This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/26/opinion/nancy-pelosi-video-facebook.html
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The Fake Nancy Pelosi Video Hijacked Our Attention. Just as Intended. | The Fake Nancy Pelosi Video Hijacked Our Attention. Just as Intended. |
| (30 minutes later) | |
| Last week, a series of manipulated videos — subtly slowed down and then pitch-corrected to make it appear as if the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was drunk or incapacitated — were published across Facebook and other social networks, including YouTube and Twitter. | Last week, a series of manipulated videos — subtly slowed down and then pitch-corrected to make it appear as if the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was drunk or incapacitated — were published across Facebook and other social networks, including YouTube and Twitter. |
| The swift spread of agitation propaganda and the creep of hyperpartisanship across social media isn't a bug, it is a feature. | The swift spread of agitation propaganda and the creep of hyperpartisanship across social media isn't a bug, it is a feature. |
| The videos were viewed millions of times. They were shared by the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani (the tweet was later deleted) as well as dozens of supporters in the pro-Trump media. The president didn’t share the agitprop, but he did bang out a tweet questioning the speaker’s well-being. | The videos were viewed millions of times. They were shared by the president’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani (the tweet was later deleted) as well as dozens of supporters in the pro-Trump media. The president didn’t share the agitprop, but he did bang out a tweet questioning the speaker’s well-being. |
| Mainstream media outlets, in an effort to debunk the viral clips, linked to the video or reposted portions of it themselves, side-by-side with the un-doctored footage of the House speaker. YouTube removed the video, but only after it amassed thousands of views. Twitter and Facebook did not remove the video (Facebook eventually added “fact check” links to the clips). Journalists and pundits debated the social networks’ decisions to leave the video up, while others lamented the rise of political misinformation, filter bubbles, the future of “deepfake” videos and the internet’s penchant to warp reality. | Mainstream media outlets, in an effort to debunk the viral clips, linked to the video or reposted portions of it themselves, side-by-side with the un-doctored footage of the House speaker. YouTube removed the video, but only after it amassed thousands of views. Twitter and Facebook did not remove the video (Facebook eventually added “fact check” links to the clips). Journalists and pundits debated the social networks’ decisions to leave the video up, while others lamented the rise of political misinformation, filter bubbles, the future of “deepfake” videos and the internet’s penchant to warp reality. |
| Whether repeating the lie or attempting to knock it down, the dominant political narrative of the past two days has focused squarely on Speaker Pelosi’s health. And the video views continue to climb. Our attention was been successfully hijacked by a remedial iMovie trick. | Whether repeating the lie or attempting to knock it down, the dominant political narrative of the past two days has focused squarely on Speaker Pelosi’s health. And the video views continue to climb. Our attention was been successfully hijacked by a remedial iMovie trick. |
| It’s easy to fall back on the notion that the Pelosi viral videos are an example of a broken system. But that’s not exactly true. Many of the forces that led this particular doctored video to become news are part of an efficient machine designed to do exactly this. Our media distribution systems are working just as intended. They just weren’t designed for our current political moment. | |
| Facebook, the platform of origin for this video, did exactly what it was designed to do. It brought people with similar interests together, incubated vibrant communities that spawned intense discussion and then gave those communities the tools to amplify their messages loudly across the internet. The rest of the social media ecosystem followed suit. The world is a little smaller, just as the platforms intended. | Facebook, the platform of origin for this video, did exactly what it was designed to do. It brought people with similar interests together, incubated vibrant communities that spawned intense discussion and then gave those communities the tools to amplify their messages loudly across the internet. The rest of the social media ecosystem followed suit. The world is a little smaller, just as the platforms intended. |
| The mainstream media, designed to document controversy and separate fact from fiction, picked up the story with the best of intentions. Media discussions and stories arguing over whether Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should remove the video were an effort to hold the platforms accountable, while political pieces highlighted the abnormality of a presidential administration and political party spreading such brazen propaganda. The press identified a story, fact-checked and pointed audiences at the truth. Straight out of the journalism school handbooks. | The mainstream media, designed to document controversy and separate fact from fiction, picked up the story with the best of intentions. Media discussions and stories arguing over whether Facebook, Twitter and YouTube should remove the video were an effort to hold the platforms accountable, while political pieces highlighted the abnormality of a presidential administration and political party spreading such brazen propaganda. The press identified a story, fact-checked and pointed audiences at the truth. Straight out of the journalism school handbooks. |
| But if the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that you don’t bring a handbook to an information war. The distribution mechanics, rules and terms of service of Facebook’s platform — and the rest of social media — are no match for professional propagandists, trolls, charlatans, political operatives and hostile foreign actors looking to sow division and blur the lines of reality. | But if the last few years have taught us anything, it’s that you don’t bring a handbook to an information war. The distribution mechanics, rules and terms of service of Facebook’s platform — and the rest of social media — are no match for professional propagandists, trolls, charlatans, political operatives and hostile foreign actors looking to sow division and blur the lines of reality. |
| Facebook was designed to connect the world and shrink it — and to elevate new voices. Unfortunately, that design was dreamed up by naïve and well-intentioned engineers in a vacuum. Baby photos, weddings, bird-watching communities, Game of Thrones memes and the Ice Bucket Challenge: yes! White nationalists, race and I.Q. debates, clandestine prescription drug and weapons selling groups and Pepe the Frog memes: unthinkable! | Facebook was designed to connect the world and shrink it — and to elevate new voices. Unfortunately, that design was dreamed up by naïve and well-intentioned engineers in a vacuum. Baby photos, weddings, bird-watching communities, Game of Thrones memes and the Ice Bucket Challenge: yes! White nationalists, race and I.Q. debates, clandestine prescription drug and weapons selling groups and Pepe the Frog memes: unthinkable! |
| [As technology advances, will it continue to blur the lines between public and private? Sign up for Charlie Warzel’s limited-run newsletter to explore what’s at stake and what you can do about it.] | [As technology advances, will it continue to blur the lines between public and private? Sign up for Charlie Warzel’s limited-run newsletter to explore what’s at stake and what you can do about it.] |
| This disconnect between the platform ideal and the platform reality is why Facebook’s rules are arbitrarily enforced. It’s why Facebook’s fact-checking system doesn’t take effect until it’s too late and a piece of content has achieved massive distribution. And it’s why the company struggles to articulate whether it’s a platform or a media company or something else entirely. Facebook, by virtue of the fact that it made $16.6 billion in advertising revenue last quarter, is a media company. But Facebook wasn’t designed to be a media company, especially not one in the middle of an information war. As a platform, Facebook has no real responsibility for the veracity of its content; as a media company, it most certainly does. | This disconnect between the platform ideal and the platform reality is why Facebook’s rules are arbitrarily enforced. It’s why Facebook’s fact-checking system doesn’t take effect until it’s too late and a piece of content has achieved massive distribution. And it’s why the company struggles to articulate whether it’s a platform or a media company or something else entirely. Facebook, by virtue of the fact that it made $16.6 billion in advertising revenue last quarter, is a media company. But Facebook wasn’t designed to be a media company, especially not one in the middle of an information war. As a platform, Facebook has no real responsibility for the veracity of its content; as a media company, it most certainly does. |
| Similarly, the press has few answers for how to cover propaganda in an online ecosystem that is designed to spread hoaxes. The heart of the reporting process breaks down when your adversaries’ only goal is to hijack attention. As Aviv Ovadya, the founder of the Thoughtful Technology Project, told me earlier this week, the process of watching the video, even as part of a debunk, “might mean watching it multiple times to tease out the fakery, and then watching the original — embedding negative associations deeper into the brain. It not only diverts attention from everything else that matters; it pushes people to internalize those particular narratives and ways of seeing the world.” | Similarly, the press has few answers for how to cover propaganda in an online ecosystem that is designed to spread hoaxes. The heart of the reporting process breaks down when your adversaries’ only goal is to hijack attention. As Aviv Ovadya, the founder of the Thoughtful Technology Project, told me earlier this week, the process of watching the video, even as part of a debunk, “might mean watching it multiple times to tease out the fakery, and then watching the original — embedding negative associations deeper into the brain. It not only diverts attention from everything else that matters; it pushes people to internalize those particular narratives and ways of seeing the world.” |
| Yet it’s malpractice to ignore a false narrative that’s reaching millions. There are no easy answers, no obvious fixes. As my colleague Zeynep Tufekci lamented last year, “It’s like we’re supposed to fight oxygen but our only tools are matches.” | Yet it’s malpractice to ignore a false narrative that’s reaching millions. There are no easy answers, no obvious fixes. As my colleague Zeynep Tufekci lamented last year, “It’s like we’re supposed to fight oxygen but our only tools are matches.” |
| And then there’s the political reality; the media has even fewer answers for how to deal with a president and his associates who’re prone to trafficking in conspiracies. The media becomes trapped in a vicious cycle of newsworthiness, diverting attention and outrage to false claims and viral hoaxes. After all, the Pelosi fakes weren’t newsworthy because they were high-tech, but because the lie was so blatant and spread by powerful individuals. | |
| In other words, it’s not our systems that our broken, but our political moment. And it’s only going to get worse. We need a new handbook. And quick. | In other words, it’s not our systems that our broken, but our political moment. And it’s only going to get worse. We need a new handbook. And quick. |
| The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email:letters@nytimes.com. | The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email:letters@nytimes.com. |
| Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. | Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. |