Fake News and SecuritySo, is bogus news a security concern? Lets have a look at a recent news item that’s rather revealing.
Please visit following sites for more information:
Facebook held a news conference to explain exactly what it’s doing to get rid of bogus information from its pages and therefore from our feeds. When asked by Darcy about the way in which the company could claim it had been serious about tackling the issue of misinformation online whilst simultaneously allowing InfoWars to sustain a page with almost one million followers on its site, John Hegeman said the company does not”take down bogus information.””I guess just for being untrue which doesn’t violate the community standards,” Hegeman said, describing that InfoWars has”not violated something that could result in them being taken down.”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 get the perfect balance between encouraging free expression and encouraging a safe and authentic community, and we believe down-ranking inauthentic content strikes that balance. To put it differently, we enable people to place it as a kind of expression, but we are not going to reveal it at the very top of News Feed.””That said: while sharing imitation information does not violate our Community Standards set of policies, we do have plans in place to take care of actors who share false news. If articles in a Page or domain is repeatedly given a’false’ score from our third-party fact-checkers… we eliminate their monetisation and advertisements rights to cut off financial incentives, and radically lower the distribution of all their Page-level or domain-level content on Facebook.”So, based on that dialog you need to wonder whether the press conference about bogus news was anything other than, well, fake information! If Facebook do not mean to take down fake information then they are encouraging it, they claim that they remove or lower the capability of page owners to create income on Facebook should they consider fake news peddlers.How does this impact SecurityThe problems occur when those who actually feel the fake news begin to talk about it. Often going viral bogus news around security issues on social media, programs and or websites can cause serious damage to the standing of these targeted. It’s 1 thing to let and promote free speech, but if it begins to affect legitimate business those in the middle of the problem have to be brought to book. InfoWars has previously advertised its site and even some its bogus news via YouTube advertising. When those adverts are displayed in the midst of a product from a highly reputable company it’s the impact of subliminally detracting form the standing of these firms.Some of the largest brands in the U.S. had advertisements running on the YouTube stations for far-right website InfoWars and its founder, notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, and they say they had no idea YouTube was allowing their advertising to arrive there. – CNNAnd on the subject of Fake News, lets look at the person who coined the phrase:President Trump denied a question from CNN’s Jim Acosta at a joint media conference Friday afternoon with UK Prime Minister Theresa May in Buckinghamshire. Earlier in the press conference, Trump attacked CNN after having a question from the NBC News writer Hallie Jackson. Trump said NBC is”potentially worse than CNN.” Acosta asked Trump.FOX News correspondent John Roberts”Go ahead” he explained.”Could I ask you a question” “No,” Trump told him.”CNN is fake news,” Trump said. “I do not take questions from CNN. CNN is bogus news. I don’t take questions from CNN.”So in this case those accused of delivering fake news aren’t being given a chance to ask a question! If the press publishes a story that is not true then you’ve got the opportunity to challenge them at a court of law, but POTUS does not bother doing that, he rather delivers his own brand justice.What’s the verdict on safety?Honestly, this is damaging, the press in the uk have a duty to report fairly and honestly, failing to do so results in court action almost each time. Trump has accused the BBC of purveying fake news in the past, now I understand that the BBC has been accused of being biased in the past, in some instances they’ve been found guilty and had to pay the price, yet they are financed by the united kingdom public via a license fee as well as such they are under examination.Whenever public opinion is manipulated there are dangers to safety, either cyber or real. The current climate of calling anything that people do not like as fake instead of bringing the culprits to book needs to change in the actual world and the cyber environment.Because of this the lies continue to be dispersed and world security and cyber security are at which the suffering starts.Facebook has recently been trying damage limitation following the Cambridge Analytica scandle. UK marketing has been filled with how Facebook is falling its 3rd party data partnerships, in fact there is probably a second reason behind this. GDPR would make 3rd party data partnerships such as the Cambridge Analytica one a minefield for Facebook.The amount of compliance which will be required, the documentation, assessing and confirmation and of course the fines if something went wrong could be massive.Sure, Facebook only obtained a #500,000 fine for the recent scandal, this is likely to be since the incident happened earlier GDPR came into force, future breaches could be dealt with through much bigger fines.What could be achieved? Or is it? The lesson to be learnt here is that according to Facebook, they will not take bogus news down even after they have discovered it. The people are therefore in the position of power.