Consultation on Fake News by G: Influences on Decisions

 

Anyone with a computer and access to the internet, a messaging system would use it to look for information as it is convenient and expedience to do so and in the process transmit messages that may result in strong emotive responses. 

Anecdotal evidence suggests that the tendency is to believe such content due to the convincing arguments or the factual way an argument was presented. 
The veracity of the information cannot easily ascertain and due to human nature retain the first exposure to be factual until a contradiction comes along.   Where the content is repeated often enough it would be deemed to be authoritive in nature.  Those uninitiated  would fall prey to scams and misinformation from time to time.   

Past personal experience is often cited along with maturity of age as capabilities in discerning misinformation and whether the content is right and wrong.   

Since no one has all-encompassing and absolute adequacy of knowledge this is a fallacy especially where new exploits of new technology are occurring regularly on the back of improved infrastructure, services and products.       

These uninitiated become a matter for concern even as a crime has not perpetuated but has likely come across unethical business practice.  The locked mind continues thru a vicious cycle of inadequacy of knowledge of current on-goings and thus unprepared with understanding the multiplicity of complex issues.  The mind set develops into one of complacency, aloofness and ignorance. The challenge then is how to create and adopt positive attributes of learning, involvement connecting in the wider community are deeds that is not just idle chit chat at coffee shop talk.  However, this challenge does not exclude the need to sufficiently address the issue of information that is already disseminated, assimilated and already ingrained into the mind.  

In relation to misinformation is the issue of cashless payment, the exuberant embraces it due to publicity generated.  The uninitiated who are unfamiliar with enrolment or pop-ups with cashless systems remains susceptible to phishing or other malicious in promoting unethical or criminal intent with innocuous sounding titling.  The Green Paper have not considered this since the main concern is on dispelling information related to national elections and social order. Produced below is the scope of the selective committee:

Quote

“First, many online falsehoods were aimed at interfering with elections and referendums, and second, there are two types of actors.

Foreign state actors appear to have wanted to engineer specific outcomes in elections and referendums, while private individuals and entities seem to have been more motivated by financial considerations.”

Furthermore G could on their part disseminate information that has been exaggerated or restrict the channels for robust rebuttals and defense.   In such a scenario, how does one go against an institution to prove the propaganda is inaccurate?  Is there recourse?

Recently interest in fake news has brought another point that so far has been hidden from view and scrutiny and these are ratings that are based on opinions for services and products posted on internet and youtube that are unsubstantiated and seem to draw hundreds of thousands of views and thousands of “likes”.

Everyone has come to rely for information thru trolling internet for details and ratings before making a decision particularly for products and services and are greatly influence by it.   A consumer decision is therefore influenced by what he sees on the internet thru social media and through other extensions such as messaging or word of mouth.  The traditional methods while relevant has not have the appeal of convenience, compact and anytime being available. It does not have capably to dispel due to the vastness of the internet.

Hence many have come to realise the ease and convenience of the internet to push their agenda.   When the goods are delivered it could be fake or fall short of specification advertised. This is a loss of time, produces wastage not to mentioned the money in the process.   For example, when videos on 3D printers on Youtube for the “top 5 3D printers for 2017” are searched, several have videos that are nothing more that a compilation of corporate videos of 3D printers makers.   

The most common method is to build a collage of these corporate videos based on number of backers or amount raised in Indiegogo or Kickstarter and put out videos with the title top 5 3D printers.  How is this objective or providing any constructive information? Based on the hits on the Youtube site, it is clear the person has made money from this as hits are directly related to popularity of the site. Ultimately it influences a buying decision or if it is a military or political video would have perpetuate the belief of thought leadership and won a key plank in the physiological arena.