Over the past year, a lot has happened since SARS-CoV-2 emerged from Wuhan, China. The countries of the world took measures to address the pandemic which was declared in March 2020. Due to the current situation, high-quality information and research have become more vital than ever before. However, the quality of news that individuals get is questionable because of the prevalence of unreliable sites that propagate false information on social media. According to a Pew Research article, about one in five US adults admit that they get their political news from social media. A fraction of the US population also refuses to watch/hear from a news source that presents issues regarding the COVID-19 pandemic or the recently concluded 2020 presidential election. This issue has had dire consequences; a particular example is with the recent insurrection of the US capital by radical conservatives who blindly follow their demagogue, Donald Trump. 

Could it have been prevented?

Yes, this recent event could have probably been prevented if preemptive measures were taken to mitigate or eliminate fake news/ misinformation. This continental blog will advocate the need for big tech companies to target and eliminate misinformation and fake news while pointing out the concerns of this idea.

What is fake news? 

Now, to start, what is misinformation and fake news? Misinformation is defined as false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead or not (Dictionary.com). On the other hand, fake news is defined as false news stories, often of a sensational nature, created to be widely shared or distributed to generate revenue or promote or discredit a public figure, political movement, company, etc (Dictionary.com). These two types of information are detrimental to the progress of society, and they create a movement towards a dystopian/ totalitarian society instead. Big techs such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and especially Twitter are the primary sources of these types of information. 

Big tech companies also had this issue during the 2016 election; however, they did not directly address this issue until recently. Mark Zuckerberg stated during a May 2020 interview that “I just believe strongly that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth of everything that people say online” (Murphy M, 2020). This position is somewhat agreeable to a certain extent, but there must be criteria as to when a big tech company should intervene. 

Incentives for Big Tech to Intervene?

Although big tech CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg might not care about morality or ethics, they might care for profits. An article states that “an economic study by Tel Aviv, Israel-based cybersecurity firm CHEQ and the University of Baltimore have revealed that fake news is costing the global economy $78 billion each year” (Brown E, 2019). Within the same article, it also states that “other varied costs include economic losses from health misinformation ($9 billion a year in losses), financial misinformation ($17 billion), reputational management ($9 billion), platform safety efforts ($3 billion a year), and loss of brand dollars advertising next to fake news ($235 million)” (Brown E, 2019). These costs not only affect them but also other industries like healthcare for COVID-19. Thankfully, some technologies help track misinformation/fake news such as machine learning/deep learning algorithms, the Hoaxy program, Columbia University’s Emergent tracker, etc. 

From a business perspective, it is rational why big tech companies would have an incentive to target misinformation/fake news. This will help traffic the right type of advertisements to the right type of people. In economic terms, it would yield a positive externality in the terms of reduction of false information, and it would theoretically allow better educational sources to be heard by a wider population. This tells us that the problem is not with the technology per se but a moral philosophical one. 

In a Harvard Business Review, three distinct logics that characterize the external and internal pressures of its ethical issue were identified. The first logic is a meritocracy, the second is market fundamentalism, and the last is technological solutionism (Moss and Metcalf, 2019). Meritocracy is defined as “government or the holding of power by people selected based on their ability” (Moss and Metcalf, 2019). According to the review, it states that the environment that Silicon Valley asks for is an ethics that is “often framed with an eye toward smarter, better, and faster approaches as if the problems of the tech industry can be addressed through those virtues” (Moss and Metcalf, 2019). Essentially, what they deem as ethical are those who demonstrate the skills to be an effective programmer, data scientist, or engineer but not necessarily a better human being. Their train of thought is that one is ethical if one is faster and better at what one is doing, not what one is doing to improve his or her character. Since no one there who is of importance utilizes the teaching of ethics and philosophy, it is essentially a groupthink environment.

What is groupthink?

Groupthink is a “phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes irrational or non-optimal decisions spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible. The problematic or premature consensus that is characteristic of groupthink may be fueled by a particular agenda—or it may be due to group members valuing harmony and coherence above critical thought” (Psychology.com). This mentality must be eliminated from the tech industry because this only enables them to address an issue with the same train of thought as those they work with and it does not address the main issue. 

Market fundamentalism plays a role here because it is the structural component for companies, not only for the tech industry. Better worded, it “means that the system that you create has to be something that people feel adds value and is not a massive roadblock that adds no value, because if it is a roadblock that has no value, people literally won’t do it, because they don’t have to” (Moss and Metcalf, 2019). More effort is required from workers/owners of technology who want to be more ethical. The reason for this is that the company might produce a product that is insensible. This additional effort requires time and energy. Unfortunately, this is a product of a capitalistic society. It promotes businesses to strive for profit and this profit-maximizing mindset “shows” how well a company is doing. In the end, capitalism makes ethics a roadblock giving the thought of incorporating ethics as a waste of time and money, thus making the corporations brush aside ethical efforts for better technology.

Addressing these Issues at the Root 

Lastly, technological solutionism is “the idea that all problems have tractable technical fixes has been reinforced by the rewards the industry has reaped for producing technology that they believe does solve problems” (Moss and Metcalf, 2019). People in the industry believe that ethics can be transferred easily like a checklist, little do they know this task is not possible. Ethics deals with human affairs and technology, and AI cannot address human affairs. As perfectly stated by the review, “even for a “fair” algorithm, fairness is only a subset of ethical questions about a product. What good is fairness if it only leads to a less biased set of people harmed by a dangerous product?” (Moss and Metcalf, 2019). The answer is not the machine itself but rather the programmer, data engineer, or data architect. Tech companies ought to strive to cultivate the people working for them by bringing cultural awareness, what is trending with people in society, and so on. Perhaps, this might be the best approach to the usage of technology and the responsibility that big tech companies have for society. 

Although this optimistic approach is desirable, there is a dark side to letting big tech companies wield this much power (not that it already has too much power). Our mission on eliminating misinformation/ fake news could potentially lead to an Orwellian future. As stated from a Forbes article, In Our Rush To Combat "Fake News" We Are Heading Towards Orwell's 1984, “One of the most defining characteristics of the modern era has been the rejection of our history’s dark hours of allowing authorities to define what constitutes “truth.” Throughout history, repressive governments have maintained control of their populations by defining reality, constantly changing what is “true” and what is “false” to benefit those in power and maintain order.” Our demand for the truth leads to us letting big techs be the arbitrators of “truth.” This would give unlimited control of “truth” and “falsehoods” to these companies. In a way they can bend what reality is for millions, maybe billions of people and their consensus is what makes it “today’s truth.” 

This grim potential possibility shows the cost-benefit of targeting misinformation/fake news. Therefore, the lessons that we should take are the following: people should educate themselves regarding the process of obtaining reliable information and the way they act online. Secondly, the government has a responsibility to its people as a whole to progress society. However, in the current state, it must clean up its act, more specifically with the GOP/republican party. It is if and only if the people in government disregard the political agenda for the people of the United States that we can progress even further. Lastly, the big tech companies ought to have objective criteria to assess what kind of information is detrimental and what is harmless. In addition, this industry ought to incorporate ethics into its technology. Ethics should not be a roadblock to its advancement but an advancement instead. If we address the issues discussed in the Harvard Business Review, then perhaps future incidents from misinformation and fake news will be reduced significantly.

Written by Mark Arce-Perez

Citation 

Amy Mitchell, M. (2020, August 27). Americans who mainly get their news on social media are less Engaged, less knowledgeable. Retrieved March, 2021, from https://www.journalism.org/2020/07/30/americans-who-mainly-get-their-news-on-social-m edia-are-less-engaged-less-knowledgeable/ 

Brown, E. (2019, December 18). Online fake news is costing US $78 billion globally each year. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.zdnet.com/article/online-fake-news-costing-us-78-billion-globally-each-year/ 

Chengcheng Shao National University of Defense Technology, Shao, C., Technology, N., University, G., Ciampaglia, G., University, I., . . . Authors: Chengcheng Shao National University of Defense Technology. (2016, April 01). Hoaxy: A platform for tracking online misinformation. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2872518.2890098 

Fake news. (n.d.). Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fake-news#:~:text=false%20news%20stories%2C%20 often%20of,fake%20news%20on%20social%20media.

Geiger, A. (2020, May 30). Key findings about the online news landscape in America. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/11/key-findings-about-the-online-news-lan dscape-in-america/ 

Groupthink. (n.d.). Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/groupthink 

Karsten, J., & West, D. (2016, December 09). Inside the social media echo chamber. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/12/09/inside-the-social-media-echo-chamb er/ 

Leetaru, K. (2019, July 09). In our rush to Combat "fake News" we are heading towards Orwell's 1984. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2019/07/09/in-our-rush-to-combat-fake-news-w e-are-heading-towards-orwells-1984/?sh=4a70a4d81cd6 

Mikocki, L. (2020, February 12). How the tech industry cures and exacerbates market failures. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://laramikocki.medium.com/how-the-tech-industry-cures-and-exacerbates-market-fail ures-2a6de0734b3d 

Misinformation on social Media: Can TECHNOLOGY save us? (n.d.). Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-28/misinformation-on-socia l-media-can-technology-save-us 

Misinformation on social Media: Can TECHNOLOGY save us? (n.d.). Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-28/misinformation-on-socia l-media-can-technology-save-us 

Misinformation. (n.d.). Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/misinformation?s=t 

Moss, E., & Metcalf, J. (2019, November 14). The ethical dilemma at the heart of big tech companies. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-ethical-dilemma-at-the-heart-of-big-tech-companies 

Murphy, M. (2020, May 28). 'Facebook shouldn't be the arbiter Of truth,' ZUCKERBERG tells Fox News. Retrieved March, 2021, from

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-shouldnt-be-the-arbiter-of-truth-zuckerberg tells-fox-news-2020-05-27 

Shearer, E. (2021, January 12). 86% of Americans get news online from SMARTPHONE, computer or tablet. Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/12/more-than-eight-in-ten-americans-get-n ews-from-digital-devices/ 

Zuckerberg says Facebook won't BE 'arbiters of Truth' after TRUMP THREAT. (2020, May 28). Retrieved March, 2021, from 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/28/zuckerberg-facebook-police-online-speech-trump