Among the many differences between older social software and post-Facebook social software is the peculiar flatness of the newer platforms. Older tools — recognizing that the user of social software is the group, not the individual — empowered those invested in health of communities with tools to help keep the community healthy. Effective social software was oriented not toward the average member of a community, but toward the community’s stewards. That’s why, for example, Wikipedia foregrounds to users an array of information useful to making quick judgments about editors, edits, and claims on articles’ History tab. It’s why the bread and butter of community blogging systems was different levels of trusted user status, and why BBS tools showcased moderation features over user capabilities.
Platforms split community management from community activity, and we’re still feeling the effects of that. Wikipedia has a half dozen different access levels and at least a dozen specialized roles. Twitter has one role: user. But even though specialized formal roles don’t exist, different patterns of influence do, and this has been woefully underutilized in the fight against misinformation.
That’s why my prediction for the coming year is that at least one platform will engage with its most influential users, giving them access to special tools and training to identify and contextualize sources and claims in their feeds. This will allow platforms to split the difference between a clutter-free onboarding for Aunt Jane and a full-featured verification and sourcing interface for users whose every retweet goes out to hundreds of thousands of people, or whose page or group serves as an information hub for users and activists. These tools and training will also eventually be released to the general public, though for the general public, they will default to off.
Until recently, most online communities put resources into making sure that those with influence had tools to exercise that influence responsibly, built right into the main interface. It’s time for platforms to follow suit.
And here’s a bonus prediction, this one for online information literacy. Over the past few years, much of the focus in infolit has been on trustworthiness, truth, and bias. While the truth sometimes is clear cut, and the intentions of those working in media literacy are good, putting these things at the core of any large public initiative can be problematic. Trustworthiness, for example, is often seen through an explicit news agenda, where journalistic processes are seen as a platonic ideal to which other types of information should aspire. Bias, if anything, ends up being too powerful a tool, allowing students to filter out almost any publication as unworthy of their attention.
For the past several years, we’ve been taking a different tack. We’ve been asking students a simple question: What context should you have before engaging with a particular piece of content? And if you share this content, what context should you provide to those with whom you share?
While we’ve been doing this for its pedagogical benefits, a recent public project has made me realize that it is an approach uniquely sensitive to community values, and, as such may provide a starting point for broad educational initiatives. Truth is a battleground, trustworthiness a minefield. Yet even in these divided times, most people agree that one should know the relevant context of what one reads and shares. It’s as close to a universal value as we have these days.
Because these issues will become more salient as broader adoption is pursued, I predict that online information literacy initiatives will begin to pivot from trust as an organizing principle to the reconstruction of missing context.
Mike Caulfield is head of the Digital Polarization Initiative of the American Democracy Project.
Among the many differences between older social software and post-Facebook social software is the peculiar flatness of the newer platforms. Older tools — recognizing that the user of social software is the group, not the individual — empowered those invested in health of communities with tools to help keep the community healthy. Effective social software was oriented not toward the average member of a community, but toward the community’s stewards. That’s why, for example, Wikipedia foregrounds to users an array of information useful to making quick judgments about editors, edits, and claims on articles’ History tab. It’s why the bread and butter of community blogging systems was different levels of trusted user status, and why BBS tools showcased moderation features over user capabilities.
Platforms split community management from community activity, and we’re still feeling the effects of that. Wikipedia has a half dozen different access levels and at least a dozen specialized roles. Twitter has one role: user. But even though specialized formal roles don’t exist, different patterns of influence do, and this has been woefully underutilized in the fight against misinformation.
That’s why my prediction for the coming year is that at least one platform will engage with its most influential users, giving them access to special tools and training to identify and contextualize sources and claims in their feeds. This will allow platforms to split the difference between a clutter-free onboarding for Aunt Jane and a full-featured verification and sourcing interface for users whose every retweet goes out to hundreds of thousands of people, or whose page or group serves as an information hub for users and activists. These tools and training will also eventually be released to the general public, though for the general public, they will default to off.
Until recently, most online communities put resources into making sure that those with influence had tools to exercise that influence responsibly, built right into the main interface. It’s time for platforms to follow suit.
And here’s a bonus prediction, this one for online information literacy. Over the past few years, much of the focus in infolit has been on trustworthiness, truth, and bias. While the truth sometimes is clear cut, and the intentions of those working in media literacy are good, putting these things at the core of any large public initiative can be problematic. Trustworthiness, for example, is often seen through an explicit news agenda, where journalistic processes are seen as a platonic ideal to which other types of information should aspire. Bias, if anything, ends up being too powerful a tool, allowing students to filter out almost any publication as unworthy of their attention.
For the past several years, we’ve been taking a different tack. We’ve been asking students a simple question: What context should you have before engaging with a particular piece of content? And if you share this content, what context should you provide to those with whom you share?
While we’ve been doing this for its pedagogical benefits, a recent public project has made me realize that it is an approach uniquely sensitive to community values, and, as such may provide a starting point for broad educational initiatives. Truth is a battleground, trustworthiness a minefield. Yet even in these divided times, most people agree that one should know the relevant context of what one reads and shares. It’s as close to a universal value as we have these days.
Because these issues will become more salient as broader adoption is pursued, I predict that online information literacy initiatives will begin to pivot from trust as an organizing principle to the reconstruction of missing context.
Mike Caulfield is head of the Digital Polarization Initiative of the American Democracy Project.
Mira Lowe The year of student-powered journalism
Talia Stroud The work of reconnecting starts November 4
A.J. Bauer A fork in the road for conservative media
Jeff Kofman Speed through technology
Jake Shapiro Podcasting gets listener relationship management
Hossein Derakhshan AI can’t conjure up an Errol Morris
Jakob Moll A slow-moving tech backlash among young people
Laura E. Davis Know the context your journalism is operating within
Cindy Royal Prepare media students for skills, not job titles
Imaeyen Ibanga Let’s take it slow
Heidi Tworek The year of positive pushback
Kerri Hoffman Opening closed systems
Joanne McNeil A return to blogs (finally? sort of?)
Candis Callison Taking a cue from Indigenous journalists on climate change
Kevin D. Grant The free press stands against authoritarians’ attacks on truth
Errin Haines Race and gender aren’t a 2020 story — they’re the story
Meredith Artley Stronger solidarity among news organizations
Richard Tofel A constraint of the reader-revenue model emerges
Knight Foundation Five generations of journalists, learning from each other
Dannagal G. Young Let’s disrupt the logic that’s driving Americans apart
Rick Berke Incoming fire from both left and right
Ben Werdmuller Use the tools of journalism to save it
Cory Haik We’re already consuming the future of news — now we have to produce it
Mary Walter-Brown and Tristan Loper Power to the people (on your audience team)
Seth C. Lewis 20 questions for 2020
Barbara Gray Join local libraries on the frontlines of civic engagement
Brian Moritz The end of “stick to sports”
Bill Grueskin Our ethics codes get an overhaul
Brenda P. Salinas Treating MP3 files like text
Victor Pickard We reclaim a public good
Rachel Davis Mersey The business of local TV news will enter its downward slide
Joshua P. Darr All that campaign cash will make the media’s problems worse
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, collaboration in a time of state attacks
Stefanie Murray Charitable giving goes collaborative
Sarah Alvarez I’m ready for post-news
Jeremy Olshan All journalism should be service journalism
Raney Aronson-Rath News deserts will proliferate — but so will new solutions
Logan Molyneux and Shannon McGregor Think twice before turning to Twitter
Sarah Marshall The year to learn about news moments
Ståle Grut OSINT journalism goes mainstream
Bill Adair A Nobel Prize, a Brad Pitt film, and a Taylor Swift song
Kourtney Bitterly Transparency isn’t just a desire, it’s an expectation
Gordon Crovitz Fighting misinformation requires journalism, not secret algorithms
Nicholas Jackson What’s left of local gets comfortable with reader support
Meg Marco Everything happens somewhere
Jeremy Gilbert and Jarrod Dicker A call for collaboration between storytelling and tech
Margarita Noriega The platforms try to figure out what to do with single-subject newsrooms
Colleen Shalby Journalists become media literacy teachers
Masuma Ahuja Slower, quieter, more measured and thoughtful
Nathalie Malinarich Betting on loyalty
Beena Raghavendran The year of the local engagement reporter
Mariana Moura Santos The future of journalism is collaborative
Elizabeth Dunbar Frank talk, and then action
Mario García Think small (screen)
Francesco Zaffarano TikTok without generational prejudice
Michael W. Wagner Increasingly fractured, but little bit deliberative
Alfred Hermida and Mary Lynn Young The promise of nonprofit journalism
Madelyn Sanfilippo and Yafit Lev-Aretz News coverage gets geo-fragmented
Monica Drake A renewed focus on misinformation
Craig Newmark Formalizing newsrooms’ battle against disinformation
Elizabeth Hansen and Jesse Holcomb Local news initiatives run into a capital shortage
Don Day Respect the non-paying audience
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists get left behind in the industry’s decline
Julia B. Chan We 👏 take 👏 breaks 👏
Rachel Schallom The value of push alerts goes beyond open rates
Kristen Muller The year we operationalize community engagement
Jim Brady We’ll complain about other people living in bubbles while ignoring our own
Linda Solomon Wood Everyone in your organization, moving toward a common goal
Emily Withrow The year we kill the news article
Doris Truong The year of radical salary transparency
Alexandra Borchardt Get out of the office and talk to people
Logan Jaffe You don’t need fancy tools to listen
Nushin Rashidian Are platforms a bridge or a lifeline?
Anthony Nadler Clash of Clans: Election Edition
Matt DeRienzo Local broadcasters begin to fill the gaps left by newspapers
Pablo Boczkowski The day after November 4
Josh Schwartz Publishers move beyond the metered paywall
Sara K. Baranowski A big year for little newspapers
J. Siguru Wahutu Western journalists, learn from your African peers
Cristina Kim Public media stops trying to serve “everybody”
Peter Bale Lies get further normalized
Sarah Schmalbach Journalist, quantify thyself
Joni Deutsch Podcasting unsilences the silent
Whitney Phillips A time to question core beliefs
Carrie Brown-Smith Engaged journalism: It’s finally happening
Greg Emerson News apps fall further behind
Jonas Kaiser Russian bots are just today’s slacktivists
Fiona Spruill The climate crisis gets the coverage it deserves
Sue Robinson Campaign coverage as test bed for engagement experiments
M. Scott Havens First-party data becomes media’s most important currency
Alana Levinson Brand-backed media gets another look
Mike Caulfield Native verification tools for the blue checkmark crowd
Juleyka Lantigua A changing industry amps up podcasters’ ambitions
Christa Scharfenberg It’s time to make journalism a field that supports and respects women
Sarah Stonbely More people start caring about news inequality
Tamar Charney From broadcast to bespoke
Tonya Mosley The neutrality vs. objectivity game ends
Monique Judge The year to organize, unionize, and fight
AX Mina The Forum we wanted, the forum we got
S. Mitra Kalita The race to 2021
Eric Nuzum Podcasting finally creates another mega-hit show
Lucas Graves A smarter conversation about how (and why) fact-checking matters
Steve Henn The dawning audio web
Matthew Pressman News consumers divide into haves and have-nots
Irving Washington Leadership isn’t something you learn on the job
Dan Shanoff Sports media enters the Bronny era
Nico Gendron Make better products if you want to reach Gen Z
Geneva Overholser Death to bothsidesism
Jasmine McNealy A call for context
Jennifer Brandel A love letter from the year 2073
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen The business we want, not the business we had
Helen Havlak Platforms shine a light on original reporting
Carl Bialik Journalists will try running the whole shop
Ernie Smith The death of the industry fad
Tom Glaisyer Journalism can emerge newly vibrant and powerful
Joe Amditis Collaborative journalism takes its rightful place at the table
Tanya Cordrey Saying no to more good ideas
Annie Rudd The expanded ambiguity of the news photograph
Felix Salmon Spotify launches a news channel
Sonali Prasad Climate change storytelling gets multidimensional
Alice Antheaume Trade “politics” for “power”
Heather Bryant Some kinds of journalism aren’t worth saving
Zizi Papacharissi A president leads, the press follows, reality fades
John Keefe Journalism gets hacked
John Garrett It’s the best time in a century to start a local news organization
Simon Galperin Journalism becomes more democratic
Lauren Duca The rise of the journalistic influencer