People need to be more skeptical about what they read in the news and social media. There is credible news and there is incredible news. The public should know the difference. Considering that a substantial number of people get their news from Facebook - which contains probably more fake news than anywhere else – it's only fitting that Facebook should come up with a new tool to help people become more discerning readers and to help counter fake news, defined as news that is being reported as accurate but lacks reliability and credibility. A Facebook help center will now provide a list of 10 tips for identifying false stories. These include looking at an article's URL, investigating the source of a story and thinking more critically about whether an article is a joke. It also recommends being skeptical of headlines, as false news stories often have catchy headlines in all caps with exclamation points. The campaign will be promoted in 14 countries with possibly more down the road. Tips to spot fake news are welcome. People should be more concerned if they are being lied to or are being misled. But Facebook's new tool puts the onus on audiences to be suspicious of what they read and share, expecting viewers to be fact checkers. In all honesty, how many people stop what they are reading and begin going to the trouble of fact-checking? How many people have the time or the inclination to get to the bottom of a story they believe might be suspicious? Like in a trial, the more corroborating witnesses, the more likely the truth will be discovered, but who is going to double check the information on different web pages? A university professor might have increased credibility versus let's say a lobbyist, but who will check an author's expertise and background on the issue being written about or check to see if the author is someone who has dedicated time and effort to learning the issue at hand? Only people who are already suitably skeptical about hoaxes and propaganda will take the time to make sure that what they are reading is truly true. Many people also purposely look for news or information that supports their own beliefs while discarding the rest. On social media, the majority of fake news is created to drive clicks for financial as much as political gain. So until Facebook stops rewarding those behind fake news with huge traffic, by limiting how often people see such news and cutting off the supply of ad revenue, the problem will fester. Google, too, has added a fact check feature to search results globally in a bid to help tackle the spread of fake news. It will now highlight "authoritative sources" in search results, with a summary of claims that have been fact-checked. It will display conflicting fact checks side-by-side when websites have drawn different conclusions. That may leave people more confused than before but perhaps it will encourage them to question what they read online. Facebook repeatedly came under fire last year as a distributor of fake news especially during the US election when fabricated stories about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were read and shared by millions. In its defense, Facebook is not a media company per se. Still, social networks do have a responsibility to reduce the amount of fake news on platforms and help users make informed decisions. If all the millions who will see the new Facebook tool popping up in their feeds read and digest it, maybe it will have an effect. However, this tool relies exclusively on the user taking the initiative. How many people will really bother?
