Prebunking: The new tactic to help people spot fake news

[Social Media]

In a battle to tackle misinformation, Google is expanding on a new initiative called "prebunking".

The tech giant aims to release short videos which highlight the techniques that are commonly used whenever misleading information is put out on to the internet.

 

The videos are set to appear as adverts and will be put out on platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, or TikTok.

After seeing positive results during a trial in Eastern Europe, the campaign is now being expanded to Germany, potentially laying the groundwork for it to come to other countries in future.

[Tug]

I sincerely hope this helps we are awash in it one of our political parties absolutely depends on it 

[internationalism]

so I have followed this link to youtube in search for more info (I don't have twitter, so I didn't go there, I also despise skynews) and the only related news there was a little outdated

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-youtube-to-block-access-to-rt-and-sputnik-across-europe-immediately-12554678

 

That is interesting to read, that google is doing prebunking in east europe and in germany, but it's rather irrelevant to the rest of the wilde world.

I would think that in east europe readers can chose media outlets and form their opinions.

That is, indeed, problematic in Germany and the rest of europe. I am not so sure about the USA, Canada.

If youtube and other media and social media platforms do censor origin on news, readers end up misinformed

[OneMoreFarang]

There is a proven method: Trust only news from reliable sources.

And if it is important then check multiple reliable sources. 

[connda]

What's "fake news?"

It's whatever governments, corporations, and MSM mass-media who are owned by large conglomerates of mega-rich people wish to call it.  Creating a single authoritative view of the world which can not be discussed or debated leads to - authoritarianism, and then totalitarianism.

In communications, there are always black and white and shades of grey.  The monied interests who seek to limit what is called "news" to a single authoritative voice do so to promote their own agendas, which in turn boils down to increasing their own power and wealth at the expense of rest of humanity. 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, connda said:

What's "fake news?"

It's whatever governments, corporations, and MSM mass-media who are owned by large conglomerates of mega-rich people wish to call it.  Creating a single authoritative view of the world which can not be discussed or debated leads to - authoritarianism, and then totalitarianism.

In communications, there are always black and white and shades of grey.  The monied interests who seek to limit what is called "news" to a single authoritative voice do so to promote their own agendas, which in turn boils down to increasing their own power and wealth at the expense of rest of humanity. 

So the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, and CNN etc are all singing in chorus?

[heybruce]

18 hours ago, connda said:

What's "fake news?"

It's whatever governments, corporations, and MSM mass-media who are owned by large conglomerates of mega-rich people wish to call it.  Creating a single authoritative view of the world which can not be discussed or debated leads to - authoritarianism, and then totalitarianism.

In communications, there are always black and white and shades of grey.  The monied interests who seek to limit what is called "news" to a single authoritative voice do so to promote their own agendas, which in turn boils down to increasing their own power and wealth at the expense of rest of humanity. 

Fake news is news that is fake--stating things happened that didn't happen.  For example Trump's repeated claim that the election was stolen is fake news.

 

Is that clear?

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There is a proven method: Trust only news from reliable sources.

And if it is important then check multiple reliable sources. 

What's a "reliable source" these days? I don't trust any media of any sort and assume that it's BS till proven otherwise.

 

Even once trusted sources such as the BBC are suspect now.

[Chomper Higgot]

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What's a "reliable source" these days? I don't trust any media of any sort and assume that it's BS till proven otherwise.

 

Even once trusted sources such as the BBC are suspect now.

The efforts to destroy your trust in the multiple sources of news available to you have worked then.

Don’t feel alone on this, it’s common beyond the moderate center of the political spectrum.

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What's a "reliable source" these days? I don't trust any media of any sort and assume that it's BS till proven otherwise.

 

Even once trusted sources such as the BBC are suspect now.

In countries in which the press is independent of the government and free to criticize the leaders I trust to competition.  Many news organizations work to earn a reputation as impartial and reliable.  None are totally impartial, but competition ensures some reliability by having these news organizations fact-checking each other.

 

Of course there are other faux news organizations that pedal outrage instead of facts, but they are easy to spot.  The 24 hour news television channels are especially rife with this ilk.  That's why I prefer reading the news.

Edited February 17, 2023 by heybruce

[candide]

The problem is that a lot of people don't care whether it is fake or not, as long as It's what they want to believe, or as it fits their political or cultural narrative. We've seen it on this forum, too.

 

I doubt it will have much effect. Google's prebunking will not stop people from believing that children have been raped in  pizzeria, that elections were rigged in 2020, or that vaccines kill more people than they save.

 

On top of it, it won't last long before it is called something like a 'deep State left-wing woke fake debunking service', by people who want to diffuse fake news.

[placeholder]

On 2/16/2023 at 10:30 AM, internationalism said:

so I have followed this link to youtube in search for more info (I don't have twitter, so I didn't go there, I also despise skynews) and the only related news there was a little outdated

https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-invasion-youtube-to-block-access-to-rt-and-sputnik-across-europe-immediately-12554678

 

That is interesting to read, that google is doing prebunking in east europe and in germany, but it's rather irrelevant to the rest of the wilde world.

I would think that in east europe readers can chose media outlets and form their opinions.

That is, indeed, problematic in Germany and the rest of europe. I am not so sure about the USA, Canada.

If youtube and other media and social media platforms do censor origin on news, readers end up misinformed

It's a good thing that doesn't happen in Russia. For instance, if a media source wants to use the word "war" instead of "special military operation" to describe the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there are no repercussions at all. News media sources whose reports don't align with the official version of events have nothing to fear. They haven't been shut down or exiled to other countries. All of this is true...in oppositeworld.