So, is fake news a security concern? Lets have a look at a recent news item that’s rather revealing. Facebook held a news conference to describe exactly what it is doing to get rid of fake news from its pages and consequently from our feeds.
Please visit following sites for more information:
When asked by Darcy about the way in which the firm could claim it was serious about tackling the issue of misinformation online whilst concurrently allowing InfoWars to sustain a page with nearly one million followers on its own website, John Hegeman said that the company will not”take down false news.””I guess only for being untrue that doesn’t violate the community standards,” Hegeman said, explaining that InfoWars has”not violated something that could lead to them being removed.”Hegeman added,”I think part of this basic thing here is that we made Facebook for a place where different individuals are able to have a voice. “We work hard to find the right balance between supporting free expression and promoting a safe and authentic neighborhood, and we believe down-ranking inauthentic content strikes that balance. In other words, we allow people to post it as a kind of expression, but we are not going to show it at the top of News Feed.””That said: while sharing fake news doesn’t violate our Community Standards set of coverages, we still do have plans in place to deal with celebrities who share untrue news. If articles in a Page or domain is repeatedly given a’false’ rating from our third party fact-checkers… we eliminate their monetisation and advertising rights to cut off financial incentives, and dramatically reduce the distribution of all their Page-level or domain-level content on Facebook.”Thus, based on that dialog you need to wonder whether the press conference regarding bogus news was anything other than, well, fake information! If Facebook don’t intend to take down fake information then they are encouraging it, they also assert that they remove or lower the capability of page proprietors to create income on Facebook should they consider fake news peddlers.How can this impact SecurityThe problems occur when those who really believe the fake news begin to talk about it. Often going viral fake news around security concerns on social networking, programs and or websites can lead to serious damage to the reputation of these targeted. It’s 1 thing to allow and encourage free speech, but when it starts to affect legitimate business those in the centre of the problem have to be brought to book. InfoWars has in the past advertised its website and some its bogus news through YouTube advertising. When those adverts are displayed in the middle of a product from an extremely reputable company it has the effect of subliminally detracting form the reputation of these firms.Some of the biggest brands at the U.S. had ads running on the YouTube channels for far-right website InfoWars and its founder, notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and they say they’d no idea YouTube was enabling their advertising to appear there. – CNNAnd on the subject of Fake News, lets look at the person who coined the phrase: Before in the press conference, Trump attacked CNN after having a question from the NBC News writer Hallie Jackson. Trump said NBC is”possibly worse than CNN.” Acosta asked Trump.FOX News correspondent John Roberts”Proceed” he explained.”Could I ask you a question?” Jim Acosta persisted.”CNN is fake news,” Trump said. “I don’t take questions from CNN. CNN is bogus news. I really don’t take questions from CNN.”So in this case those accused of sending fake information aren’t being given an opportunity to ask a question! If the press releases a story which isn’t true then you’ve got the chance to challenge them at a court of law, but POTUS doesn’t bother doing this, he rather delivers his own brand justice.What’s the verdict on safety?Honestly, this is damaging, the media in the United Kingdom have a responsibility to report fairly and honestly, failing to do so leads to court actions virtually every moment. Trump has accused the BBC of purveying fake news in the past, now I know that the BBC has been accused of being biased before, in some instances they have been found guilty and had to pay the price, yet , they are funded by the UK public via a license fee as well as such they are under examination.Whenever public opinion is manipulated there are risks to safety, either cyber or actual. The current climate of forecasting anything that people don’t like as imitation instead of bringing the offenders to book needs to change in the real world and the cyber environment.As a result the lies continue to be spread and world security and cyber security are all at which the suffering starts.Facebook has recently been attempting damage limitation after the Cambridge Analytica scandle. UK marketing has been filled with how Facebook is falling its 3rd party data partnerships, in fact there’s most likely a second reason behind this. GDPR would make 3rd party data partnerships like the Cambridge Analytica one a minefield for Facebook.The quantity of compliance that will be required, the documentation, checking and confirmation not to mention the penalties if something went wrong could be massive.Sure, Facebook only received a #500,000 fine for the current scandal, this is very likely to be because the incident occurred earlier GDPR came into force, future breaches could be taken care of through much larger fines.What can be done? It seems that unless an affected party takes the offending party to court, the answer might be not a lot. Or is it? The lesson to be learnt here is that based on Facebook, they will not take bogus news down even once they have found it. The public are therefore in the position of power.