system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I think some kind of mechanism needs to exist in social networking websites like Facebook and search engines like Google that ranks content based on truth and whether it can be verified

I'm not one to claim social networking and the internet in general makes people dumber, quite the opposite. People tend to forget that in the past, the dominant form of media consumption was television or the radio and when people partook in either, they did so passively. The internet, at least has people reading, writing, and interacting with information in a more conscious and active way. 


What has been increasingly worrying me over the years is effect of content curation algorithms and how confirmation bias, instant gratification, and a lack of (scientific/moral) standards determines the shapes of all our "positive feedback loops", however. I understand why this happened and what the intended function was (a better online experience/targeted advertising) but I think the negative side effects they are responsible for far outstrip any benefit that comes from them. On the one hand, algorithms like this made the vastness of information on the internet manageable in a way that a normal, non-tech savvy person could find appealing. On the other hand, dishonest/morally ambiguous "clickbait" masquerading as journalism or a source of information piggybacks on these algorithms for advertising and other purposes, targeting whatever personality type/group of people online they think they can harvest a lot of page views from. 


Consider how many "news" blogs that piggyback on Facebook with hundreds of thousands  or even millions of subscribers that know exactly how to pander to people based on whatever pigeonhole these algorithms dropped them in due to how they identify themselves and what their peer network is like (preferences, politics, geography etc). Kind of like your own personal Fox News/tabloid, automatically curated based on what appeals to you specifically, full of "Shocking!" information that is designed to wind you up in order to rope you into advertisement-laden, "clickbait" content. It's not inherently malicious (always), but the effects it is having on people as a whole is disturbing. Particularly with the sort of people who don't put conscious effort into avoiding being stuck in this trap. 


Some anecdotes (the first one is something I've encountered a lot): 


- If you're a ardent climate change denier, you will end up in an online bubble/postive feedback loop where climate change denial is all you hear whether it's content you searched for via Google or content Facebook curated for you (as Facebook friends who disagree with you are gradually drift out of your feed). Nothing is going to get between you from discovering pseudo-science denier websites like "Watts Up With That?" that are chalked full of misinformation that basically thrive on confirmation bias and morally neutral search algorithms. Such bogus websites that thrive thanks to confirmation bias + positive feedback loops. 

- Whatever characteristic about yourself you feel most defines you helps determine which positive feedback loop you get stuck in. Gamer? The more you talk about gaming and search about it on Facebook or Google, the more you have "clickbait" articles and gamer Friend's posts thrown back at you in a never ending loop until you start subtley having your opinions about non-gaming related things shaped by gaming blogs and gamer friends. 


Some people don't fall for this, of course, but many end up wrapped up in it and they start seeing reality through that lens to the point where it pushes people who aren't part of that feedback loop away from them. People who are more prone to spend a lot of time online who passively rely on social networking/media to cultivate the internet for them end up sniffing their own farts alongside people who are pretty much exactly the same as them. It's making us almost tribal in nature, this coupled with the fact that people are increasingly using the internet to sculpt their peer groups and isolate themselves from people who are different than them--mostly subconsciously. 


**I believe there is a *moral* imperative for websites like Google and Facebook to rank content based on truthfulness and how verifiable it is**. Then find ways to "deprioritize" all the bullshit. To take it a step further, I think this is the first time where anyone has had this kind of control over what information people are exposed to on an individual level, therefore it follows that the right thing to do would be to expose people to *the truth* at all times. Especially considering the mainstream news the world over is doing a really shitty job at this these days. 


Google has actually come forward and said that they have plans to start doing this (of course Fox News and the guy that owns "Watts Up With That" took issue with it). I think that unless something is done about the control these algorithms have over the average person's views (particularly people who don't make the effort to be objective), the more we're going to see this "tribal" mentality take place online and the more we're going to see it bleed over into the real world and into politics and public discourse as well (I think we already are). 


The virtue of being forced to constantly challenge one's views should be built into the foundation of the internet and major social networking sites, lest we open ourselves up to be manipulated by whoever has the desire to manipulate us. Therefore I think a mechanism needs to be devised that scores and ranks internet sources/articles based on the truth or how verifiable the content is.


Of course, I'm not sure what such a mechanism should entail. That's for smarter people than me to figure out.  


**TL;DR** Websites like Facebook and Google have "content curation" algorithms that determine what content you see. These algorithms are based on your preferences, patterns, peer networks, and so on. Your feed will show only friends who you share the same interests and values as you by virtue of you "Like"-ing them and visiting their pages often. Then you will be shown, most likely through your friends with the same interests, "clickbait" style tabloid news that rides these algorithms with the goal of being shared amongst as many users as possible. Over time you are exposed only to that which doesn't contradict or challenge what you think or believe in, at which point you and those like you (trapped in the same positive feedback loop) begin to be part of an online tribe as everything you experience online is through that specific lens. This can have negative effects on both online and offline discourse as everything you see is one-sided and designed to harvest clicks in order to generate advertising revenue rather than to truly inform people. Therefore I think websites like Google and Facebook should rank their content by truthfulness and basically de-emphasize suspect content/articles.
gpt
1) This isn't possible.  There is just no way to implement any sort of truth filter in these searches that doesn't involve some really awkward definitions of truth.  You can't have experts rate every page on the web, user ratings don't equal truth...the best you could do would be a filter that screened clickbait-y syntax patterns or entire websites that showed themselves to be egregious offenders.  That leads to:

2) This isn't desirable.  On the one hand, the search algorithm won't eliminate incorrect information, only really obviously incorrect information.  What's left will be well-disguised and much more effective in spreading disinformation.  On the other hand, the algorithm (or whoever controls it) is now unilaterally determining what the truth is.  If it gets something wrong, won't it create the same feedback loop you're concerned about now?