Jessica Clark

By far, the most visible debate about how and why fake news spreads so quickly revolves around the role that large social platforms such as Facebook, Google and Twitter play as conduits. While these platforms have in the past tried to claim that they’re just neutral pipes for content, sustained post-election pressure is beginning to move them to action.

Of course, only so much can be done to fix the problem on the supply side. At the end of the day, the problem lies on the demand side, among credulous news consumers who are emotionally primed to believe the worst about politicians and the powerful. “Sorry, but I don’t want Facebook to be the arbiter of what’s true,” writes Arizona State University professor and author Dan Gillmor. “Nor do I want Google — or Twitter or any other hyper-centralized technology platform — to be the arbiter of what’s true.” Instead, he argues, the platforms should help users learn how to read skeptically, seek out multiple perspectives, and create their own media. Primers such as this “How to Spot Fake News” piece from FactCheck.org are a useful start.

Once the dust settles on this notably mendacious and polarized election, one unlikely winner will emerge: the fact-checker. As is the case with many foundation-supported journalism initiatives, fact-checking often dwells on nuances less favored by the web’s clickbait economy. Evaluating it requires asking deeper questions than Google Analytics can answer. Here are four:
1) How are people using these fact-checking platforms?
2) Does fact-checking actually change people’s minds?
3) Does it keep the powerful from lying?
4) Who’s backing the fact-checkers?