“We don’t fall for false news just because we’re dumb. Often it’s a matter of letting the wrong impulses take over.”

In Steinmetz’s article, she discusses how people often fall prey to fake new’s and how people assume it’s truthful because of its familiarity. The news today is heavily influenced by social media and Steinmetz argues that “The problem is also us, the susceptible readers. And experts like Wineburg believe that the better we understand the way we think in the digital world, the better chance we have to be part of the solution.” The average American spends almost 24 hours a week on the internet, they are bound to see altered images, deep-fakes, and false information. She relays that it isn’t because we are stupid and want to believe the fake news, it’s a matter of those putting of the information manipulating the viewer. These “fake news” creators pull on our mind’s hardware that if something is familiar, it is safe and good; psychologist call this familiarity heuristic. It is up to the reader to verify if a source is truthful by reviewing all the minor details consistent within.

Katy Steinmetz, “How Your Brain Tricks You Into Believing Fake News,” Time, August 9, 2018. https://time.com/5362183/the-real-fake-news-crisis

“Now imagine a world where checking your mirrors before switching lanes was rare, three standard-deviations-out behavior. What would the roads look like? Well, it’d probably look like the Mad Max-like smoking heap of collisions, car fires, and carnage that is our modern web.”

I really liked this metaphor used in Caulfield’s article about methods to evaluate an online source sparked a couple questions for me. He talks about thirteen different methods to evaluate an online source using wikipedia and other online tools. Anyone can use these online hacks to see if the source they are reading is legit and factual. This quote refers to how only 2/3 of online users check to see if their source is reliable. Now imagine if only 2/3 of drivers checked their mirrors while merging; utter chaos. My question is, if these methods can prevent false information from being spread, how can online users be convinced to perform these quick checks?

Mike Caulfield, “The ‘Always Check’ Approach to Online Literacy.” Hapgood (blog), August 21, 2018. https://hapgood.us/2018/08/21/the-always-check-approach-to-online-literacy

“Part of the issue is that people are still relying on outdated shortcuts, the kind we were taught to use in a library.”

What Steinmetz is saying here is that when a works cited is listed in a book, it is checked by a publisher, author, librarian, and a fact-checker before it hits the shelf. While on a website, the author could have just Googled everything, not making it factual. I wish the Steinmetz would have elaborate here more, as most people today have learned the “library way” of tracing sources. In my future classroom, I am only one person, who is also susceptible to falling prey to fake news. For me personally, I have learned how to track a source to see if it is reliable, as that is what we have to do as future historians. However, that is not always the case, as I am human. I had hoped as I was reading that Steinmetz would have given us some tips on how to evaluate an online source to reveal it’s trustworthiness.

Katy Steinmetz, “How Your Brain Tricks You Into Believing Fake News,” Time, August 9, 2018. https://time.com/5362183/the-real-fake-news-crisis