-
So, on April 23 of 2013
-
the Associated Press
put out the following tweet on Twitter.
-
It said, "Breaking news:
-
Two explosions at the White House
-
and Barack Obama has been injured."
-
This tweet was retweeted 4,000 times
in less than five minutes,
-
and it went viral thereafter.
-
Now, this tweet wasn't real news
put out by the Associated Press,
-
in fact it was false news, or fake news,
-
that was propagated by Syrian hackers
-
that had infiltrated
the Associated Press Twitter handle.
-
Their purpose was to disrupt society,
but they disrupted much more.
-
Because automated trading algorithms
-
immediately seized
on the sentiment on this tweet,
-
and began trading based on the potential
-
that the president of the United States
had been injured or killed
-
in this explosion.
-
And as they started tweeting,
-
they immediately sent
the stock market crashing,
-
wiping out 140 billion dollars
in equity value in a single day.
-
Robert Mueller, special counsel
prosecutor in the United States,
-
issued indictments
against three Russian companies
-
and 13 Russian individuals,
-
on a conspiracy to defraud
the United States
-
by meddling in the 2016
presidential election.
-
And what this indictment tells as a story
-
is the story of the internet
research agency,
-
the shadowy arm of the Kremlin,
on social media.
-
During the presidential election alone,
-
the internet agency's efforts
-
reached 126 million people
on Facebook in the United States,
-
issued three million individual tweets,
-
and 43 hours worth of YouTube content.
-
All of which was fake,
-
misinformation designed to sow discord
in the US presidential election.
-
A recent study by Oxford University
-
showed that in the recent
Swedish elections,
-
one third of all of the information
spreading on social media
-
about the election
-
was fake or misinformation.
-
In addition, these types
of social media misinformation campaigns
-
can spread what has been called
genocidal propaganda,
-
for instance against
the Rohingya in Burma,
-
triggering mob killings in India.
-
We studied fake news,
-
and began studying it
before it was a popular term.
-
And we recently published
the largest-ever longitudinal study
-
of the spread of fake news online
-
on the cover of "Science,"
in March of this year.
-
We studied all of the verified,
true and false news stories
-
that ever spread on Twitter,
-
from its inception in 2006, to 2017.
-
And when we studied this information,
-
we studied verified news stories
-
that were verified by six
independent fact-checking organizations.
-
So we knew which stories were true
-
and which stories were false.
-
We can measure their diffusion,
-
the speed of their diffusion,
-
the depth and breadth of their diffusion,
-
how many people become entangled
in this information cascade and so on.
-
And what we did in this paper,
-
was we compared the spread of true news
-
to the spread of false news.
-
And here's what we found.
-
We found that false news
diffused further, faster, deeper,
-
and more broadly than the truth
-
in every category of information
that we studied,
-
sometimes by an order of magnitude.
-
And in fact, false political news
was the most viral.
-
It defused further, faster,
deeper and more broadly
-
than any other type of false news.
-
When we saw this,
-
we were at once worried but also curious.
-
Why?
-
Why does false news travel
so much further, faster, deeper
-
and more broadly than the truth?
-
The first hypothesis
that we came up with was,
-
well maybe people who spread false news
-
have more followers or follow more people,
-
or tweet more often,
-
or maybe they're more often "verified"
users of Twitter with more credibility,
-
or maybe they've been on Twitter longer.
-
So we checked each one of these in turn.
-
And what we found
was exactly the opposite.
-
False news spreaders had fewer followers,
-
followed fewer people, were less active,
-
less often "verified,"
-
and had been on Twitter
for a shorter period of time.
-
And yet,
-
false news was 70 percent more likely
to be retweeted than the truth,
-
controlling for all of these
and many other factors.
-
So we had to come up
with other explanations.
-
And we devised what we called
a "novelty hypothesis."
-
So if you read the literature,
-
it is well known that human attention
is drawn to novelty,
-
things that are new in the environment.
-
And if you read the sociology literature,
-
you know that we like to share
novel information.
-
It makes us seem like we have access
to inside information.
-
And we gain in status
by spreading this kind of information.
-
So what we did was we measured
-
the novelty of an incoming
true or false tweet,
-
compared to the corpus
of what that individual had seen
-
in the 60 days prior on Twitter.
-
But that wasn't enough,
because we thought to ourselves,
-
well, maybe false news is more novel
in an information-theoretic sense,
-
but maybe people
don't perceive it as more novel.
-
So to understand people's
perceptions of false news,
-
we looked at the information
and the sentiment
-
contained in the replies
to true and false tweets.
-
And what we found
-
was that across a bunch
of different measures of sentiment,
-
surprise, disgust, fear, sadness,
-
anticipation, joy and trust,
-
false news exhibited significantly more
surprise and disgust
-
in the replies to false tweets.
-
And true news exhibited
significantly more anticipation,
-
joy and trust,
-
in reply to true tweets.
-
The surprise corroborates
our novelty hypothesis.
-
This is new and surprising
-
and so we're more likely to share it.
-
At the same time,
there was Congressional testimony
-
in front of both houses of Congress
in the United Sates,
-
looking at the role of bots
in the spread of misinformation.
-
So we looked at this too,
-
we used multiple sophisticated
bot-detection algorithms
-
to find the bots in our data
and to pull them out.
-
So we pulled them out,
we put them back in,
-
and we compared what happens
to our measurement.
-
And what we found was that, yes indeed,
-
bots were accelerating the spread
of false news online.
-
But they were accelerating
the spread of true news
-
at approximately the same rate.
-
Which means,
-
bots are not responsible
for the differential diffusion
-
of truth and falsity online.
-
We can't abdicate that responsibility,
-
because we, humans,
are responsible for that spread.
-
Now, everything
that I have told you so far,
-
unfortunately for all of us,
-
is the good news.
-
The reason is because
it's about to get a whole lot worse.
-
And two specific technologies
are going to make it worse.
-
We are going to see the rise
-
of a tremendous wave of synthetic media.
-
Fake video, fake audio,
-
that is very convincing to the human eye.
-
And this will powered by two technologies.
-
The first of these is known
as generative adversarial network.
-
This is a machine-learning model
with two networks --
-
a discriminator,
-
whose job it is to determine
whether something is true or false,
-
and a generator,
-
whose job it is to generate
synthetic media.
-
So the synthetic generator
-
generates synthetic video or audio,
-
and the discriminator tries to tell,
-
is this real or is this fake?
-
And in fact, it is the job
of the generator
-
to maximize the likelihood
that it will fool the discriminator
-
into thinking the synthetic
video and audio that it is creating
-
is actually true.
-
Imagine a machine in a hyper loop,
-
trying to get better
and better at fooling us.
-
This, combined with the second technology,
-
which is essentially the democratization
-
of artificial intelligence to the people,
-
the ability for anyone,
-
without any background
in artificial intelligence
-
or machine learning
-
to deploy these kinds of algorithms
to generate synthetic media,
-
makes it ultimately so much easier
to create videos.
-
The White House issued
a false, doctored video
-
of a journalist interacting with an intern
-
who was trying to take his microphone.
-
They removed frames from this video
-
in order to make his actions
seem more punchy.
-
And when videographers
and stunt men and women
-
were interviewed
about this type of technique,
-
they said, yes, we use this
in the movies all the time
-
to make our punches and kicks
-
look more choppy and more aggressive.
-
They then put out this video
-
and partly used it as justification
-
to revoke Jim Acosta,
the reporter's press pass
-
from the White House.
-
And CNN had to sue
-
to have that press pass reinstated.
-
There are about five different paths
-
that I can think of that we can follow
-
to try and address some of these
very difficult problems today.
-
Each one of them has promise,
-
but each one of them
has its own challenges.
-
The first one is labeling.
-
Think about it this way.
-
When you go to the grocery store
to buy food to consume,
-
it's extensively labeled.
-
You know how many calories it has,
-
how much fat it contains,
-
and yet when we consume information,
-
we have no labels whatsoever.
-
What is contained in this information?
-
Is the source credible?
-
Where is this information gathered from?
-
We have none of that information
-
when we are consuming information.
-
That is a potential avenue,
-
but it comes with its challenges.
-
For instance,
-
who gets to decide in society
-
what's true and what's false?
-
Is it the governments?
-
Is it Facebook?
-
Is it an independent
consortium of fact-checkers?
-
And who's checking the fact-checkers?
-
Another potential avenue is incentives.
-
We know that during
the US presidential election
-
there was a wave of misinformation
that came from Macedonia,
-
that didn't have any political motive
-
but instead had an economic motive.
-
And this economic motive existed
-
because false news travels
so much farther, faster,
-
and more deeply than the truth,
-
and you can earn advertising dollars
-
as you garner eyeballs in attention
-
with this type of information.
-
But if we can depress the spread
of this information,
-
perhaps it would reduce
the economic incentive
-
to produce it at all in the first place.
-
Third, we can think about regulation.
-
And certainly we should
think about this option.
-
In the United States currently,
-
we are exploring what might happen
if Facebook and others are regulated.
-
While we should consider things
like regulating political speech,
-
labeling the fact
that it's political speech,
-
making sure foreign actors
can't fund political speech,
-
it also has its own dangers.
-
For instance, Malaysia just instituted
a six-year prison sentence
-
for anyone found spreading misinformation.
-
And in authoritarian regimes,
-
these kinds of policies can be used
to suppress minority opinions
-
and to continue to extend repression.
-
The fourth possible option
is transparency.
-
We want to know how
do Facebook's algorithms work.
-
How does the data
combine with the algorithms
-
to produce the outcomes that we see?
-
We want them to open the kimono
-
and show us exactly the inner workings
of how Facebook is working.
-
And if we want to know
social media's effect on society,
-
we need scientists, researchers,
-
and others to have access
to this kind of information.
-
But at the same time,
-
we are asking Facebook
to lock everything down,
-
to keep all of the data secure.
-
So, Facebook and the other
social media platforms
-
are facing what I call
a transparency paradox.
-
We are asking them at the same time
-
to be open and transparent
-
and simultaneously secure.
-
This is a very difficult needle to thread.
-
But they will need to threat this needle
-
if we are to achieve the promise
of social technologies,
-
while avoiding their peril.
-
The final thing that we could think about
-
is algorithms and machine learning.
-
Technology devised to root out
and understand fake news,
-
how it spreads, and to try
and dampen its flow.
-
Humans have to be in the loop
of this technology,
-
because we can never escape
-
that underlying any technological
solution or approach
-
is a fundamental ethical
and philosophical question
-
about how do we define truth and falsity,
-
to whom do we give the power
to define truth and falsity,
-
and which opinions are legitimate,
-
which type of speech
should be allowed and so on.
-
Technology is not a solution for that.
-
Ethics and philosophy
is a solution for that.
-
Nearly every theory
of human decision making,
-
human cooperation and human coordination
-
has some sense of the truth at its core.
-
But with the rise of fake news,
-
the rise of fake video,
-
the rise of fake audio,
-
we are teetering on the brink
of the end of reality,
-
where we cannot tell
what is real from what is fake.
-
And that's potentially
incredibly dangerous.
-
We have to be vigilant
in defending the truth
-
against misinformation.
-
With our technologies, with our policies,
-
and perhaps most importantly,
-
with out own individual responsibilities,
-
decisions, behaviors and actions.
-
Thank you very much.
-
(Applause)