On February 8, Wikipedia editors unanimously voted to ban The Daily Mail from being used as a factual reference in their articles. The editors stated that the tabloid has a “reputation for poor fact checking and sensationalism” and is “generally unreliable.”

The ban comes at a time when the credibility of online sources is under heavy scrutiny. However, in the age of “alternative facts” and “fake news,” it’s hotly contested what constitutes credibility.

While misinformation ought to be combated, it is unclear who should lead the fight. In response to widespread concern over the reliability of internet sources, numerous organizations have announced plans aimed at curbing the proliferation of misinformation.

Having previously denied any editorial responsibility over what is shared through their respective sites, Google and Facebook have since announced efforts to prevent the spread of false stories. Both of the internet giants have promised to ban sites found guilty of publishing false stories from using their ad services.

Facebook is piloting a program that would allow users to report stories they believe to be fake, and has also announced plans to team up with major media outlets to fact check circulating stories. Meanwhile, the BBC has established a team whose mission is to “cut through the spin and concentrate on the facts.”

The degree to which these measures will reduce the spread of falsities remains to be seen. However, it is likely some corners of the internet will cry foul regardless of the outcome.

The term “fake news” lost meaning as quickly as it entered the public lexicon. At first, “fake news” meant exactly what it sounds like it means. The likes of President Trump and his followers have since co-opted the term to refer to any news outlet or piece that does not confirm their biases.

While Trump is an extreme example of someone stuck in an echo chamber, many are guilty of mistaking “credibility” with “agreeability.” Before tackling the issue of credibility, there must be some sort of consensus on what it means to be credible. We as a society must also be careful of who we allow to lead this discussion.

The internet is at an ethical impasse. The spread of misinformation is undoubtedly dangerous. Nevertheless, trusting organizations like Facebook and Google to decide what constitutes fact could be a mistake. No matter how good their intentions may seem, Facebook and Google are entities with their own independent agendas.

An outlet does not necessarily need to lie in order to misinform or to craft a narrative bias. Selecting truths can be just as damaging as spreading lies. How can we trust that these newly implemented editorial policies aimed at stemming lies won’t later be used to curate truths? In fighting misinformation, it is important that we do not carelessly privilege the ability to define and police “credibility.”

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Internet’s Fight Against Fake News appeared first on Law Street.

Alternative facts: an inherent oxymoron and, three weeks into 2017, likely a phrase that has already been cemented as an unforgettable moment in America’s new political era. Sunday morning, on NBC’s “Meet the Press with Chuck Todd,” Kellyanne Conway was prodded about White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s false claim that President Donald Trump’s inauguration was “the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe.” Conway replied: “you’re saying it’s a falsehood…our press secretary gave alternative facts to that.”

And with that, days into Trump’s presidency, Twitter had a new phrase to have some fun with. As it so often does, Twitter firmly chiseled Conway’s clever rewording of “lies” into the history books. First, dictionary company Merriam-Webster enlightened us all by clarifying a key, and often misunderstood, definition:

A fact is a piece of information presented as having objective reality. https://t.co/gCKRZZm23c

— Merriam-Webster (@MerriamWebster) January 22, 2017

Comedian Samantha Bee is convinced Trump is not in fact America’s new president, regardless of who took the podium on Friday:

Hillary is president right now. I choose to believe this. #alternativefacts

— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) January 22, 2017

Washington Post journalist Dave Weigel seems fired up to watch the Super Bowl in a few weeks, which will feature the New England Patriots and the Atlanta Falcons:

Pretty excited for the Eagles to face the Ravens in the Super Bowl! #alternativefacts

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) January 23, 2017

Hopefully @TonkaOBrien alternative facts children’s book won’t get published anytime soon:

It all starts somewhere … #potus #spicerlies #trumplies pic.twitter.com/AmWymAVaP0

— Tim O’Brien (@TonkaOBrien) January 22, 2017

User @davidschneider used an image of Sean Spicer at the podium to give us all a little Monday motivation:

“It is not Monday. It is still the weekend. Period.”#mondaymotivation #alternativefacts pic.twitter.com/XX3vbAbvk6

— David Schneider (@davidschneider) January 23, 2017

Finally, actor George Takei, a consistent contributor to Twitter’s finest trends, laid out a few #alternativefacts of his own:

Kellyanne Conway now refers to their lies as “alternative facts.” We get it. War is peace, freedom is slavery, Trump is presidential.

— George Takei (@GeorgeTakei) January 22, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter Does Not Believe in #AlternativeFacts appeared first on Law Street.