Google’s top news link for ‘final election results’ goes to a fake news site with false numbers

[Dakine10 5,452]

Fortunately we have real^TM news sources like Facebook and Alex Jones and that guy with the web cam to bring us the truth.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Fortunately we have real^TM news sources like Facebook and Alex Jones and that guy with the web cam to bring us the truth.

It's amazing how much fake or severely slanted news I scroll past on FB every day. Most of them time it's obvious.

[bcking 3,157]

The threat has been here all along. Remember the past 6 months, telling us all that Clinton was leading in the polls? That Trump couldn't possibly win? We all believed it.

I think there is a difference between truly "fake news" and "misinformed news". I think the polls weren't actually "fake", just perhaps not properly organized/sampled, or bottom line just not providing reliable information. Then if you take those "unreliable" polls, it wasn't unreasonable for people to say that Trump had a low chance of winning.

Not saying there wasn't fake stuff going around during the campaign, I Just don't think the polls were constructed by some evil conglomerate trying mislead everyone. I think they were real polls, they just didn't accurately capture the electorate that showed up on election day. I just don't believe in the "big sinister media" theory. I think most if not all media outlets had the candidate of choice, and many of the "big" media outlets chose Clinton and definitely slanted their news in favour of their candidate (which was wrong), but I don't think it was some huge orchestrated attempt to "control" the vote. I just think news outlets and their owners have forgotten that their duty is to inform the public, not make up the public's decision for them.

[Dakine10 5,452]

It's amazing how much fake or severely slanted news I scroll past on FB every day. Most of them time it's obvious.

Obvious to some, not others unfortunately. You would be surprised how many people actually believe Hillary is a blood drinking demon spawn.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Finally, you have come to your senses. I KNEW there was hope for you!

Obvious to some, not others unfortunately. You would be surprised how many people actually believe Hillary is a blood drinking demon spawn.

[jg121783 3,908]

Fortunately we have real^TM news sources like Facebook and Alex Jones and that guy with the web cam to bring us the truth.

Shows how pathetic the corporate media is when a guy with a webcam gets it right more often than a multi million dollar operation.

[Rob L 3,811]

I think there is a difference between truly "fake news" and "misinformed news". I think the polls weren't actually "fake", just perhaps not properly organized/sampled, or bottom line just not providing reliable information. Then if you take those "unreliable" polls, it wasn't unreasonable for people to say that Trump had a low chance of winning.

Not saying there wasn't fake stuff going around during the campaign, I Just don't think the polls were constructed by some evil conglomerate trying mislead everyone. I think they were real polls, they just didn't accurately capture the electorate that showed up on election day. I just don't believe in the "big sinister media" theory. I think most if not all media outlets had the candidate of choice, and many of the "big" media outlets chose Clinton and definitely slanted their news in favour of their candidate (which was wrong), but I don't think it was some huge orchestrated attempt to "control" the vote. I just think news outlets and their owners have forgotten that their duty is to inform the public, not make up the public's decision for them.

If you look to the popular vote the election was not that far off 1.5 versus 3.5 for Hillary. It was the state by state vote that caught prognosticators flat footed.

[millefleur 5,039]

I think part of the problem with fake news is that journalism is not the cash cow that it used to be. Click bait headlines are all the rage because people make money based on the number of eyeballs/clicks not on the quality of the content. I'm pretty sure even people like Google are feeling a bit awkward right now because they know they made a lot of money off of those fake news sites and now they're wondering what they can do to keep up the revenue but also go back to truthful and quality articles.

As long as click-baiting shucksters know they can make bank by offering fake stuff, I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon unfortunately. Google will try to impose restrictions, but then they might be called Big Brother for limiting free speech. It's a very tricky issue. But I can't stand Facebook and don't see how people can use it solely as their source of news. There's no doubting that the polls were way off, but that's happened before. It was a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for the 21st century. The economic crisis for publishing and journalism still continues, the fake news is just a symptom of that greater problem.

[Rob L 3,811]

I think part of the problem with fake news is that journalism is not the cash cow that it used to be. Click bait headlines are all the rage because people make money based on the number of eyeballs/clicks not on the quality of the content. I'm pretty sure even people like Google are feeling a bit awkward right now because they know they made a lot of money off of those fake news sites and now they're wondering what they can do to keep up the revenue but also go back to truthful and quality articles.

As long as click-baiting shucksters know they can make bank by offering fake stuff, I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon unfortunately. Google will try to impose restrictions, but then they might be called Big Brother for limiting free speech. It's a very tricky issue. But I can't stand Facebook and don't see how people can use it solely as their source of news. There's no doubting that the polls were way off, but that's happened before. It was a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for the 21st century. The economic crisis for publishing and journalism still continues, the fake news is just a symptom of that greater problem.

I would rebut that the antidote is the vilified "lying press" but that just stirs up the hornets nest around here.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It's not just google, and it's not just the Internet...

[Rob L 3,811]

It's not just google, and it's not just the Internet...

I dont see this as a good example

In the case above, Trump go to Mexico and did soften his tone

“We had a very substantive, direct and constructive exchange of ideas over quite a period of time,” Trump said. “I was straightforward in presenting my views about the impacts of current trade and immigration policies on the United States.”

and then he did get on a plane an not 5 hours later hav.e one of his tirades about the wall ( although he says he didnt discuss the wall and Nieto claims that they did)

In that example the candidate was showing two messages at the same time

[Dakine10 5,452]

I think part of the problem with fake news is that journalism is not the cash cow that it used to be. Click bait headlines are all the rage because people make money based on the number of eyeballs/clicks not on the quality of the content. I'm pretty sure even people like Google are feeling a bit awkward right now because they know they made a lot of money off of those fake news sites and now they're wondering what they can do to keep up the revenue but also go back to truthful and quality articles.

As long as click-baiting shucksters know they can make bank by offering fake stuff, I don't think it's going to go away anytime soon unfortunately. Google will try to impose restrictions, but then they might be called Big Brother for limiting free speech. It's a very tricky issue. But I can't stand Facebook and don't see how people can use it solely as their source of news. There's no doubting that the polls were way off, but that's happened before. It was a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment for the 21st century. The economic crisis for publishing and journalism still continues, the fake news is just a symptom of that greater problem.

Click bait - thank you. I was trying to think of that term when Rob was talking about google's news algorithm and it just wouldn't come to me.

[millefleur 5,039]

Click bait - thank you. I was trying to think of that term when Rob was talking about google's news algorithm and it just wouldn't come to me.

Yeah, "post-truth" was chosen as Word of the Year, but I think "click bait" would've been a lot more appropriate. Post-truth just sounds silly to me...I mean, I get what they are implying with it, but "post" usually denotes "after" and I'm a bit irked that they changed the meaning a bit.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”.

In this case, the “post-” prefix doesn’t mean “after” so much as it implies an atmosphere in which a notion is irrelevant - but then again, who says you have to take our word for it any more?

[Rob L 3,811]

Ex-employee: Facebook leaders should've paid "more attention" to fake news' spread

Founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is laying out a plan to keep phony news stories off Facebook feeds.

Play VIDEO

Facebook and Google go after fake news

Zuckerberg has been adamant about making sure all points of views have a place on Facebook, but he took time out from an international conference to address the growing debate over fake news. And some say questionable decisions Facebook made months ago might have made the problem worse, reports CBS News correspondent Jericka Duncan.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg told global leaders in Peru he wants to connect the world.

But even as he demonstrated virtual reality to Peru’s president, he was forced to deal with a more troubling reality back at home -- the seemingly unchecked proliferation of “fake” news on the site. A Facebook representative addressed the controversy Monday.

“The amount of news that is on our site, that is, as you would call it, fake news, is very small, but we’re not satisfied with that,” said Nicola Mendelsohn.

Zuckerberg outlined seven ways the social media giant hopes to curtail misinformation on the site, including “stronger detection” measures, “easy reporting” of fake stories by users, “third party verification” by fact-checking organizations, and possibly adding “warnings,” flagging false stories by third parties or the Facebook community. But critics say Zuckerberg’s proposed fixes are too little, too late.

“I think as a diplomatic answer it was great, but you know, I think what people really want are more specifics and he failed to deliver that,” said Gizmodo technology editor Michael Nunez.

Adam Schrader was contracted to work for Facebook’s “trending topics” division in May. He said he was laid off four months later and the division was eliminated.

He said Zuckerberg himself maybe was not responsible for seeing this problem coming, “but leaders within the company should’ve been paying more attention to what was you know showing up in people’s news feeds for sure.”

Schrader ‘s job was to help make sure that inaccurate news didn’t trend on Facebook. But he said his trending topics division was eliminated just weeks after criticism earlier this year, that Facebook’s information gatekeepers were suppressing conservative viewpoints. He said his division could have helped minimize the amount of fake news.

“By stopping fake news from trending, you’re likely to stop fake news from spreading further and I think one of the biggest principles of journalism is making sure people have truthful accurate and fair news,” Schrader said.

When asked how much personal responsibility Facebook users should bear in making sure the news they read or share is accurate, Schrader said it’s unrealistic for everyone to fact-check all the news on their feeds, so it’s up to the distributor – in this case Facebook – to step in.

[Rob L 3,811]

Yeah, "post-truth" was chosen as Word of the Year, but I think "click bait" would've been a lot more appropriate. Post-truth just sounds silly to me...I mean, I get what they are implying with it, but "post" usually denotes "after" and I'm a bit irked that they changed the meaning a bit.

Click Bait can be any bright shiny object that comes up on a web page that drives you to use it including Kittens, Grapefruit reducing belly fat or some unbelievable fact about a presidential candidate getting indicted. There are economic drivers for some of these and various form deception in others.

When we talk about the post truth era we talk about folks intentionally choosing unverifiable facts and weighing them greater than or equal to truth that can be proven or measured. The internet searches and facebook feeds is just one modality for this.

This bias against the truth is even present in our standard media processes. A good example is climate change: If a news channel presents information on climate change in the news it is incumbent upon them to give equal time to the "opposing view" The thing is Climate Change is settled science, there is no debate in the scientific community and yet the public views this a still to be determined.

Trump et al leveraged the appetite for this and true to his promise "took all of the oxygen from the room". Is this revolution permanent or will we adapt? I feel we will adapt over time , but if these technology firms value their brand, they will get ahead of this before it is too late.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Rob L