What ever happened to facts? Surviving in a Post-Truth Era

The two most shocking political events of the decade have undoubtedly been the election of Donald Trump and vote for Brexit. Following this came Oxford Dictionaries announcement of the 2016 word of the year: “’post-truth”. This is defined as a condition “in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. Indisputably, we are confused and alarmed, as the threat of manipulative media sources is no longer just something we’re debating over, but a perilous power that can in fact affect politics and our everyday lives. So how are we to make sense of this post-truth and how do we protect ourselves against fake news?

Why we believe what we believe

First of all, we must recognise that humans are social animals, and therefore often ruled by the instinct to conform and belong. This has been shown in countless psychology studies, including that of Solomon Asch’ Confirmity Experiment. In this experiment, participants were given a question about which line was the same length as another line. 75% of participants at least once gave answers that confirmed what the 7 other participants had said, which was incorrect, rather than their own true belief which was in fact correct. Now, what this tells us is that facts are at least, in part, socially constructed.

So we believe things because others do? That’s nothing new, humans have always liked to agree on things. So why do we see more and more polarised societies, essentially not agreeing and skewing election results toward unexpected outcomes? The answer lies in social media. Social media is enlisting our confirmatory nature more and more into narrow-minded ends of the internet.

Why are we so divided?

If you think you probably lean towards being a republican, you are more likely to click on links to republican-leaning articles. Then the algorithms hector and harry and you’ll start seeing more links for more of those articles, more websites disparaging Hilary Clinton and soon you’ll be surrounded by conspiracies about drug-trafficking rings. Meanwhile, across town, a democrat is being led down a rabbit hole of memes comparing Donald Trump to various farm animals.

Alongside this, there are copious amounts of fake news articles, trolling and misinformation being spread around the internet. The biggest player of this is YouTube with numerous sites producing automated news videos every 3-4 minutes.

Then there’s fake traffic from bots, increasing likes on Facebook pages and views on videos. In 2013 The Times reported that half of YouTube was “bots pretending to be people”. So not only is there fake news, there’s also fake engagement, in which entire sub-industries have formed who produce and sell fake-likes and those fighting against the fake-like producers. Touted the “Inversion” event, experts feared malware detection would start detecting human activity as the fraudulent traffic over the bots.

But why do people write these fake news articles or create these bots? Sadly, where there’s a buck to be made, people will make it. And your attention is their currency. The websites posting these articles get paid by advertisement companies every time someone clicks on their link, or likes their video. And the advertisement company benefits by gaining more customers and thus increasing their revenue. Well you could say, that’s fair, that’s just what advertising companies have to do to make their money.

But now entrepreneurs on the internet are realising that what drives traffic is content that outrages, exacerbates biases and reaffirms prejudices. Whole websites are now dedicated to reporting on crimes next to images denoting racial minorities and exploiting stereotypes. And that’s how we reach a polarised society.

The Agendas

But it’s not only people who like to make money, it’s also people who like to get attention. The virtual world is the perfect place to be just that; virtual; fake, and it is the fastest way to garner attention. Instagrammers and Youtubers are now posting fake sponsored content. Because if you want to become an influencer, you have to look like one right? This then will attract brand reps, who they hope will pay them real money to become a real influencer, if there is such a thing.

And then you might wonder, what if it’s not just about money and attention? Some evidence suggests that big companies could be benefiting off articles with certain political views. The theory goes that, those political views in turn, lobbies readers to vote for a particular candidate that is pushing financial or fiscal policy that favours that company.

US intelligence officials say they are practically certain that Russia’s Internet Research Agency intervened in the Brexit vote and US presidential election, and will do on the next. In 2016, a Buzzfeed investigation found that on Facebook, fake news stories were shared more, liked more and commented on more than top articles by the New York Times, leading up to the US election.

The Inversion Event

Then somehow the term “fake news” became fake news- the White House posted an edited video from InfoWars to support an inaccurate depiction of a member of the press inappropriately touching a female. The White house claimed that anyone who said this video was fake news, was fake news themselves. In the UK, the left wing Labour party said the right wing Tory party were going to sell off the National Health Service to the US. But again people claiming this to be fake news, were said to be fake news. The list goes on and on. Fake clicks. Fake likes. Fake social media accounts. Fake democracy. Fake everything.

And we find ourselves in a world where everyone has become the boy who cried wolf. And above and beyond just subverting the truth, fake news purveyors are getting us to doubt the very notion that objective truth exists. The UK showed a 12% increase in concern for fake news to 70% from 2018 to 2019. Research found that the US stood at 67%, while less polarised countries like Germany and the Netherlands had a percentages of 38% and 31% respectively.

The “Inversion” event, in the perceptual sense, has come. Everything that we once would put complete trust in, now has an air of suspicion and everything that we used to consider fake, now kindles our curiosity and has the power to be real. Or indeed, maybe it is both, in some way, or in succession.

What is being done about it?

So is it time to throw the towel in and admit that there’s no stopping the gravy train of internet fraudsters capitalizing on dopamine feedback loops? While the shiny headline of an impending tech-pocalypse seems as appropriate a thing to get our knickers in a twist about as anything, there is a lot of legislation working to stop fake news and there is a lot we can do.

The EU published a report in 2017 which is working on efforts to stem the flow of misinformation. The US Congress announced a bill in 2017 that would make sites like Facebook and Google document and make public, copies of ads and who is paying them. Media literacy is now being taught in schools around the world, to inform them of the difference between reliable news and sponsored content. The UK has set up a National Security Communication Network and research group to curb the spread of disinformation. The notion of “vaccines” against bots and fake information has been implemented in which people and systems are taught the tactics of fake news tycoons, so they can later be recognised.

And what can we do?

The first step, in typical fashion, is acceptance. We can accept and make ourselves aware that fake news is out there. Then we must become an active participant in fact checking, rather than a passive observer, giving in to clickbait and scrolling for hours through our newsfeed. In the words the Roman political figure Cicero, “freedom is participation”.

But fact checking is not enough. You also need to recognise your confirmation bias. Just because an article tells you that taking psychedelics cured Melissa of her depression, doesn’t mean it will for you. That is because this is one story. Just because your uncle smoked and lived until he was one hundred, does not mean that cigarettes are not bad for your health.

So when you are on the internet, actively seek out information from places that hold the opposite opinions to you. Play devil’s advocate. Don’t fall into the narrow-minded agoraphobic end of the web. Trust traditional journalism, like The New York Times or BBC over sponsored or dark alley websites. Read books and scientific journals. Perhaps most important, don’t let the internet be your reality; go outside and play.

There is much we can do to pursue truth but it remains that there are many that don’t want to and importune the question, does objective truth exist?

Is reality an illusion?

Perhaps we can blame René Descartes for that, our modern world architect, who way back when cursed us with the notion of the mind-body problem. He brought to our attention that if the mind was not measurable, how could we ever discern if thought truly originated from external matter? In this way, surely our thoughts are different from the reality around us and thus, like lots of little fake news articles, a construction.

Even the world’s favourite intellectual, Einstein, said, “reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”. Perhaps, we will never get over this old-as-time conundrum of discerning fact from fiction.

But Descartes also said this, “The greatest minds are capable of the greatest vices, but also the greatest virtues”. Perhaps instead of spending our time banging our heads against the proverbial wall of the mind-body problem, maybe we should focus on what our minds are capable of. We are able to question, to see things from other points of view, to look at multiple sources and aggregate huge amounts of data. Big data may not spur us to click like but it has the virtue of making great and gracious changes. It remains up to you whether you seek truth, or give up on it altogether.