To say Twitter is in chaos might be the understatement of the year. While the jury is still out as to whether new owner Elon Musk can bring the company under control, one byproduct of its current state is an increase in fake news. How can a critical thinker wade through the shibai and decipher what’s really going on in the world?
The introduction of the paid blue check mark has sown great confusion in the twitterverse. Previously, twitterers had to earn their blue check mark by confirming their identity through a process similar to that used by financial websites. People such as politicians, athletes, movie stars and the like had blue check marks, as did many businesses and government agencies.
Under Musk’s stewardship, Twitter recently introduced a feature where users can simply buy a blue check mark for $8 per month on an Android device and $11 per month on an iPhone. Twitter claims its process for verifying users under the new model helps to “ensure the integrity of the platform”; nevertheless, fake accounts have become abundant.
As a result, all tweets need to be taken with a grain of salt. First, to confirm whether the tweeter is real, and second, whether the information provided in the tweet is factual. This second point has always been something folks need to consider.
Truth seekers would do well to bookmark a handful of fact-checking websites. The Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) site at mediabias factcheck.com provides a pretty good list of media and fact-check sites on the web today, along with a rating for such sites. It can be considered a fact checker for the fact checkers.
Popular fact-checking sites include PolitiFact at www.politifact.com and FactCheck.org. These sites, as well as most others, are accused by their naysayers of some type of political bias. These two fact-check sites listed above are cited as “Least Biased” by MBFC. In the interest of full disclosure, MBFC rates the Honolulu Star-Advertiser as having a “Left Center Bias.” If you are looking for a site that leans your way, MBFC lists most of them, from left to right and in between. Along with biases, MBFC also lists those sites that provide questionable content, as well as pro- science and conspiracy- pseudoscience.
What about Snopes? Considered by many to be the granddaddy of fact-checking sites, Snopes, at www.snopes.com, was initially created to sort out urban legends. It evolved into a reputable fact-checking site, but a plagiarism investigation involving one of the founders led some to begin doubting it. (The plagiarism was not related to fact checking.)
The point here is not to choose a site and completely believe everything it says. The akamai person will look at a couple of sites, leaning more than one way, before formulating an opinion or disseminating outright lies to their family and friends via social media.
John Agsalud is an IT expert with more than 25 years of information technology experience in Hawaii and around the world. He can be reached at jagsalud@live.com.
