Not With a Bang But a Stupid Whimper

There’s been a new development in the autopsy of the last presidential election. Apparently, viral fake news stories managed to outperform actual news stories on Facebook, leading to a public scandal for owner Mark Zuckerberg while also stimulating a discussion about social networks turning into echo chambers of misinformation. Years ago it had already been hypothesized that the internet, in spite of providing unprecedented access to information, won’t necessarily lead to a more informed public because it also gives people the ability to filter out any news that contradicts their preconceived worldview. Incidentally, that phenomenon seems to explain how I get most of my detractors. Social media, however, has added another component, because it utilizes algorithms to automatically show a user certain links based on past engagement.

No doubt many of my readers have repeatedly seen Facebook suggest pages, stories, or groups which do not interest them in the slightest. On Youtube, woe be unto the user who, possibly by accident, clicks on a conspiracy theory video or anything with the word “feminist” in the title. In the former case, your recommendations will suddenly consist of Infowars and other assorted pseudo-intellectual bullshit, and in the latter you’ll be treated to young men who have figured out the secrets of civilization by the age of 23 and have determined feminism and “political correctness” to be the bane of mankind.

The effect of all this is that even people who might not be ideologically inclined to this crap can eventually become influenced by it if it keeps coming up in their news feed day after day. This is especially true because let’s face it- most Americans and in fact most people don’t really hold coherent political beliefs. They tend to lean one way or another, but with the right message and the right delivery you can get self-described conservatives to endorse government intervention in the private sector or leftists to endorse a nationalist right wing regime. The recent presidential election is proof of the former and the common radical leftist position on Russia is evidence for the latter.

This being the case, the reader can imagine how people who don’t normally think about politics or who might be thinking about them for the first time (think teenagers, college freshmen) can be influenced over time if they are continually exposed to fake news, regardless of the political slant. A left-leaning person may reject claims about an impending crackdown on American Christians, but they might totally buy into a story about nefarious Monsanto corporation. Then come more group suggestions and story suggestions about how “Big Pharma” is poisoning us, and at some point they start seeing the inevitable memes about the Rothschilds. Another mind is lost.

guyfawkes

A pic found on Facebook- it’s the root problem encapsulated in one picture. 

It seems that America truly is becoming more like Russia, where the regime doesn’t try to convince you that it speaks the truth, but rather that you can’t know truth at all because there is no objective truth. While some have been tempted to blame the impact of fake news on Russia and their foreign-language propaganda outlets such as Sputnik or RT, the truth is that this was entirely homegrown. If anything, the Russians learned from us.

Don’t give up hope just yet. As disastrous as this election has been, it has produced some positive side effects. Igniting a discussion about fake news and how people get their information is definitely one of those silver linings. MTV may have stopped playing music videos a long time ago, but just this morning I ran across this spot-on article. Long-time Russia watchers will find some of its points very familiar. Have a look at this excerpt:

“One of the conditions of democratic resistance is having an accurate picture of what to resist. Confusion is an authoritarian tool; life under a strongman means not simply being lied to but being beset by contradiction and uncertainty until the line between truth and falsehood blurs and a kind of exhaustion settles over questions of fact. Politically speaking, precision is freedom. It’s telling, in that regard, that Trump supporters, the voters most furiously suspicious of journalism, also proved to be the most receptive audience for fictions that looked journalism-like. Authoritarianism doesn’t really want to convince its supporters that their fantasies are true, because truth claims are subject to verification, and thus to the possible discrediting of authority. Authoritarianism wants to convince its supporters that nothing is true, that the whole machinery of truth is an intolerable imposition on their psyches, and thus that they might as well give free rein to their fantasies.”

That looks like something you’d read about Putin’s propaganda machine (or any other authoritarian regime’s media apparatus), yet I can’t find any evidence that the author, Brian Phillips, has any background in Russia or Russian politics. If that is indeed the case, it tells us that Brian understands what’s happening to America. He gets it. The more people understand what’s going on, the faster we can start working on a strategy to fight back.

Those who prefer to laugh off the phenomenon of fake viral news and “tin foil hat” conspiracy sites do so at their country’s peril. While America has no Putin-like figure who can consolidate most of the media under his control, Donald Trump has given us a taste of what an authoritarian reactionary figure can do when he’s supported by media outlets who aren’t terribly concerned about facts. What is more, Trump and his media backers are liable to introduce a form of lying common to dictatorships, with all that entails.

When we look at Hillary Clinton, Obama, or even the last Bush administration, we see politicians who told lies to varying degrees, but who also cared about the concept of credibility. Even if we take the Bush administration and its lies on the matter of Iraq, we see that those responsible for selling the war carefully limited and qualified their claims for the sake of believability. In fact, I’m quite confident that many of those who opposed the war, if they could somehow be transported into a room with Colin Powell in late 2002-early 2003, would be unable to refute many of his claims about Iraqi WMDs or ties to Al Qaeda. That is because the case for both was purposely designed to be difficult to debunk with certainty. Yet debunked the claims were, and we know this because eventually the administration was forced to admit they were incorrect.

Imagine if the Bush administration, till George’s last day in office, claimed that they’d found all kinds of chemical and nuclear weapons in Iraq. Imagine they said they had concrete evidence that Bin Laden was at one point hiding in Iraq and being sheltered by Saddam Hussein. What kind of precedent would this set for future administrations? Credibility doesn’t just limit what leaders can say, it also limits what they can do. If they know that they can make up stories out of thin air, what’s to stop them from engaging in all kinds of authoritarian behavior?

Within days, Trump and his supporters have already made claims about paid protesters- every dictator’s favorite explanation for popular anti-government demonstrations. This is one of the most egregious political insults I can imagine, and I’m sure many Maidan participants know the feeling. Essentially what this claim says is that you do not actually have any beliefs or values. You don’t really care. It’s just that someone promised you twenty bucks to stand around shouting and possibly getting pepper-sprayed or even beaten by police. I realize that some of my readers are conservative types who may be propagating these claims themselves. Here’s a tip- don’t. If you can make that claim about others, they’ll eventually make that claim about you.

Last week’s election was by no means the end of the Republic. If anything it’s the beginning of a new era. Though there are obviously major challenges ahead, there are opportunities for an outcome better than anything we might be able to imagine now. If we’re going to reach that goal, we need to launch an offensive against fake news. We can no longer pretend it’s only a problem for people living under authoritarian regimes or in countries threatened by them. Americans must start taking fake news and conspiracy theories as seriously as the Ukrainians have learned to take them.

Phony news and conspiracy sites promise readers esoteric knowledge and insight. They are comforting by simplifying complex issues. They stroke the ego by allowing the believing reader to think they are more enlightened than the “sheeple.” In reality, however, these people are not only less informed, but their ability to take part in rational discussion is severely impaired. In short- fake viral news is literally making people dumber on a certain level.

When we think of technology bringing about the downfall of mankind, we typically think of nuclear weapons. Now it seems it might not be nukes, but viral memes that will be our undoing.

UPDATE: Here’s a list someone’s compiled of fake or otherwise questionable news sources. It’s supposed to be updated in the future.

As a general rule of thumb, if the news source or story features a Guy Fawkes mask, you can probably dismiss it.

 

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Not With a Bang But a Stupid Whimper

  1. AndyT

    ….Aaaand that’s why I’ve always avoided Facebook like the plague (it looks like Twitter and other platforms are following suit, though).

    On the other hand, I feel many people are somewhat overestimating the power of social media.

    FB has got a lot of influence, OK: but the network hasn’t produced rage and hostility on its own- it has been magnifying something that was already there – people are dissatisfied with the status quo.

    Let’s look at an average blue collar worker or anxious middle-class person – can we really say that Breitbart’s rants have produced a bigger impact than fading job positions and shrinking income?

    Reply
    1. Callum C

      The thing is that, while it’s hard to argue that the economy is in full boom mode, it’s doing way better than Trump et. Al. Would have you believe. Ditto with crime rates.

      People *feel* that the economy is bad, but reality doesn’t match that. Incomes have even been growing in the US lately, though not as fast as they should be and crime has been declining.

      Breitbart and it’s like have managed to turn a Meh economy into a bad one in people’s minds.

      Reply
      1. AndyT

        I understand the power of perception; on the other hand, I still think the economy has really been “meh” and below for a lot of people – and, more importantly, Clinton’s campaign has been too focused on foreign policy issues, whereas Trump’s (as confusingly and post fact-ish as it might have been) has addressed domestic problems.

  2. Mr. Hack

    Ir’s too bad that you compared the very recent anti-Trump protests with those in Ukraine two years ago, to try and make your very believable points. The scale,duration and outcome of the latter will be as comparable to the former as a tummy ache is to Ebola.

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      I didn’t say it’s a strong comparison. The problem I’ve seen with them so far is that they don’t seem to be well planned and I don’t think they’ll last long. In Ukraine there’s a tradition of long, occupation-style protests. Occupy Wall Street was a disaster.

      I guarantee you that if this continues you’ll start to see infighting, backstabbing, and the typical left-wing crab mentality.

      Reply
  3. Ivan Sorensen

    It is becoming a question of concern.
    I’ve talked to a lot of people who are convinced that violent crime is at record highs, that unemployment is rampant and that there’s gangs of rowing jihadists on street corners (always in cities they don’t live in of course) and when presented with facts to the contrary, they escape into some mumbled variation of “Well, don’t trust everything the media tells you”.

    Reply
  4. Jae-hyeon

    “young men who have figured out the secrets of civilization by the age of 23 and have determined feminism and “political correctness” to be the bane of mankind.”

    International Jewish conspiracy theories aside, I think the more sophisticated among your adversaries would argue that the “bane” of civilization is leftism (often with a capital “L”) itself: leftism, not so much as a form of politics as a type of psychology. Many of these are influenced by the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, and some find additional inspiration in the analysis of leftism contained in The Unabomber Manifesto:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm

    According to Kaczynski, leftism is driven by “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization” and characterized by a lack of confidence, an aversion to individualism and competition, and a totalitarian mindset.

    For a never-ending supply of contemporary diatribes against leftism, one need look no further than the neoreactionary blog Amerika.org. Here’s a sample:

    http://www.amerika.org/politics/leftism-is-a-business/

    “The only way to stop Leftism is to recognize it for what it is: tyranny by the unimportant, miserable, unhappy, neurotic and obsessive. In other words, those who are not the productive contributors and creators in a civilization have become a growth within it that hopes to take over. The rest oppress the best, which causes the best to drop out or leave, and renders that civilization into a wasteland of incompetence and solipsism.

    “That allows us to see what the true opposite of Leftism is, which is oppression of the rest by the best. When the best gain the upper hand, they tend to filter people into two groups, “useful” and “less useful or useless.” They then give positions of power to the former, and either disenfranchise or eject the latter. This creates a competence surge which can restore civilization.”

    Probably the gravest charges that are leveled at leftism to date are: the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror, the Russian Revolution and the Red Terror, and the tens of millions that allegedly perished under Marxist regimes.

    Reply
    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      Well let’s see- I’m pretty sure we can dismiss Kaczynski since he was basically a technophobe living in a shack and trying to murder people. Clearly he wasn’t one of “the best.”

      Also, if we look into the far right, the more fanatical far rightists are, the less successful they tend to be. One reason why neo-Nazis are neo-Nazis is because they really don’t have much else to lose. That’s why America’s National Socialist Movement, for example, isn’t packed with Fortune 500 CEOs.

      Here’s a rule of thumb. Go on Reddit, 4chan, Stormfront, or whatever. See how much time those people spend crying about feminists and other races. That is not the behavior of successful people. Successful people are too busy enjoying life or doing what they want to get all buttmad about a Cheerios commercial.

      White Nationalism, and indeed most nationalism, is in fact the cry of those with an inferiority complex. They want a world where they are rewarded and respected simply for having been born in the right ethnic group. They do not want a meritocracy at all.

      Leftism is a very nebulous idea which is, at its root, nothing more than attempting to change society for the better. Liberalism itself was leftist.

      You can attack the French Revolution, but the world is better for it. Hell, the American Revolution wasn’t exactly a picnic for millions of people either.

      As for what happened in self-proclaimed socialist regimes, this had little to do with Marxism and more to do with concrete political issues (i.e. remaining in power).

      I look at those movements as basically the socialists’ version of early liberalism, which of course was defined by slavery, colonialism, genocide, etc. When arguing with a defender of liberalism today, I’m not going to bring up American slavery or the numerous famines in India because I know that the rational defender of the status quo won’t even attempt to defend those things. They discarded them.

      Sadly, it seems many leftists today are unwilling to discard failed attempts at socialism and try to work on something new.

      Reply
      1. Jae-hyeon

        <>

        And unfortunately, he succeeded in several of his attempts. Though I do not condone his actions, I make a point of separating individuals with their words because I think propositions stand or fall on their own – including the propositions in Industrial Society and Its Future. (To a point – for one thing, I see nothing wrong with inquiring about how an individual came to hold the beliefs he holds.) “10 times 10 equals 100” is a true proposition, even if uttered by an utter madman.

        <>

        That depends on how we define the term, of course. While I myself probably do not have a clear definition, I personally do not think that net worth is the best standard. When it comes to achievements as opposed to attributes, I value intellectual and creative achievements – especially those in philosophy, science, and art – over financial ones. (Not to say that these are mutually exclusive – just look at J. K. Rowling.)

        I don’t know a whole lot about Dr. Kaczynski, except that he, a Harvard graduate, supposedly has an IQ exceeding 160, is widely read in political science, and was a mathematical prodigy who once had a promising career at UC Berkeley. (You might be amused to know that, several years ago, he listed his eight life sentences as “awards” when he submitted his information as an alumnus to Harvard.)

        If your observations about far rightists are accurate, then Kaczynski’s description of leftists might actually apply to them to a large degree, ironically enough.

        <>

        The ex-Marxist Christopher Hitchens once wrote somewhere something to the effect that the force (i.e., violence) of a revolution is directly proportional to the degree of tyranny and oppression that preceded the revolution. (If I recall correctly, Arnold J. Toynbee wrote something similar in his Study of History.) Perhaps that line of reasoning is fair enough, at least as far as it goes.

      2. Jae-hyeon

        I was replying to the following (I used angle brackets instead of quotation marks, which resulted in the quoted text being omitted):

        “we can dismiss Kaczynski since he was basically a technophobe living in a shack and trying to murder people.”

        “Clearly he wasn’t one of “the best.””

        “You can attack the French Revolution, but the world is better for it.”

  5. Asehpe

    ” Americans must start taking fake news and conspiracy theories as seriously as the Ukrainians have learned to take them.”

    Do you mean by this that America should be doing what Ukraine is doing in this respect?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s