 So today we'll be very much about is it true or is it false first one man releases a hundred thirty thousand pages of Declassified Air Force documents on UFOs clearly false. We're going to be looking at some examples. You tell me Trump had a victory recently and This kind of fake news was very very much part of it However, however, this one is not recent. This is dated 1993 and this was just after her husband Became became president So what's scary to me is there's a number of people in America that of course do believe that this would be possible and We'll talk about more of that a little bit later Resonate Then we have this one which appeared in Russia during the recent Event true or false false putting this not writing on the back Writing on the back It's hard to tell how it's hard to tell Interestingly, it is a real sign, but it didn't go up in Russia. It actually went up in Montenegro Well, the hell is Montenegro? You might ask Here it is down here Whereas of course the Russian bear is a long way away The people in Montenegro just decided they would like to have that kind of a connection Actually, I remember that moment it came out. That was rather scary to me at the time Is that you doing that? Yes, that was me Okay, I Remember when my parents bought me a set like this most of you are too young to even remember what these are This is encyclopedia Britannica And The point about bringing this up is that this was a respected Encyclopedia because it was peer reviewed each time somebody would write an article for this There would be a team of editors who would have a look at it Make sure that most of the facts in there were pretty much correct and then it would appear in Encyclopedia Britannica move forward to Wikipedia Is it respected? I'm seeing some nods. I'm seeing some no nods. I'm seeing some very non-committal. I don't want to say. Yeah Well, I'm gonna say it's a upside and a downside I think The key point about Wikipedia is that of course it has peer review Anyone can can peer review it anyone of millions of people who read any page on on Wikipedia can actually Make a comment about no, this is not correct or that needs a fact check or whatever So I thought I'd choose something nice and uncontroversial like this this particular venue and You would have actually noticed everybody that there's a edit on each on each page in Wikipedia and I could right now go in and log in and Make changes in there and put Donald Duck pictures and say it's a terrible building don't go to it or you whatever I could actually do that What is going to happen fairly quickly though is somebody is going to come along and say no no no That was an idiot that came along. We will put it back to what it was just before We will do a peer review like that. So What I actually thought was interesting was is is what's going on here is this a little bit of censorship by the Father government. I'm not sure but Yeah, what is supposed to be there is logo, but we we can't actually see it. It's just something something actually Whatever okay Now the What why does this happen is that you now there we go I don't want to do that. I just want to why did that happen? They might never mind. It's all right. Okay, so I want to go to this anyway Now when you go to the Trump page on on Wikipedia There is no edit button up here and when you go down to any of the separate sections like down here There's no edit button Do you know why not Well actually it's a case of any living Like head of state or any living person who's going for head of state that kind of thing is not Regarded as fair game for for editing and so they have it actually locked and you'll you'll see up here Is actually a lock symbol meaning nobody can come in and actually do this unless you're one of the approved reviewers and you can make changes appropriately now Let's quickly talk about that for a minute. I actually have a lot of respect for Wikipedia because of the fact that In not like a encyclopedia Britannica that maybe only had half a dozen reviewers Wikipedia has got millions of reviewers and if people aren't happy with it. They'll go into the into the talk pages So I was going to show you before they'll go into the Here into the view history they'll go into the talk page and Make a comment and say I'm not happy with that statement or whatever so Wikipedia I find very useful but what I teach I'm a teach in Higher institutions and I find it really quite disturbing the number of students who actually use Wikipedia as one of their references And I find it even more disturbing the number of lecturers who use Wikipedia as one of their references And I have to point out look you really shouldn't because it just like encyclopedia Britannica is not a primary source And you shouldn't be using it for that sort of purpose So I want to ask any of you if you used Wikipedia for your for your essays Nobody's going to admit to it Now can anyone tell me how I get back to my thingy screen? Yeah, it should be just right here, but it's not the present button Anyway, never mind Disappeared Okay, never mind Okay, so as Abraham Abraham Lincoln once said just because you see something on the internet with a quote a picture in the date It doesn't mean it's going to be true Quite like that one Okay Sorry Yeah, correct correct Okay, so I just want to go back and talk about America for a minute when I first saw this some years ago This really concerned me. This is acceptance of evolution in 34 different countries There's not every country in the world 34 different ones So countries like Iceland Denmark Sweden France Japan have all got around 75 to 80 percent of people Accept evolution as a thing as an accepted scientific issue and whatever and then we go all the way around to here Before we get to the United States, which is only 40 percent of people actually accept that it's a thing 40 percent reject it and 20 percent don't know Now why is this important? It's because I think a lot of people don't understand how science works and what the scientific process is actually all about And it's related to the fake news thing because if you know how science works then you should know how fake news works and how you can actually catch it out and Find out what's actually true and what isn't it really scares me I mean this says a lot to me that people don't know enough about how to actually Look closely at a situation closely at an issue and decide what is actually true or not. I Like this image. Sorry. It's ended up small now that we don't have the the full screen, but I like what's going on here we've got a bunch of scientists who are presenting their findings and We've got another bunch of scientists who are actually listening to what they're saying and reading what they're saying and in other words, they're doing peer review and of course That's how the that's how the peer review actually should work But there's a lot of concern now that only a small number of a scientist are actually reviewing other people's works and it means that as Now that there's a whole lot of scientific results coming out There's less and less people who are there to actually review and willing to review. So we have Perhaps a breakdown on the system is is possibly going to happen then Overlooking the whole thing and I got this image from an article that was actually examining the whole idea of peer review and Why it could be how it can be actually fixed I thought it was interesting that he's talking about climate change next door I was going to say look, let's just join up because we're doing we're doing the same thing NASA of course is under a great deal of threat right now Trump has said that he's he's going to pull him right out of doing any climate change research Da Da And so of course part of what NASA is trying to do is present the facts and talks about scientific Consensus and below this I just use a screenshot here below. This is a whole pile of scientific organizations that are that are in agreement that Climate change is it is an issue and so on so Some things about Trump and fake news the Washington Post just after the election result was announced said Russian propaganda effort Help spread fake news during election experts say which is a bit of a worry Now do I trust this? The Washington Post So it's one of those things. I mean this is this is really a very strong accusation very serious accusation They I would like to think they're not going to publish something like this unless it's they've done fact-checking in there They're quite sure Some organizations like BBC are really highly regarded because they obviously do a lot of careful fact-checking and so on the American press Trying to hang on to their respected status, but often it's often it's maybe not as Well-held as it could be yeah I would say I think that's great and newspaper should do that one of the problems with that is the if you don't see the retraction It's gone into the into the system. Yeah A lot of hedgewords, but so in that's not actually making much of a statement It's just an expert say this It's sort of actually coming out and committing to one way or the other and then express a narrative which with how it's So they're not actually trying to present fake news But it's not exactly we have done the research and we have found this this and this that's not what's going on You're quite right Okay So you all know probably that Mark Zuckerberg had a lot of pressure on him because of a lot of nonsense that was going on in Facebook and one of the problems that in Facebook is that Facebook will keep giving you what it thinks you like So if you have a particular political band, it's going to keep on giving you that if you have a pretty social view or whatever It's going to keep on surrounding you with the same kind of view So Mark says a lot of you have asked what we're doing about misinformation So I wanted to give an update so he gave a long Article about what they're trying to do This one is from Mashable and it says Google is removing in the news label due to the fake news nightmare Is Mashable a trusted source? Actually, that's probably good good analysis probably is about the level of Wikipedia This cut this I got this at about the same time as this one. So just in the last week or so Well, what worries me is that in the news is actually still there in Google. So in fact, it hasn't disappeared. So fake But not intentionally fake. It's just somebody said that's what was going on So I really would will this work No, that won't work. Sorry. I really want to get my Let me just do this again now It's not still not When I first loaded it it came up just in the top right. So anyway, never mind Yes, if all else fails try Chrome Yeah, Safari. Yeah, at least I have this back again But I don't want to edit. I just want to look at it Now then I have to request myself to edit. I don't want to request myself to edit it Huh Never mind never mind There he is That's where it disappeared to thank you Okay All right So it was also interesting that next door was doing something about gamification because that's exactly what I'm going to talk about now I saw this interesting Article just a day or two ago by Hunter walk who used to work for YouTube and Google and second life and a few other things How we almost gamified copyright infringement detection on YouTube and ideas for fake news now Their idea they didn't do it that their idea was to do the following They were going to actually invite investors to invest in videos on YouTube The idea is if the video went viral, they would make a lot of money So of course people are going to be investing in such things pick a winner go for it make a lot of money however, if that video was found out to be Copyright stolen from somebody else and it was it was taken off because of copyright reasons Then your money would go to zero you'd lose any money that you actually put in so nice little idea it's in everybody's interest to make sure that whatever is up there is Genuinely owned by the the person who put it up and it's not just to rip off from somebody else And so his idea in this article is to do something similar is to say Let's let's actually put put money or some sort of value on to onto news items And if they're found out like it encourages people to go out and do fact checks And you're more likely to get perhaps some sort of truth. I don't know Okay During Trump's campaign he had lots of slogans one of which was lock her up. There's only one her As soon as he was elected he said oh actually we're not going to lock her up now, so it's all right Another slogan was build a wall He said I know we're not going to build that wall anymore never mind and not last I heard Not last I heard He was also telling about deport the Muslims Which he which interestingly that aspect on his website went down the minute he actually won And he also said let's make America great That's me being cheeky. I actually question was it ever great It was certainly it certainly has been powerful throughout its its time, but was it ever great? So to conclude what I'm talking about Train this one. Yes. Well, I couldn't I couldn't put them all Actually a key thing here and this is this is actually a trend in my own country is as well as America These sort of three-word slogans three or four-word slogans is actually quite scary to me Because it actually brings all these complex highly complex issues down into a little slogan that they all hope people latch on to and people Do latch on to them and hope that it's going to happen without any any thinking I am I Am But but but my point my point here is that he's he was elected on Arguably a lot of fake information Including the things that the only things he got pinned down on with these sorts of things right and Didn't happen. Anyway, so at the end of the day what America actually got for their president was this guy True or false? fake or true Well, well, actually this is true what you see on TV is fake anyway, that's where I'm finishing So let's over to you discussion thoughts And Hillary won the popular Both sides signed a win in the president's always Sources from both sides went into like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin all those different states So I think the whole popular versus electoral thing is a big deal. They know the game Yeah, they know the game and they play it This election is what I think the more the debate is about what actually Electrical college now. Yeah, maybe we should get rid of democracy. Yes. Yeah, that's true I don't know that I speak for everybody else in the room for me as a non-american. I totally don't get your system Totally don't get I find but I mean now I'm gonna sound American It's pretty hard to get Yeah You know European tourists who say, oh, we're gonna drive across the country Yeah, yeah, I think I think that your point of the gamification is very interesting I work for a So we run campaigns or like big advertisers and then these days are like, can we not run our campaign? Thank you sites and then but the thing is, you know, how do we take that that is a problem for us as well But if you can punish the size by saying, you know, if enough people report you and then you are gonna lose all your You can do that because they control their own Various added changes over like programmatic buys Yeah, so that there's no mechanism right now for us to give that feedback Hey, this publisher or this site is bad. And then we punish them. So I think that that is a very interesting point that you brought up I don't really get it, but apparently the Facebook ad system is kind of weirdly complicated That adds changes to the faith Close down there You can only buy directly with Facebook, which is why we stop But that means that they might be able to do something Yes, they could but are they doing anything? Does anyone see the huge problem with the fake news gamification thing we're talking about The reason it's in China to vote for me or something for like a couple thousand dollars Exactly, but it will risk gamification It works both ways It can, that was my idea I think this is a great idea However, yeah And it's a very, you talk about evolution and there's some element of evolution in gamification Come from popping each other or kind of species you know So if you see somebody doing something, especially smaller countries, that's a problem If you see one group doing something, everybody just follow I see that in many places in Singapore I see somebody is carrying one particular type of bag and then I started taking this I saw the income Within two weeks I see most of them carry the same type of bag I also know this gamification In gamification you have this PBL, the pointy litter board and the badges And these are the badges of, like I follow, I'm on the litter board And there is an element and there's also a loser element in gamification That you enjoy, you know, there's a loser element out Bad news sometimes, you know, it's very exciting And it's like, oh, it's very British, the relation They share it, they want to share things which are very exciting They can be gory sometime, but still they want to share it So the PBL comes into that I want to just pick up on the point that you guys see about being able to buy reviews So I guess that's quite an obvious point But I think the effectiveness of peer reviews depends on the identity And the qualification of a person doing the review So it's one thing for scientists to say Yeah, because I'm qualified in the same field I can understand things on this level So I can review your work But I think because the distribution content is now, like, democratized So everyone can publish Anyone can publish without being qualified to And there's a whole more key area But everyone can also review without qualifications So with all these, like, cottage industries They're kind of like the wild west of online space in the space And spend like 35 bucks to buy, you know, out to the followers 500 positive reviews Less, yeah, lights, whatever And so the moment, I think the concept of unification to Like, yeah, this is good, this is bad, this is good, I'm sad But the difficult bit is like, you know, how do you know At least 10,000 people that say this is good That 9,000 of them are not qualified What? Likewise, any review you find in magazine There's no guarantee they're not qualified as well It's a problem of technology Which can be solved by technology again And I see there are a lot of new things coming in We are talking about blockchain And why not use blockchain to validate certain things Especially certain news articles and news information So maybe we can use blockchain to validate things I think what we can validate is that If you say this is fake news, you have to vote You know, you have to link to an external source To say, why is this fake, or is it to validate this Or to validate this Then the links article would also have, you know, good or bad So inherently you're building a web of indexes Of how good this source is I mean, I think there's some simple algorithmic things That make the problem a little like For instance, I mean, supposedly Facebook Can tell you if you're American Whether you're red or blue And I think there is a button in proportion That will tell you So, you know, there's a particular story Is spreading on the red web And not on the blue web Or vice versa That may suggest that it's a model You know, fair work Well, actually, just to summarize that We've got this session, obviously we've got a picture In fact, the guys who actually picked the polls Correctly for the Trump win Actually did their, got their data From the social media But yes, they do know about Because that's what people are actually doing Rather than people saying what they're doing Or a lot of people just didn't say I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to vote And so, through social media They could tell how it's going to go I think the best way to read the news This day is read the comments below the news Rather than read the news That's where you get the full sense of the news I just really read the headline A little bit on top And then I straight away go to the comments That's where you understand how this is done Yeah Okay, thank you