Learning from things | how does content platforms and social media respond to false news?

"Zhi Wu Xue" is a brand topic created by Netease yundun. The words are from Han Wang Chong's "Zheng Heng · shi zhi". People and abilities are superior to each other, so that they can learn things and then learn things. Then they will have wisdom and will not know things without asking. "Learning things from learning" hopes to bring you gains through a piece of technical success, trend interpretation, thinking, and accumulation, and also hope to open your eyes and achieve different things for you. Of course, if you have a good understanding or share, you are also welcome to submit your contribution via email: [email protected]

This article will Staton, a professional educator.

Lead: This article uses the Twitter platform as an example to describe how content platforms and social platforms can crack down on fake news without review or prohibiting anyone. It should be noted that this idea is more suitable for users who frequently spread fake news.

Content platforms and social media can work with well-known fact checking agencies to prove or refute Twitter users who spread lies and false facts. As long as an individual reaches a certain standard, he can be asked to review the facts, and the fact that the review is required is not necessarily sent by themselves. For example, if a celebrity forwards fake news, we can also review his account and ask him to respond.

If an individual reaches a certain number of verifiable false statements, an asterisk (*) is next to their names. This asterisk, as a public identifier, represents the fact that this account often says-Objectively speaking, it is wrong.

In order for this idea to take effect, fact checking agencies and social media companies both need to maintain high standards. In fact, at present, social media companies lack high standards, leading to the spread of false information.

If such an effort is implemented correctly, it makes sense to identify misleading people who posted hundreds of thousands or more messages on Twitter.

The proper implementation of this plan requires that the star number standards be transparent so that users can understand the asterisk""What is the standard and has an asterisk".

The standards are as follows:

It is best to use asterisks only for authenticated users, because their Twitter has more audiences and greater influence. The user should only record verifiable and untrue statements assessed by fact validators as untrue. Use the following scale for the above politifact: True, mostly true, generally true, mostly false, or false. Here, only tweets rated as "false" or "true lie" will record the user, but will not count if they cannot be confirmed. As a matter of fact, politifact already has the criteria for trying to verify facts. Social media companies can draw on these criteria, whether they are working with external organizations or creating an internal fact checking agency. There must be clear rules to specify how many records can give the user an asterisk (*) and warn the user that he/she has obtained a record about the asterisk. In addition, the user should be warned every time there is a violation, and tell him/her how close he/she is from the public error message mark "asterisk. Users should be able to delete their records or asterisks "*". If the user does not disseminate false news within a period of time, the previous violations will be deleted from the record. However, if you commit another attack, the consequences will also be escalated. If you get two asterisks "*" before and after the user, the third asterisk "*" will become a permanent identifier.

This method is not necessarily perfect, but it is an important part of solving false news and an important form of social media to ensure platform content security, because it can achieve fairness and consistency to avoid prejudice.

This work will initially require a lot of effort and will make sense once it is established. Of course, this approach is risky. It is a punishment to mark someone as a public liar on an influential social media platform.

Maybe social media and content platforms should not do this in their own communities, but we have seen that when an online environment is not under supervision or hijacked to spread false information, what will happen. The benefits of this plan, especially its commitment to consistency, transparency and impartiality, are urgently needed by our social media platforms.

Learning from things | how does content platforms and social media respond to false news?