“Many no longer believe in the truth. They no longer believe in a common set of facts and in the people and institutions responsible for conveying those facts. As a result, civil society and democracies around the world are fraying to the point of crisis.” (p.195)
This is a quote from the book, The Death of Truth, written by Steven Brill. It is an idea that many in health and science struggle to address in this moment of dismissed expertise and self-centric freedom. Brill effectively details several factors that have contributed to this point, discusses how artificial intelligence (AI) aligns and differs from the current online environments, and outlines some potential solutions for returning to a more centric and less cynical society.
Contributing factors
Brill describes what he calls “four core forces” that have shaped the current situation.
- Social media platforms – Brill spends a significant amount of time discussing the platforms themselves. He begins with the basis for the legal cover that social media platforms currently enjoy. Section 230, a few paragraphs added to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) section of the 1995 Telecommunications Act, removed liability from social media platforms for the content people posted on their sites while also protecting them as Good Samaritans in instances where they try to restrict access to inappropriate information on their platforms. As Brill describes, the legal immunity offered by section 230 made sense in the online environment of the late 1990s, but its authors could not have anticipated business models in which algorithms, designed for “maximizing at scale no matter how uncontrollable their platforms became” (p. 19), drive revenue. Without legal accountability, platform leaders need only offer an apology and a “promise to do more” without actually making changes that would decrease the “chaos” caused by misinformation and polarization. As an example of the impact of section 230, Brill uses the case brought against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems related to their 2020 election reporting. As described, Fox News operated in a way similar to the online platforms — reporting to maximize “eyeballs regardless of the truth” — the difference was they did not have the legal cover of section 230 and were held liable.
- Programmatic advertising technology – Revenue from ads on websites and social media platforms tally in the billions annually. According to Brill, in 2021, Comscore “estimated that $2.6 billion in advertising revenue was sent to publishers of misinformation and disinformation by programmatic advertisers in 2020. In the United States, an estimated $1.62 billion was spent on misinformation websites” (p. 82). Brill describes how companies advertising online often never know what content their ads appear near based on the way that the online advertising systems work. As such, companies with solid reputations can, and do, become a steady source of income for peddlers of content that they likely would not want their ads associated with if they were aware. Brill, who is a co-inventor of the online news evaluation tool called NewsGuard, describes that even when a company attempts to limit where their ads appear by providing target words to avoid, an issue remains. First, valid news organizations covering the topics lose out on ad revenue because their coverage includes the key words. Second, those solely seeking to make money or sow chaos find ways around the targeted words, so they continue to profit from ads while also spreading misinformation about the subject at hand.
- Bad actors – While Brill discusses individuals sharing misinformation to reach goals, like making money and achieving political status, throughout the book, he also discusses the diminished role of historically accepted referees, like journalists, judges and public officials. Brill spills significant ink on international relations as well — both in terms of how certain bad-actor countries are taking advantage of the situation to destabilize democracies throughout the world as well as the complacency by leaders of these U.S.-based companies when it comes to taking responsibility for the fallout. As an example of the latter, Brill quotes a TED Talk by Carole Cadwalladr, ‘Is this how you want history to remember you: as the handmaidens to authoritarianism that is on the rise all across the world? Because you set out to connect people. And you are refusing to acknowledge that the same technology is now driving us apart.’ (p. 157).
- The “abused” – Finally, Brill describes how people who are already distrustful or feeling left behind are both vulnerable to what the bad actors are peddling as well as often, themselves, inadvertently sharing the ideas.
Internet 2.0 versus AI
In discussing the emergence of AI, Brill points out differences between the business models of social media companies and AI. Social media companies maximize revenue by increasing eyes on their content, regardless of its quality. In fact, often low-quality information is the type that generates the most revenue because of the emotional responses it garners. However, the audience for AI tools will be groups licensing them to do work that requires accuracy, such as businesses, governments, and researchers. As such, hallucinations and misinformation will be viewed as a weakness in these products. Brill cautioned, however, that bad actors will still be able to easily create unlicensed AI tools that will be more readily available to the masses and can be programmed to even more easily sow discord than the social media platforms when that is the goal.
Potential solutions
Brill offers several potential solutions that together could improve the current environment; however, as he writes, “They require people being concerned enough about the death of truth … that they will insist on these changes and play an active part in making them happen” (p. 217).
Brill’s suggestions include:
- Fixing the platforms in several ways, including by enforcement when it comes to contracts platforms have with their users, tweaking section 230 to place conditions on the immunity it offers, ending online anonymity, improving enforcement of campaign finance laws (to tamp down the number of “news sites” that are actually sites run by political operations), focusing on improvements to online literacy, and implementing licensing restrictions on the sale of products that use AI.
- Taming the programmatic advertising monster by requiring companies to report annually on which websites they spent significant advertising dollars.
- Tamping down the polarization and sense of government paralysis that the bad actors feed on to lure people to the fringes by instituting political processes that have been demonstrated to decrease polarization, such as “top two” or “ranked- choice” primary systems and ending gerrymandering. As Brill describes, the people do not need to wait for politicians to implement these efforts if they can successfully add them as citizen-driven ballot initiatives, which are allowed in 26 states.
Contributed by: Charlotte A. Moser, MS
“Many no longer believe in the truth. They no longer believe in a common set of facts and in the people and institutions responsible for conveying those facts. As a result, civil society and democracies around the world are fraying to the point of crisis.” (p.195)
This is a quote from the book, The Death of Truth, written by Steven Brill. It is an idea that many in health and science struggle to address in this moment of dismissed expertise and self-centric freedom. Brill effectively details several factors that have contributed to this point, discusses how artificial intelligence (AI) aligns and differs from the current online environments, and outlines some potential solutions for returning to a more centric and less cynical society.
Contributing factors
Brill describes what he calls “four core forces” that have shaped the current situation.
- Social media platforms – Brill spends a significant amount of time discussing the platforms themselves. He begins with the basis for the legal cover that social media platforms currently enjoy. Section 230, a few paragraphs added to the Communications Decency Act (CDA) section of the 1995 Telecommunications Act, removed liability from social media platforms for the content people posted on their sites while also protecting them as Good Samaritans in instances where they try to restrict access to inappropriate information on their platforms. As Brill describes, the legal immunity offered by section 230 made sense in the online environment of the late 1990s, but its authors could not have anticipated business models in which algorithms, designed for “maximizing at scale no matter how uncontrollable their platforms became” (p. 19), drive revenue. Without legal accountability, platform leaders need only offer an apology and a “promise to do more” without actually making changes that would decrease the “chaos” caused by misinformation and polarization. As an example of the impact of section 230, Brill uses the case brought against Fox News by Dominion Voting Systems related to their 2020 election reporting. As described, Fox News operated in a way similar to the online platforms — reporting to maximize “eyeballs regardless of the truth” — the difference was they did not have the legal cover of section 230 and were held liable.
- Programmatic advertising technology – Revenue from ads on websites and social media platforms tally in the billions annually. According to Brill, in 2021, Comscore “estimated that $2.6 billion in advertising revenue was sent to publishers of misinformation and disinformation by programmatic advertisers in 2020. In the United States, an estimated $1.62 billion was spent on misinformation websites” (p. 82). Brill describes how companies advertising online often never know what content their ads appear near based on the way that the online advertising systems work. As such, companies with solid reputations can, and do, become a steady source of income for peddlers of content that they likely would not want their ads associated with if they were aware. Brill, who is a co-inventor of the online news evaluation tool called NewsGuard, describes that even when a company attempts to limit where their ads appear by providing target words to avoid, an issue remains. First, valid news organizations covering the topics lose out on ad revenue because their coverage includes the key words. Second, those solely seeking to make money or sow chaos find ways around the targeted words, so they continue to profit from ads while also spreading misinformation about the subject at hand.
- Bad actors – While Brill discusses individuals sharing misinformation to reach goals, like making money and achieving political status, throughout the book, he also discusses the diminished role of historically accepted referees, like journalists, judges and public officials. Brill spills significant ink on international relations as well — both in terms of how certain bad-actor countries are taking advantage of the situation to destabilize democracies throughout the world as well as the complacency by leaders of these U.S.-based companies when it comes to taking responsibility for the fallout. As an example of the latter, Brill quotes a TED Talk by Carole Cadwalladr, ‘Is this how you want history to remember you: as the handmaidens to authoritarianism that is on the rise all across the world? Because you set out to connect people. And you are refusing to acknowledge that the same technology is now driving us apart.’ (p. 157).
- The “abused” – Finally, Brill describes how people who are already distrustful or feeling left behind are both vulnerable to what the bad actors are peddling as well as often, themselves, inadvertently sharing the ideas.
Internet 2.0 versus AI
In discussing the emergence of AI, Brill points out differences between the business models of social media companies and AI. Social media companies maximize revenue by increasing eyes on their content, regardless of its quality. In fact, often low-quality information is the type that generates the most revenue because of the emotional responses it garners. However, the audience for AI tools will be groups licensing them to do work that requires accuracy, such as businesses, governments, and researchers. As such, hallucinations and misinformation will be viewed as a weakness in these products. Brill cautioned, however, that bad actors will still be able to easily create unlicensed AI tools that will be more readily available to the masses and can be programmed to even more easily sow discord than the social media platforms when that is the goal.
Potential solutions
Brill offers several potential solutions that together could improve the current environment; however, as he writes, “They require people being concerned enough about the death of truth … that they will insist on these changes and play an active part in making them happen” (p. 217).
Brill’s suggestions include:
- Fixing the platforms in several ways, including by enforcement when it comes to contracts platforms have with their users, tweaking section 230 to place conditions on the immunity it offers, ending online anonymity, improving enforcement of campaign finance laws (to tamp down the number of “news sites” that are actually sites run by political operations), focusing on improvements to online literacy, and implementing licensing restrictions on the sale of products that use AI.
- Taming the programmatic advertising monster by requiring companies to report annually on which websites they spent significant advertising dollars.
- Tamping down the polarization and sense of government paralysis that the bad actors feed on to lure people to the fringes by instituting political processes that have been demonstrated to decrease polarization, such as “top two” or “ranked- choice” primary systems and ending gerrymandering. As Brill describes, the people do not need to wait for politicians to implement these efforts if they can successfully add them as citizen-driven ballot initiatives, which are allowed in 26 states.
Contributed by: Charlotte A. Moser, MS