postmodernism attempt to discredit their critics (whom they call "unreliable sources" and such) because they cannot defend their flawed ideology on merits during an open debate. Rather than disproving or challenging specific claims that they disagree with, they discredit them. This tactics incorporates deception that has been described in the Closing Remarks for Introductory Material in this class, for instance, here.
Generally, it is equally risky to take for granted any info posted on the internet as to take for granted "ratings" of websites by "fact-checkers", many of whom have agendas, like preventing their favorite ideology from factual criticism.
Those who uncritically rely on
"fact-checkers" without thoroughly vetting the
"fact-checkers" themselves are
likely to submit themselves to control of others: individuals, groups,
or ideologies that control said "fact-checkers".
The deceitful idea that the People must delegate their responsibility to sort truth from falsehood to some kind of "fact-checkers" brings this question:
"Who will fact-check the "fact-checkers"?"
that may be seen as a paraphrase of this 2,000-year-old question:
"Quis
custodiet ipsos custodes?"
(In
loose translation: "Who
will watch the watchers?")
"Super-fact-checkers"? But then who will fact-check the "super-fact-checkers"? "Super-super-fact checkers"? And so on, and on and on.
Such a system leads to similar paradox as the flat-earth theory.
_______________________
FOOTNOTES
1 In this article, I use the the
present participle of verb "lie" in a (recently) popular but somewhat
imprecise meaning of telling "things that are not true". The traditionally accepted definition of lying comes from the following: “A lie is a [false] statement made by one who does not believe it with the intention that someone else shall be led to believe it”.
Please note that in the sense of this definition of lying, one who
expresses a false statement but believes that it is true, or expresses
them without an intent to deceive, is not
lying. For instance, one who expresses an unproven hypothesis (that may
turn false because it is unproven) without an intent to deceive is not
lying; however, one who presents such a hypothesis as a proven fact
despite a lack of its proof, with an intention to make others believe
that it is a proven fact, is lying.
