MNHQ here: FAKE NEWS!!! and related matters

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello

We at MNHQ have been asked to take part in a discussion with the LSE's Truth, Trust and Technology (T3) Commission, so we wanted to ask for your thoughts on a few topics so that we can give an impression of what MNers reckon.

The T3 Commission says it is 'dealing with the crisis in public information' and wants to 'work with experts, practitioners and the public to identify structural causes of media misinformation and set out a new framework for strategic policy.'

The questions they've asked us to focus on are:

What media literacy skills do citizens need, given that a functioning democracy requires a well-informed public? What kinds of policy regarding media literacy would enable 'due trust' in democratic processes, and give people the tools to assess competing claims?

Is media literacy for children and young people effective and fit for purpose? What about older adults, who sometimes lack digital skills and have generally not received formal training? Is the nature of media literacy itself changing?

What responsibilities for improving information quality and the conditions of media literacy do platforms, journalists, corporations, public relations, advertising, civil society and government have?

What specifically can be done about the risk that algorithmic selection polarises opinions and beliefs?

What expectations are citizens entitled to have about how information and news is presented to them online?

We'd love to know what you all think about any or all of this - thanks in advance

MNHQ

To identify Russian bots you need grammar.

Reading. Proper reading in schools, reading for pleasure. The more exposure to different kinds of writing the more experience people have of authentic Vs bullshit.

Studying literature and art is also a 'specific' weapon against the polarising thing you're taking about - though I don't know why you had to phrase it so obliquely. Art & lit are what teach us about grey areas.

Stop studying grammar for its own sake and start studying the EFFECT different kinds of linguistic structures have. Eg if you start a sentence with 'luckily' what does that make you FEEL about the rest of the sentence? Knowing it's a frontal adverb or whatever they call it this week is utterly useless.

Education-

We live so log and have so many careers nowadays, we need to be equipped:

Learning should be ‘learning how to learn’ how to find balanced information, how not to be in an echo chamber, how its ok to change your mind.

Critical thinking is key
We need to teach our children about the feedback loop of social media, we need to show them the value of science and evidence-based decision making. We also need to teach them how to appreciate and enjoy the arts.

We could end up in a massive mental /physical/financial/environmental crisis when there is less work to do (AI) and no alternative because we don’t know how to think or enjoy anything but money or power.

Really interesting questions.

For me I think a lot of it is a reflection of society at the moment. We are seeing a huge rise in identity politics and that feeds the bias in news. Identity politics is antithetical to critical thought, and to any sort of collective identification. When you add in the algorithmic biasing you reinforce the loop further.
Add in the fact that critical thinking is out of fashion and it reinforces even more. So you end up with everyone in their little boxes, out victiming each other and shouting.

I actually don’t know how to resolve that (there’s an ID politics thread on FWR where I asked this.) I suspect a major war or natural disaster is what usually reunites people but obviously that’s not desirable...

What specifically can be done about the risk that algorithmic selection polarises opinions and beliefs? you regulate the living daylights out of the bigger providers/platforms. And you attempt to ram some critical thinking skills into people from a young age.

To inoculate against this you need both a science and arts type approach. People need to be aware of basic statistics and how they are used and misused. They need to have basic scientific literacy. They need the sociological background on advertising, propaganda and manipulation. I still remember a class taught at school thirty years back where our teacher taped some adverts for us and broke each one down into ‘buy this or people will think.../ buy this and be sexy.../everyone else has this’ etc. It was a huge eye opener even as a kid.

Feedback loops of social media as a pp says. V important

And porn. We have to teach both sexes that the current porn climate is bloody awful and not representative of good sex. Lots of issues spin off that.

[[http://www2.alcdsb.on.ca/~regiath/kenney/law12/articles/FakeNewArticle.pdf
Economic incentives to make fake news]].

I'm sure we did quite a few lessons in history and English on spotting bias and checking sources. I learnt from there and check even on the slant of articles occasionally. All reporting is biased, that's the point. We are all full of hidden bias, but that isn't fake news. Fake news aims to mislead, not influence, and for that as parents we need to foster a healthy cynacism online.

Very important topic. I am another one to second children learning hsitory and geography as two of their GCSEs if not A levels and also studying propaganda and what it is - I am sure loads of English lit teachers also cover this.

On the whole I see the internet as a huge force for good and stops people being fed one line only and is one reason I read different sources, i hope with an open mind. So my over riding aim would be to see much less, not more, censorship. I am happy to couple that with more warnings to people and teenagers in particular to question things all the time but nothing that censors us more. The state usually wants to censor us more so most state initiatives tend to have a hidden agenda of pushing their own views so on the whole if we stick to more not less internet freedom, the safer we wil be.

"What media literacy skills do citizens need, given that a functioning democracy requires a well-informed public? What kinds of policy regarding media literacy would enable 'due trust' in democratic processes, and give people the tools to assess competing claims?"

Good schooling. Enquiring minds. Helping teenagers see the difference between speculation and proof. Eg my father always bought the Observer and Sunday Times so he and we could read both sides of things and I hope I do the same with my 5 children - youngest 2 at unversity now and I hope they know how to judge for themselves what is more accurate than something else.

"Is media literacy for children and young people effective and fit for purpose? What about older adults, who sometimes lack digital skills and have generally not received formal training? Is the nature of media literacy itself changing?"

I don't know what "media literacy for children" is. I don't think the sentence makes sense. I think they mean do children and young people understand how to judge if what they are reading is likely to be true or not or can they tell if something is a lie or not. However that is not what the words "media literacy" mean. They may have defined the terms elsewhere however. Old people are the same as any people - they tend to have a fair idea as to whether Prince Philip really is a lizard and that we may not be 100% sure who did the poisoning in Salisbury.

"What responsibilities for improving information quality and the conditions of media literacy do platforms, journalists, corporations, public relations, advertising, civil society and government have?"

I like those hosting content to be a passive wall, a mere conduit so we encourage freedom for people to write whatever they like and so people can choose to go for the content they trust without restriction from the state. We need fewer laws interfering with on-line press freedoms, not more and should set about getting rid of some of those we currently have. The Government's role should be to say say what you like but here are the ways that people can assess what is true or not and by publishing real evidence where they can to prove something untrue is indeed untrue.

"What specifically can be done about the risk that algorithmic selection polarises opinions and beliefs?"

It is a fairly pure tool actually and I trust Big Data much more than Big Government so I would leave well alone if I were the state. If the Government does not like the views it makes people hold then it should just put out more programmes or video clips presenting its own views.

"What expectations are citizens entitled to have about how information and news is presented to them online?"

That it is uncensored and may well be untrue but that freedom to publish is the higher freedom.

Thank you so much everyone - really fascinating responses. The workshop we're contributing to is today at the sunny LSE campus (currently a massive building site) so we will report back on what happens.

Thanks for taking the time to write such detailed answers and for your insight, as ever

MNHQ