Can blockchain kill fake news?
By: Weiwu Zhang
Tags: Blockchain, Covid 19, Fake News

This is truly a ‘post-truth’ world which we now live in.

A friend once asked me why I, as a science lover, had yet to condemn the ‘fraud’ that is the outcome of the recently concluded general election election held in the United States. Apparently, both this election (held on November 3, 2020) and its results were scientifically proven to be fraudulent. The scientific proof? Benford’s Law. (Standup-Maths’ video explained it in detail.)

Another friend of mine, who resides in China, wondered why I am still referring to The Conversation about COVID-19’s origin. He assured me that the coronavirus’ origins are a settled matter — it is, according to him, a botched operation by the U.S. Government, carried out with the view to disrupting China. He kindly reminded me that the uncensored Internet is full of lies, compared to the censored version in China. He urged me to use “what sits on my shoulders” (i.e., my brain) and see the obvious truth for myself.

This phenomenon reinvigorated a discussion in 2017, when the Ethereum blockchain topic was at its most popular. The discussion revolved around the question, “Can blockchain solve the ‘fake news’ problem?” For example, this week’s Saxo Group’s “Outrageous Prediction” ran an article in which it was claimed that blockchain technology could eradicate fake news.

As someone who has worked on blockchain since its infancy, I would say there is no insurmountable technical barrier for the invention of such anti-fake-news technology. Blockchain can, in my experienced view, act as its foundation. Indeed, a weaker version of the blockchain that trades double-spending prevention for reduced transaction cost would serve as an even more suitable alternative thereto.

But could this technology, once developed, effectively eradicate fake news? On this score, I do not share the optimism expressed in the aforesaid Saxo Group’s article, because the articles overlooked two practical problems.

The first problem lies with how the truth is expressed and perceived. Consider that a WeChat editor was quoted as saying “The true essence of things is fundamentally unknowable and that the meaning of the news of the day depends on the spin one chooses to put on it.”

Even in circumstances where the truth is verifiable, the reality is that it can still be spun. Let me demonstrate with a recital of one of the main contentions presented in this article, “The 2020 U.S. election was proven to be scientifically fraudulent through Benford’s Law.”

The ‘truth’ of this statement, as supported and verified by blockchain, would look like this:

“Dr. Smith ran the vote data of several states through a machine. The result does not match the prediction made under Benford’s Law.”

Since that statement is ‘true,’ it could (and likely would) pass all blockchain verifications. But it does not follow from that statement that the 2020 U.S. election was scientifically fraudulent. This is because the ‘truth’ of the following statement would also be supported and verified by blockchain:

“Benford’s Law cannot accurately evaluate the voting data of the 2020 U.S. election.”

If you placed the statement “the 2020 U.S. election was proven to be fraudulent scientifically fraudulent” through a truth machine, you would probably receive a negative result. However, since there is a cost to verifying the truth, a reader may pardon you if you only placed half of that statement through a truth machine, as was shown the Tweet below.

Though the statement has a good portion of truth verified by blockchain, blockchain only functioned to support an incorrect interpretation of the voting data.

The second problem lies with whether the truth has any bearing on the perception of those who consume it. As the same WeChat news editor pointed out, people read the news nowadays because they want to be entertained, not because they want to be told the truth, or even well-informed.

A perfect example of this phenomenon in action can be observed with the belief held by my friend in China that the coronavirus was a failed attack on China from the U.S.

Let us compare two (2) stories which are presently gaining traction in their popularity on WeChat. One relates to an arrogant cat stupid enough to get stuck in a cookie jar. The other relates to an ostensibly arrogant U.S. military stupid enough to spread COVID-19 throughout China without first establishing a cure for the disease for themselves. Both articles are entertaining. Whether their contents are truthful or make or keep their readers well-informed on the matters discussed therein, is another consideration whose relevance is slowly but surely disintegrating.

Suppose one (1) of these stories (i.e., the one with the cat) is advertised as one whose truth was verified and supported by blockchain or other cryptographic technology, and the other cannot be similarly verified (i.e., the one involving the U.S. military). Will the reader be more inclined to click on and read the former article, while ignoring the latter article? Probably he will just choose the one that makes him happier or less stressed.

In other words, having ‘blockchain-verified’ status will not necessarily cause one piece of news to receive more attention than another.

(I used an example from WeChat because I needed something which my readership could readily pick up as being fake news, not because I think truth fares a lot better on other platforms, such as Facebook.)

That’s why I think the opinion that “blockchain will eradicate fake news” is, as the article’s name suggested, an outrageous prediction.

Is there a better solution? A keen reader would point out an obvious one: pay to access quality journalism. My personal experience informs me that this ultimately would not work, however. I tried to influence others to become paid subscribers in the past years, with negligible success.

What I also discovered was that, among those who would not pay for quality journalism on a subscription basis, many of them would love to profit from what they consider the truth to be. This was the case for groups whose ‘truths’ were diametrically opposed to one another. This opposition creates the ideal conditions for the creation of a zero-sum game with willing participants, whose objective is to find the truth via cryptographic attestation. I will discuss this in another article… should I find the time to write it, that is.