"The lie flies," wrote Jonathan Swift 300 years ago, "and the truth comes slowly after it," and he means the speed with which a lie spreads. Imagine that at the time Dean Swift wrote it, it didn't exist Twitter.
Researchers from his University Sheffield have managed to get an EU grant to develop an automated system that will control the degree of credibility of online publications in social media.
The internet, we probably all know by now, is an environment where everything thrives. From the hard truth, to the fraud and the innocent lie. We've seen untruths spread like a wave on Twitter several times. The optimists researchers, μάλλον σκέφτονται ότι θα πρέπει να υπάρχει ένας τρόπος να διατηρήσουν την καλή πλευρά των social media, όπως την άμεση και παγκόσμια διανομή των πληροφοριών, και ταυτόχρονα να καταστείλουν τη dark side.
The ambition for a computer system that will be able to classify truth from the lie on Twitter or elsewhere should definitely have our fetish algorithm, and the strangest thing is that software is going to replace the human crisis. Possible; We know that algorithms are designed by man, and their function depends on the person who made them. So, what are the assumptions that will govern the social media lie detector?
According to Sheffield's press release, the system will aim to “classify online rumors into four types: speculative rumours, such as interest rate hikes; Controversy eg is the MMR vaccine beneficial? Misinformation, where something untrue begins to spread, and misinformation, which is done with malicious intent.” If something can't fit into these categories, they design an "automatic categorization of sources for their estimation." Sources can be the newsgraphics πρακτορεία, μεμονωμένοι δημοσιογράφοι, εμπειρογνώμονες, αυτόπτες μάρτυρες, το ίδιο το κοινό ή αυτοματοποιημένα bots. Θα εξετάσει επίσης την ιστορία και το υπόβαθρο, γνωρίζουμε ότι υπάρχουν λογαριασμοί στο Twitter που έχουν δημιουργηθεί αποκλειστικά για τη διάδοση ψευδών πληροφοριών.”
At first glance, these all seem like very good ideas. But there are immediate examples that would have led to misleading judgments. Authentic news outlets, for example, are sometimes complicit in spreading disinformation (see New York Times with Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons). Sometimes there is also the lone rebel who says the right thing, but the institutional authorities may disagree (see Galileo). So you understand the dangers of the argument. There is of course the other side which is also dangerous. In an optimistic scenario, academics eventually manage to create magical lie detector software. Who will protect us from those who manipulate it?
Publishing was at TheGuardian Believe it or not, a social media lie detector is being developed.
