Now, I am not a hacker, or even a programmer of the caliber Google or Facebook would employ, and they are working on this. But I did have over 2 decades experience with databases (mostly dBase and Foxpro), computer networks (mostly Novell), and users. And like all of us, I use social media extensively.
It seems to me the smart guys and gals in Silicon Valley could do something like the following:
1. Create an app that would let the user select any news/video link - without opening it; this is important, because once the link is opened, the person or organization at the other end can make money. We have to get to the underlying article or video without succumbing to clickbait (many users never even read past the headline on fake news, before passing it on, making such news spread even faster.
2. The app would trace the link back to its original source. Any legitimate news story will have links. Any mainstream video can, or should, provide a transcript, or at least a list of sources to go with the video, that can be investigated by a bot. If there is no way to trace an article/video back to its original source, that is a flashing red flag right there (really, I mean a literal red flag should flash onscreen in this case). Legitimate news media will want people to know they've created an article or video. Teenage hackers from Macedonia or wherever, will not.
Sourcing matters. It's Journalism 101. If a source IP is blocked, or there are suspicious hops all over the internet, that too should trigger a red flag. But, source alone should not be used to discriminate. There may be legitimate sources from anywhere in the world, some taking great risks in getting the truth out. The source should be identified, as to location (without endangering anyone if it's non-commercial), and if possible, identity of the reporter. Again, legitimate journalists want to be known, they don't want to hide their identities.
Whistle-blowers do exist, and they have outlets like Wikileaks to preserve their anonymity, but they are not the ones seeking to profit from clicks. They are not whom we're talking about here.
3. Maintain a self-growing database of media at the end of the chain, in a sort of Wikimedia style, where organizations can comment on the sources, briefly. But also allow the organization itself to post a brief description of itself. Again, legitimate news organizations will happily do this. Propaganda-R-Us will not.
All of this should come up onscreen for the user in an instant. If it doesn't. If there are blocks or inaccessible servers...well, another red flag.
In the news business, reputation is everything. Lose that and no one will read your stuff, no matter how sensational.
Let's turn the Internet's most powerful ability to interconnect everyone to our collective advantage, and let's do it in a way that is fair, honest, unbiased, and automated so that particular political elites do not control what we think, either overtly through fake news, or by suppressing our right to decide for ourselves. Transparency can save us.
It seems to me the smart guys and gals in Silicon Valley could do something like the following:
1. Create an app that would let the user select any news/video link - without opening it; this is important, because once the link is opened, the person or organization at the other end can make money. We have to get to the underlying article or video without succumbing to clickbait (many users never even read past the headline on fake news, before passing it on, making such news spread even faster.
2. The app would trace the link back to its original source. Any legitimate news story will have links. Any mainstream video can, or should, provide a transcript, or at least a list of sources to go with the video, that can be investigated by a bot. If there is no way to trace an article/video back to its original source, that is a flashing red flag right there (really, I mean a literal red flag should flash onscreen in this case). Legitimate news media will want people to know they've created an article or video. Teenage hackers from Macedonia or wherever, will not.
Sourcing matters. It's Journalism 101. If a source IP is blocked, or there are suspicious hops all over the internet, that too should trigger a red flag. But, source alone should not be used to discriminate. There may be legitimate sources from anywhere in the world, some taking great risks in getting the truth out. The source should be identified, as to location (without endangering anyone if it's non-commercial), and if possible, identity of the reporter. Again, legitimate journalists want to be known, they don't want to hide their identities.
Whistle-blowers do exist, and they have outlets like Wikileaks to preserve their anonymity, but they are not the ones seeking to profit from clicks. They are not whom we're talking about here.
3. Maintain a self-growing database of media at the end of the chain, in a sort of Wikimedia style, where organizations can comment on the sources, briefly. But also allow the organization itself to post a brief description of itself. Again, legitimate news organizations will happily do this. Propaganda-R-Us will not.
In the news business, reputation is everything. Lose that and no one will read your stuff, no matter how sensational.
Let's turn the Internet's most powerful ability to interconnect everyone to our collective advantage, and let's do it in a way that is fair, honest, unbiased, and automated so that particular political elites do not control what we think, either overtly through fake news, or by suppressing our right to decide for ourselves. Transparency can save us.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
5
3
