If a lie is repeated often enough, does it become true? Of course not. But it does become perceived as true and that's the danger of the meme machine we call the Internet.
Recently, a Facebook post has been doing the rounds. If you're on Facebook you've probably seen it, but in case you're not, here's the low-down.
The post states that since Facebook's IPO, the site is public and "anyone can infringe on your privacy once you post on this site". It encourages users to copy a string of legalese to their own timelines forbidding anyone from infringing on their copyright or privacy. It includes sentences like: "You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein", and "The contents of this profile are private, and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law", with a reference to a piece of US law that is not at all relevant to copyright or privacy/the Roman Statute/other fancy sounding reference.
Legends and lies
Myth-debunking Web site Snopes.com says such posts originate from "the belief that using a simple legal talisman will immunise one from a particular legal consequence". Of course, it's all rubbish. Facebook users agree to privacy and copyright terms when they first sign up for the site (that writing that you click "accept" to without reading) and they can't negate the site's terms and conditions with a simple newsfeed post. Aside from that, the post shows a clear misunderstanding of what the P in IPO stands for. Yes, it's for "public", but not in the sense of sharing your information. It means that Facebook is a publicly traded entity.
The post is incredibly suspicious if seen once, but when it starts appearing everywhere in your newsfeed and posted by people you know and respect, it becomes more believable.
That's because something called "informational social influence" or "social proof" is at work where people look to others for cues to the correct behaviour in a situation. Talking about the same phenomenon, "Wisdom of the Crowds" author James Surowiecki tells the story of the street-cleaning days in his neighbourhood. On such days, all the people on the street have to move their cars off the road so the road can be cleaned. Instead of memorising the timetable for street-cleaning, Surowiecki tends to just look out the window and see whether everyone else has moved their cars or not. He reflects what would happen if everyone did the same thing? They'd all be wrong (and get into trouble with the municipality).
Frequent fiction
Susceptibility to social proof is compounded when the information comes from many sources (so is repeated). We're more likely to believe something if it's repeated by someone we respect, and bonus points if they're a figure of authority - for example, a DJ, politician, or well-known brand.
The ease with which we can spread ideas online and our access to celebrities and/or figures of authority means the Internet makes us more susceptible to social proof than ever before, and the problem is not just limited to social media.
Back in 2009, former newspaper reporter and creator of "The Wire", David Simon, said at a US Senate hearing on the future of newspapers that the Internet was slowly killing professional journalism because it doesn't deliver much first-hand reporting.
"[The Internet] leeches that reporting from mainstream news publications, whereupon aggregating Web sites and bloggers contribute little more than repetition, commentary and froth," he said.
The post is incredibly suspicious if seen once, but when it starts appearing everywhere in your newsfeed and posted by people you know and respect, it becomes more believable.
While he acknowledged the Internet was a great information and communication tool, he also lamented the scarcity of original stories or research.
It is easier, particularly for newsrooms that are under pressure to show hits as a KPI and have tiny teams attempting to compete with bigger publications, to just accept what others are publishing as fact, and since journalists are people they are also susceptible to the same informational social influence. Some publications (ITWeb included) still have an editorial process of fact-checking and a policy of verification and original research, but with an increasing demand for news "as it happens" and tapping into Google's hot keywords, that kind of publication seems to be dying out. Which is bad news because news publishers are seen as trusted authority figures, so when they spread falsehoods they tend to be much more believable to the average person.
For example, I still know people who are boycotting Woolworths because they didn't happen to see the big reveal (on a blog) that Justin Harrison, the guy who started the rumour about affirmative action policies, was a known fraudster probably just looking for Internet fame. After the original hits that the "no whites for hire" story got, mainstream publications jumped on it, merely repeating what Justin Harrison had said on his blog.
We need to start to become more aware that just because something is written down, it doesn't mean it's right, no matter who did the writing - radio DJ, mainstream press or even respected politician.
As the comedian George Carlin once said: "Don't just teach your children to read... teach them to question what they read. Teach them to question everything."
It also pays to remember another quote of his: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realise half of them are stupider than that."
Share