Author: Mathew Ingram

There was a flurry of interest recently in a lawsuit launched by some Facebook shareholders, who apparently believe that they got the short end of the stick in the company’s recent share restructuring. Here’s a news flash for them: You always had the short end of the stick.

The lawsuit relates to the changes that CEO Mark Zuckerberg made earlier this year, in which he issued a new class of stock that will allow him to maintain control over the company even if he sells or gives away most of his shares.

The plaintiffs argue this could be damaging to their interests, since their shares might drop in value. And the lawsuit alleges that Silicon Valley venture capitalist and board member Marc Andreessen was personally advising Zuckerberg, while also sitting on a supposedly impartial advisory committee overseeing the restructuring maneuver.

As titillating as it might be to read Andreessen’s text messages to Zuckerberg, however — in which the former quotes from a 1950’s movie with Burt Lancaster, and says “The cat’s in the bag and the bag’s in the river” — the whole thing feels like a bit of a sideshow.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Zuckerberg’s control over Facebook is absolute, lawsuit or no lawsuit”

The media world continues to undergo an unprecedented amount of upheaval, with continents slamming into each other, vast chasms suddenly appearing under our feet, and glaciers melting at hyper-speed. But one thing remains largely unchanged, and that is the 800-pound gorilla whose shadow continues to loom over the landscape — a gorilla named Facebook.

The social network’s dominant position at the top of the media food-chain is something that most publishers have already become accustomed to, whether they like it or not. But that dominance was reinforced with the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States, an outcome that many believe Facebook played a role in, thanks to its distribution of so-called “fake news.”

This phenomenon was like a one-two punch to the solar plexus of the media industry. On the one hand, it drove home just how big a role Facebook plays in the news consumption of large numbers of people. But at the same time, it also made it abundantly clear how little the social network really cares about the news it distributes. So much power, and yet so little responsibility.

As a former Facebook staffer described it, all the network really cares about is whether users find the content in their feeds engaging or not, and “bullshit is really engaging.” The question of whether or not the stories those users share are accurate or not is largely irrelevant.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Prediction for 2017: The media’s Faustian dance with Facebook continues”

A new survey commissioned by BuzzFeed found that most people believed the “fake news” stories they got through Facebook. But the survey also showed something else interesting: Namely, that the vast majority of people don’t remember the news they get from Facebook at all, real or fake.

The survey, which was done by Ipsos, asked more than 3,000 people whether they recalled seeing a random selection of six real and fake headlines. The stories chosen included one about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump (untrue), one about the former head of the CIA endorsing Hillary Clinton (true) and nine other selected stories, both fake and real.

Those who took part in the survey included a mix of Clinton and Trump voters, as well as those who said they didn’t vote. They were asked first if they remembered either seeing or hearing about a specific headline, and then whether they believed it was true or not.

The headline on the subsequent BuzzFeed story by media editor Craig Silverman was “Most Americans Who See Fake News Believe It, New Survey Says.”

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Real or fake, most people don’t remember the news on Facebook”

There’s plenty of blame to go around when it comes to the problem of “fake news,” and some of it quite rightly falls on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter. It’s not that these platforms don’t care about the truth, however. The problem goes deeper than that. It’s more of a structural problem, and it doesn’t come with an easy solution.

Social networks like Facebook and Twitter started out primarily as ways to connect with friends and other people with similar interests, and they did so by making it easy for you to share bits of text, along with hyperlinks to content worth reading on the web.

Eventually, however, text gave way to photos, with both Twitter and Facebook restructuring their news feeds or streams to allow for larger pictures. Then came video — both in the form of video clips (many of which auto-play because advertisers like it that way) and animated GIFs. Hyperlinks, which social networks noticed were rarely clicked on anyway, started to become less important.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Here’s one reason why social networks are not a good place for news”

When Donald Trump was seen by many in the media as a side-show with no real chance of becoming president, his behavior on Twitter was an amusing distraction. But now that he is on his way to the White House, figuring out how to handle that behavior has become a critical challenge.

A classic example of this occurred on Sunday night, when the President-elect unleashed a tweet-storm about how he won the election in spite of “millions of people who voted illegally.” As with most Trump tweets, these were re-shared hundreds of thousands of times within minutes.

In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 27, 2016

The immediate problem posed by these tweets is that there is absolutely no evidence that large numbers of illegal votes were cast, let alone millions of them. It’s a classic conspiracy theory promoted by fake-news and propaganda sites like InfoWars. Election-monitoring experts have said they have found no sign of any organized illegal voting whatsoever.

Continue reading “The challenge of covering a president who tweets fake news”

One of the themes that has emerged during the controversy over “fake news” and its role in the election of Donald Trump is the idea that Russian agents of various kinds helped hack the process by fueling this barrage of false news. But is that really true?

In a recent story, the Washington Post says that this is definitely the case, based on information provided by two groups of what the paper calls “independent researchers.” But the case starts to come apart at the seams the more you look at it.

One group is associated with the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank that says it has been researching Russian propaganda attempts since 2014.

The second group is something called PropOrNot, about which very little is known. Its website doesn’t name anyone who is associated with it, including the researchers who worked on the report. And the Post doesn’t name the group’s executive director — whom it quotes — because it says he is afraid of “being targeted by Russia’s legions of skilled hackers.”

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “No, Russian agents are not behind every piece of fake news you see”

Facebook may be a global behemoth with 1.7 billion users, but there’s one huge market in which it has virtually no presence: China. Chief executive Mark Zuckerberg has made no secret of his desire to enter the country, but so far his desire remains unrequited.

Now, the Facebook CEO appears to be planning to offer the Chinese government a gift, in the hope of winning its affections. According to the The New York Times, his team has developed a tool that will allow the state to censor content. But doing so will open a Pandora’s box that may be difficult to close.

Zuckerberg has reportedly said it is better to be “enabling conversation” even if some of the conversation is censored, and it’s not surprising he would feel that way. His goal is to turn Facebook into a global town square. But what happens when some of the townsfolk suddenly disappear in the middle of the night, and you were the one who gave away their location?

Knowing that this kind of tool exists will also make it more difficult to stop other countries from asking to use it. What will Zuckerberg say if Russia or Turkey wants the same power of prior restraint? What does the global town square look like then?

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

The rise of “fake news” is a topic that is getting a lot of attention lately, thanks to the role that Facebook and other social platforms play in news consumption for a growing number of users. But there are other problems as well, a recent Stanford study found.

According to researchers from the university, a majority of students—more than 80% of them, in fact—could not distinguish between a piece of sponsored content or “native advertising” and a real news article. They also had difficulty determining whether a news story shared on social media was credible, and based their decision on odd or even irrelevant factors.

One example asked middle school students whether they should trust an article about financial planning that was written by a bank executive, and sponsored by a bank. The researchers said that many students did not see the author or the sponsored nature of the piece as a reason to question its credibility or accuracy.

Another exercise asked students to look at the homepage of the news site Slate, and identify whether certain parts of it were news or advertising. They had no problem determining that a standard banner ad was advertising, but more than 80% believed a native ad—which was clearly labeled with the words “sponsored content”—was a real news story.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Most students can’t tell the difference between real news and fake news, study finds”

If you’re AT&T or Comcast, you might like the sounds of Donald Trump’s transition team, but if you are a small content creator or someone who likes a wide range of services being available through your ISP, you probably aren’t going to like it much at all.

That’s because the two advisers that President-elect Donald Trump named to help oversee his telecom policy agenda at the Federal Communications Commission are not friends of net neutrality. And they are likely to have a lot of sway over future FCC policy.

Jeff Eisenach is an economist who once worked for Verizon, and Mark Jamison used to be part of Sprint’s lobbying team. Both men have written about how they are not in favor of net neutrality rules, which keep Internet service providers from giving preferential treatment to certain forms of online content or services.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “President Trump could spell the end of net neutrality”

Donald Trump hasn’t even become President yet, but he has already given us a taste of how acrimonious his relationship with the media is likely to be, after a no-holds-barred meeting with cable executives and off-again, on-again meeting with the New York Times.

The existential problem this poses for the mainstream press is this: Do they accede to Trump’s demands in order to get access to him and his administration, so that they can better report on it? Or do they become even more antagonistic in their coverage, and give up any hope of a working relationship? Both of these options have significant risks associated with them.

The idea that Trump might have an adversarial stance towards the media won’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been following the president-elect on Twitter, or anywhere else for that matter.

Trump has routinely called out the New York Times for being a “failing newspaper,” and slammed both it and the Washington Post for their biased coverage of him during the campaign. At one point, he withdrew the Post‘s press accreditation, as he did for a number of other news outlets.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Trump puts the media between a rock and a very hard place”

Mark Zuckerberg has done his best to get around the problems that his giant social network has created in the form of viral fake news and hoaxes, a problem that many believe may have played a key role in the election of Donald Trump. But he can’t evade the issue much longer.

One of the arguments that the Facebook CEO started with when the fake news discussion first began was that the small proportion of fake news stories couldn’t possibly have affected the outcome of the election. This was “crazy talk,” he said.

But as a number of people quickly pointed out, Facebook’s entire marketing and advertising business — which is worth billions of dollars a year — is predicated on the idea that having your message on the platform can reach and influence hundreds of millions of people. He can’t have it both ways.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Facebook needs to act quickly on fake news”

Depending on whom you choose to believe, the problem of fake news on Facebook is either one of the most important issues currently facing mankind, or an over-blown controversy pumped up by the mainstream media. And in a way, that dichotomy itself points out the problem with defining — let alone actually getting rid of — so-called “fake news.”

When someone uses that term, they could be referring to one of a number of different things: It might be a story about how Bill and Hillary Clinton murdered several top-level Washington insiders, or it might be one about how Donald Trump’s chief adviser is a neo-Nazi, or it might be one about how the really important issue of the election was Clinton’s emails.

The first of these is relatively easy to disprove just by using facts. The second is somewhat more difficult to rebut, since a lot of it is based on innuendo or implication. And the third is almost impossible to respond to because it is pure opinion.

As John Herrman argued in a recent piece in the New York Times, part of the difficulty in solving the “fake news” problem stems from the fact that many people appear to have lost faith in the existing media. Therefore, much of the fact-checking and analysis that newspapers and others have done on Donald Trump wound up being largely irrelevant.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Facebook doesn’t need one public editor, it needs a thousand”

As Facebook struggles to respond to criticism about how much responsibility — if any — it bears for a wave of fake news that engulfed the social network during the U.S. election campaign, CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been doing his best to deny that the company is a media entity.

There are a number of reasons why Facebook doesn’t want to describe itself as a media company, including economic ones. But one big reason is that being defined in such a way could open the network up to regulation, and impose a range of responsibilities.

Some senior members of the European Union, for example, are eager to treat Facebook the same way they treat media companies that own newspapers, or radio stations and TV networks.

German Justice Minister Heiko Maas said on Thursday that he believes social platforms like Facebook should be defined as media entities for regulatory purposes. “In my view they should be treated as media even if they do not correspond to the media concept of television or radio,” he said in Berlin.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Here’s one reason Facebook doesn’t want to admit to being a media company”

The rise of “fake” news, and the role that platforms like Facebook played in that rise, has become one of the defining issues of the 2016 election. Did hoaxes and misinformation help Donald Trump win? And if so, what — if anything — should Facebook do about it? Who is to blame?

What makes this issue so difficult is that hard answers to those questions are difficult to come by, if not impossible. And finding solutions is not likely to get any easier.

Let’s take the first of those questions: Did fake news help Trump win? We simply don’t know. Some believe that false stories about Hillary Clinton murdering people or similar hoaxes definitely swayed the electorate, while others believe all these stories did was confirm biases that voters already had.

Those who argue that fake news did play a role point to evidence that these kinds of stories were hugely popular on Facebook, and were spread far more widely than “real” news stories.

Note: This was originally published at Fortune, where I was a senior writer from 2015 to 2017

Continue reading “Here’s Why Fake News Is More Popular Than Real News”