extfieldsofstudy: Art Sociology

text:
‘Fake news’ is the invention of a liar: How false information circulates within the hybrid news system

Alarmed by the oversimplifications related to the ‘fake news’ buzzword, researchers have started to unpack the concept, defining diverse types and forms of misleading news. Most of the existing works in the area consider crucial the intent of the content creator in order to differentiate among different types of problematic information. This article argues for a change of perspective that, by leveraging the conceptual framework of sociocybernetics, shifts from exclusive attention to creators of misleading information to a broader approach that focuses on propagators and, as a result, on the dynamics of the propagation processes. The analytical implications of this perspective are discussed at a micro level (criteria to judge the falsehood of news and to decide to spread it), at a meso level (four possible relations between individual judgements and decisions), and at a macro level (global circulation cascades). The authors apply this theoretical gaze to analyse ‘fake news’ stories that challenge existing models.

Introduction
In the past couple of years, the debate concerning so-called 'fake news' has prominently surfaced in news and politicians' speeches around the world. This catchy but fuzzy tag (European Commission, 2018) has mainly been used to describe misleading content disseminating across social media, but it has also been invoked by political actors to discredit some news organizations' critical reporting (Caplan et al., 2018;Tandoc et al., 2018). Alarmed by the simplification of this buzzword, researchers have started to unpack the concept, defining diverse types of 'fake news' (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017;Jack, 2017;Marwick and Lewis, 2017;Warde, 2017) in order to understand the implications and solutions.
In common with classic studies on misleading information dealing with rumours, propaganda and conspiracy theories (Allport and Postman, 1946;Lasswell, 1927;Sunstein and Vermeule, 2009), these most recent attempts to define 'fake news' seek to differentiate between specific forms of the phenomenon with reference to the source's intent to deceive (disinformation) versus the honest mistakes, negligence, or unconscious biases (misinformation) (Fallis, 2015;Floridi, 2011). In other words, the act of creating and injecting 'fake news' in the system is a defining moment for most classic and contemporary studies.
In this article, we suggest a radical change of perspective. Such change is driven by deep transformations characterizing contemporary news systems, wherein older and newer media actors -with different degrees of potential reach, epistemological authority and skills of media manipulation -operate on the basis of overlapping and competing media logics. In this 'hybrid news system' (Chadwick, 2013), judgements with regard to the falsehood and motivations of propagators (the actors who share the 'fake news') can easily be different from the motivations of the original creator. Such patterns mean that what happens after the 'generative act' of a piece of false news is crucial to the study of real-world cases. The radical change of perspective required by the hybrid news system thus consists of a shift from exclusive attention to producers of 'fake news' to a broader approach that also focuses on propagators and, as a result, on the dynamic and diverse processes that characterize the dissemination of problematic information through multiple chains of propagation.
On a theoretical level, our proposal is informed by the conceptual framework of sociocybernetics with specific reference to 'second-order cybernetics'. According to this approach -originally developed by Heinz von Foerster, whose aphorism 'Truth: The invention of a liar' has inspired the title of this article -information is not something that can be transmitted, stored, or retrieved in itself; it only exists 'when looked upon by a human mind' (von Foerster, 2003: 103). Following what von Foerster said about truth, the title of this article retains and twists the double meaning of its original inspiration insofar as it not only indicates simply and obviously that a piece of false information is invented by a liar. It also intrinsically turns its pronouncer into a liar, i.e. someone who indirectly claims to speak the truth by asserting that something is false.
In this sense, the term 'fake news' is inherently divisive and detrimental to healthy debates.
Information is an eminently social process: it is 'a difference which makes a difference' for an observer (Bateson, 1972: 321). What is informative for one observer can be uninformative for another observer. Interests, backgrounds, previous knowledge and biases matter both at the level of 'recognizing' (paying attention to a source) and 'making' (inducing some sort of change in the receiver, e.g. propagating a certain content) the difference.
We contend that, in the hybrid media system, each 'fake news' cycle can only be studied as a unique process that emerges from multiple combinations of judgements on the falsehood of the news. Such judgements are made by all the diverse actors who decide to inject and share it, following logics that are related to their perception of the source, of the story itself and of the context.
In order to describe our analytical model of problematic information, in the next section we trace back the notion of 'fake news' to classic and contemporary studies on disinformation and misinformation, highlighting what we consider the weaknesses of these analytical definitions: that is, their sole focus on the initial step of the process -when someone introduces false information into the system. We then briefly describe the literature that has informed our definition of the contemporary media context in terms of the hybrid news system and the radical change in perspective that it requires: that is, analytical attention to both the generative acts of 'fake news' and to what happens in the processes of circulation. We thereafter consider this innovative perspective's roots and its focus on the observer's judgements regarding informativeness. Next, we discuss the profound consequences of this theoretical gaze on a micro, meso and macro level analysis of real-world 'fake news' news stories.

The longstanding effort to define false information
Even if the notion of 'fake news' has been popularized only recently, the dangerous implications of unverified, inaccurate, defective and false information have been extensively studied by a diverse set of academic literature since the early 20th century.
Scholars working in the field of the philosophy of information have differentiated between disinformation and misinformation on the basis of the source's intent to deceive (Floridi, 1996). The concept of 'disinformation' refers to misleading information deliberately aimed at deceiving others, while 'misinformation' implies false or inaccurate information circulating as a result of honest mistakes, negligence, or unconscious biases (Fallis, 2015).
This conceptual distinction has been highly successful within and beyond the philosophy of information (Habermas, 1989(Habermas, [1962 ;Jack, 2017). There is, however, a lack of agreement regarding the diverse types of misleading information that fall under these two concepts of disinformation and misinformation, for example, satire, parody, and even bullshit.
In the cases of satire and parody, in particular, the source intentionally produces misleading content, yet the intent is not to mislead, and the source does not benefit from being misleading (Fallis, 2015). Nevertheless recent studies have included (news) satire (content that exaggerates facts to convey a critique) and (news) parody (non-factual information produced to inject humour) among the forms of problematic information that can fool both large publics and influence intermediaries of information (Jack, 2017;Warde, 2017). Another type of misleading information that evades the classic distinction between disinformation and misinformation is what Frankfurt and Bischoff (2005) define as 'bullshit', wherein the source does not care if what he/she says is true or false but only aims to persuade or to provoke a reaction.
Among the various types of problematic information, rumour has received the most systematic academic attention (Allport and Postman, 1946;Rojecki and Meraz, 2016). Rumours are forms of information that are characterized by uncertain veracity and that can be later proven false. The credibility of rumours is unrelated to direct evidence but to the fact that other people seem to believe them. Rumours are often at the origin of conspiracy theories, which are explanations for events through the causal agency of a group of individuals acting in secret (Keeley, 1999). If we had to describe conspiracy theories using the distinction between disinformation and misinformation, one could say that conspiracy theories are a form of disinformation since these theories can often easily be proven false, and it is no accident that the information is misleading (Fallis, 2015). At the same time, conspiracy theories could be identified as misinformation since some supporters of these theories are entirely sincere and believe them to be true (Sunstein and Vermeule, 2009).
Another type of problematic information that has received considerable attention from researchers is propaganda. Studies on propaganda can be traced back to Lasswell (1927), who explained how manipulated significant symbols can manage collective attitudes, promoting a particular political side or perspective. The study of propaganda is obtaining renewed interest due to the increasing skills of media manipulation that have enriched online propaganda tactics, with the development of bots (Albright, 2016), which give the impression that many people are liking a piece of misleading news.
Another form of disinformation that is garnering renewed academic interest is deceptive advertising, particularly advertising materials that simulate the formats of legacy news media to confer more legitimacy to a one-sided article or website, with the aim of obtaining financial gain or a positive public perception (Allcott and Gentzkow, 2017;Tandoc et al., 2018;Warde, 2017). Other types of problematic information related to new digital techniques are doctored and manipulated photos/videos (Farid, 2009), which may have no factual basis or may be factual but misappropriated. Contemporary media cultures also challenge the definition of the motivations that drive problematic information in contemporary media environments: internet trolls (Marwick and Lewis, 2017;Phillips, 2015), for example, may deliberately create misleading content for fun, with the aim of provoking outrage or fooling their audience.
While helpful, most of these concepts and typologies of misleading information focus on the act of creation as the defining moment, looking at the author's judgement with regard to the falsehood and distinguishing between his/her intentions (to deceive, convey a critique, inject humour, persuade, reduce uncertainty, give an impression of events, make money, promote a particular political perspective/product, have fun).
We argue that this focus represents a limit for the study of problematic information in the contemporary media environment, in which the diffusion of news depends on the multiple actors involved in the process of newsmaking and news sharing.

False information in the hybrid news system
Information cycles of the 21st century are characterized by a multitude of highly interdependent media technologies, in which numerous media actors follow newer and older, overlapping and competing media logics, producing news and other products with a news format (Chadwick, 2009(Chadwick, , 2013. According to this vision, multiple and integrated platforms have rendered the process of newsmaking more inclusive, blurring the last century's boundaries between professional journalism and user-generated content as well as affecting the norms and values that guide journalists' practices in the (mixed) genres of journalistic information and the organization of newsrooms (Hermida and Thurman, 2008;Tandoc, 2014).
In the hybrid media system, a plethora of actors -such as bots (Albright, 2016)participate in the production and dissemination of both journalists' ratified news and a wide range of other products that take on a news format. As boyd (2017) wrote, contemporary publics are increasing able to 'hack the attention economy'.
These multiple actors, all involved in the hybrid processes of newsmaking and news sharing, require a radical shift in the study of misleading information, from exclusive focus on the first step of the process (the creation of news) to also considering what happens after this generative act. Judgements regarding the falsehood of news and motivations to share it can easily be different from those of the authors. We trace this shift of perspective back to second-order cybernetics.

Second-order cybernetics and 'fake news'
As anticipated by the review of the literature, most of the existing works emphasize that judgements on the level of facticity of online content are strongly interlinked with assessments regarding the intentions of the content creator. Understanding the intent of the creator of 'fake news' is thus considered a crucial indicator for differentiating among different types of problematic information. Nevertheless, several recent works recognize the difficulties in clearly assessing such intent (Jack, 2017). Even employing the state-of-the-art techniques of digital investigative journalism, the cues left by these actors are often inadequate for clearly differentiating between honest mistakes, deliberate deception and satire. This phenomenon is often referred to as 'Poe's Law' (Aikin, 2013). Furthermore, certain actors (e.g. trolls) deliberately sow confusion about their real intentions by framing as satire their false and/or outrageous content (Marwick and Lewis, 2017).
No matter how difficult this assessment, billions of actors of the hybrid media news system are called upon every day, often multiple times a day, to quickly make such judgements on the online content to which they are exposed.
Many experts both inside and outside academia are working to make this judgement process easier and less prone to error (Caplan et al., 2018). While recognizing the importance of these efforts, we take a different perspective, a perspective that includes at its core the possibility that misjudgements occur: a second-order perspective.
By second-order perspective, we specifically refer to the work carried out by an interdisciplinary group of scientists (Norbert Wiener, Claude Shannon and Warren McCulloch, to name just a few) in the United States following the Second World War and developed under the programme title of 'second-order cybernetics' by a team led by Heinz von Foerster, an Austrian-American scientist combining physics and epistemology, at the Biological Computer Laboratory of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Heims, 1991). Second-order cybernetics postulates that a system comes 'into being' when an observer acts to 'draw its boundaries' (von Foerster, 2003).
Once applied to media and communication, this approach suggests shifting attention from the source (the content creator) to the observer of the source (those who are exposed to this content). According to von Foerster (2003), a source in itself is rarely important unless someone pays attention to it. In a certain sense, sources only 'come into being' when an observer recognizes them as sources.
According to Gregory Bateson (1972), an anthropologist who met von Foerster and Shannon multiple times during the Macy conferences (Heims, 1991), information is in fact 'a difference that makes a difference'. Bateson's definition of information underlines the crucial role played by the expectations of the receiver/observer. From this perspective, information is not something that can be transmitted, stored, or retrieved; it exists only 'when looked upon by a human mind' (von Foerster, 2003). What is informative for one observer may be uninformative for another observer. The observer's interests, background, previous knowledge and biases matter both at the level of 'recognizing' (paying attention to a source) and 'making' (inducing some sort of change in the receiver, e.g. propagating a certain content) the difference.
While the intent of the content creator (first-order perspective) is often difficult to assess, the observers exposed to certain content (second-order perspective) formulate their best guess regarding both facticity and creator's intent. These judgements affecton different scales, depending on the observer's position in the system and number of connections to the actors -the entire process. On this basis, the observer defines the subsequent course of action (e.g. decides to further share a content).
By extension, a researcher analysing the way an information cycle unravels from an external perspective is a third-order observer attempts to assess the intentions and goals of both first-order and second-order observers: they try to guess the intention and goals of the initiators of an information cycle, as well as the motivations of those who take part in it. At the same time, researchers also define a case of online spread of information as 'fake news', which thus represents the actual starting point of the analytical process.
Given the multiple levels of observations at stake, our perspective is constructivist but not relativistic. All observers, including a researcher potentially studying the process, tend to judge the truthfulness of content from their unavoidably limited perspectives. Different actors are differently equipped to support this judgement process. Nevertheless, even professional subjects and organizations sometimes misjudge. These perspectives are different but not equal. For this reason, we introduce the distinction between 'true'/'false' (with lower case initial letters) according to the perspective of the actors involved in the process and 'True'/'False' (with capitalized initial letters) according to an external perspective, such as that of the researcher using the model.
By the same token, a propagator is an actor of the hybrid media system (e.g. a journalist, news organization, citizen, politician, troll, fake account, bot) who is exposed to False information (created/shared by a creator or previous propagator) and, for numerous possible reasons, decides to share it further (thereby creating a propagation). It may be the case that the propagator is exercising bad judgement (believing to be true what is in fact False), or it may be the case that she/he correctly judged the information as false and deliberately decides to share it to deceive others.
In other terms, echoing Bateson's extension of Shannon's information theory (Shannon and Weaver, 1949), we suggest adopting a second-order perspective to shift attention from the source -as an entity with its own static properties (motivations, biases, drivers) -to the observer who consumes content originally published by the source and makes a judgement about its properties. We argue that, however right or wrong this judgement may be, the descriptions made by these observers shape the process of misleading information as a complex phenomenon emerging from the interplay of a multitude of actors in the hybrid news system. From this perspective, a False information cycle is rarely reducible to a single typology. A news article clearly fabricated with the aim of exploiting the logic of online advertising (and thus produced as disinformation) may become a must-read article within a community of like-minded believers of certain conspiracy theories and shared as a legitimate piece of news (misinformation).
The implications of this radical change of perspective are presented and discussed in the next sections dedicated to the micro, meso and macro levels of our analytical model. By employing such terminology and analytical approach we address the call to precision that Turner (2006) has recommended to sociologists by inviting them to develop theories aimed at explaining social phenomena by paying attention to relationships between forces operating at different levels of the social universe.

Understanding False information cycles: A three level interpretation
Multiple cycles of information constantly populate hybrid news systems. They result from the activity of various actors who produce and share information with small and large audiences that might or might not decide to actively contribute to their further circulation. Each of these cycles is grounded upon cascades of judgements (whether or not to believe a piece of information) and decisions (whether or not to share a piece of content). These actions are taken, with very different levels of sophistication, by diverse individuals, groups and organizations.
Despite being guided by different logics, ethical concerns and skills, all the different actors populating these systems, we argue, ground their judgements and their decisions upon similar principles. In the following sections, we discuss the dissemination of False information within the hybrid media system by focusing on three different levels: a micro level consisting of the bases on which subjects judge the truthfulness of the information with which they engage; a meso level consisting of the matrix of expectations between actors and content at each propagation of False information; and a macro level consisting of the broad and heterogeneous process emerging from a chain of False news propagation. While these three levels of the analysis are presented, for sake of clarity, as a bottom-up structure, it is worth underlining that both the meso and the macro level are emergent phenomena.

This information is definitely (not) true
First, we focus on how single actors process information. False information is potentially an extremely 'informative' (and thereby effective) form of information (Karlova and Fisher, 2013), as unexpected novelty is a defining characteristic of information (Shannon and Weaver, 1949). Focusing on the 'informativeness' of False information allows us to employ journalism studies and literature on information sharing within digital environments to also discuss how the multiple actors of the hybrid media system make judgements and take decisions when exposed to False information.
Starting from the classification proposed by Wathen and Burkell (2002) for the internet 1.0, we argue that all individuals and institutions inhabiting hybrid news systems evaluate the truthfulness of the information they manage on the basis of specific patterns regarding: (a) the source, (b) the story and (c) the context.
According to the literature on digital information ecologies, two elements influence individuals in their assessments of a piece of information's truthfulness on the basis of its sources: authority (Clark and Slotta, 2000;Rieh, 2002) and proximity (Meyer, 1994). Given that the credibility of established institutions has plummeted over the past decades (Peters and Broersma, 2013), multiple scales of authority have emerged by which the status of 'influencers' is granted on the basis of the attention received from a very specific community (Marwick and boyd, 2011;Tufekci, 2013). When authority becomes strictly contextual, it is much more complicated for individuals to adopt such parameters to assess the trustworthiness of the original source of a piece of news. In this context, the (social or ideological) proximity characterizing our relationship with the node in our digital network endorsing a piece of information to which we are exposed becomes much more important than its original source (Messing and Westwood, 2014). Authority and proximity thus overlap almost completely, with the result that the source's expertise -a key element of authority (Wathen and Burkell, 2002) -loses its centrality in how individuals evaluate the trustworthiness of a piece of information. Classic literature on newsmaking has shown that a source's capital of authority influences the credit granted to that information by journalists as well (Gans, 1979;Tuchman, 1978). Such patterns privilege institutional sources over other types of sources since institutional authority is considered a byproduct of the position of power the institution occupies within society. Digital and especially social media have offered institutional and political actors the opportunity for an uninterrupted flow of communication, within which False information can be strategically disseminated, exploiting some of the affordances of these platforms. Just as with everyday citizens, journalists' proximity is likewise indicative of a source's credibility: a frequently 'encountered' source becomes familiar and is thus more likely to be trusted (Gans, 1979). Within contemporary media ecologies, it becomes much easier for journalists to constantly engage with multiple potential sources of news through digital media, allowing them to become proximate with an increasingly diverse range of sources, including non-elite and even anonymous subjects.
A second crucial element orienting individuals and media institutions in their evaluations of the truthfulness of a piece of information is its content. Social psychology literature has stressed that people tend to believe true stories that are coherent with their vision of the world and are relevant to them, terming such processes 'confirmation bias' (Nickerson, 1998). Two opposing patterns characterizing news consumption on social media -i.e. high selectivity (Prior, 2013) and incidental exposure (Fletcher and Nielsen, 2017) -both interact with confirmation bias in affecting judgements of truthfulness. Since users craft their information networks on the basis of commonalities related to specific interests and visions, tribalism can emerge (Sunstein, 2017), with in-group members judging content truthfulness on the basis of its capacity to reinforce community bonds. At the same time, since social media are 'news-finds-me' environments (Gil de Zúñiga et al., 2017), they can expose users to highly conflicting information, with confirmation bias becoming the most important principle orienting the way in which information is processed (Zollo et al., 2017). Despite professional standards, congruence (with their own or their audience's vision of the world as well as with the editorial line of their company) and relevance (for the public debate at a given moment) can also be regarded as key to the process through which journalists and news organizations evaluate a story's newsworthiness (Golding and Elliott, 1979).
Finally, contextual factors influence people and institutions in their assessments of the truthfulness of a piece of information. Here we refer to the situation within which information is processed. The informational exuberance (Chadwick, 2009) characterizing contemporary information ecosystems can result in what has been described as 'information overload' (Austin et al., 2012), a condition in which content is very difficult to process, negatively impacting the benefits individuals derive from it. The result is a limited attention (boyd, 2010) to processing information, potentially influencing how individuals assess truthfulness. Contextual factors also impact the ways in which professional actors process information and assess its truthfulness. When an extremely relevant story unexpectedly breaks out, professional actors can experience an information overload due to the highly augmented density of information flowing online. In this manner, as it has been described both in the literature and in journalistic accounts (Schifferes et al., 2014), inaccurate or even fabricated information produced and shared by known and unknown sources passes professional newsmaker gatekeepers. The resulting practice has been described by Bruno (2011) as 'tweet first, verify later'.

Sharing is caring (for truth)?
Multiple judgements (true/false) on the information circulating within the system and sharing decisions place actors in relationships with one another and with information content, generating multiple and multifaceted chains of propagation. We will discuss the possible structures of these chains as a whole in the next section; we focus here on the links in the chain, i.e. the individual propagations or the meso level of our analytical framework.
At this level, the observer-dependent perspective introduced above becomes relevant. Since we aim to consider multiple, and frequently conflicting, judgements regarding the truthfulness of information produced and/or shared, recognizing the unavoidable subjectivity characterizing the whole process -including the process of the researcher studying the cycle -is very important. Indeed, it is the observer's perspective that draws the boundary of the system by determining that we are dealing with a cascade of propagations of False content (here, as we have already explained above, the capitalized initial letter distinguishes the outcome of the researcher's judgement from the outcomes of the propagators' judgement).
Starting from these premises, the possible combinations of the judgement of the original author of the False information (injector) and the judgements of further propagators and between various propagators when the circulation cascade is activated generate a matrix of four possible scenarios (Table 1).
In the first case (1), both actors are aware of the false nature of the information but nevertheless decide to share it. While this pattern can be observed in the propagation of humoristic and satirical content, it can also be the case of two subjects who, for strategic reasons (e.g. propaganda), deliberately produce and share false information. We define this as 'pure disinformation' propagation. Conversely, when a piece of information originally injected as true is shared by a propagator who thinks it is false (2), we witness a case in which misinformation is exploited to become disinformation. In most of the cases in which False information is produced as true, the creator unintentionally injects misleading information into the system. A third option occurs when a piece of information is devised as false by the injector but perceived as true (3) by the propagator: we are observing a case of disinformation propagated through misinformation. In this case, an actor produces information knowing it is False, but other users perceive it as true and share it as such. Gross examples of this often result in embarrassing moments for the propagator (especially when the subject is a news organization) who mistakenly understood as true fabricated false information. Finally, when False information is perceived as true by the injector and by the propagator (4), we are witnessing what we could assume to be a classic process of propagation of misinformation. It is the case with the most common conspiracy theories, which flourish thanks to the content created and shared by members of polarized online communities that firmly believe in what they communicate. Other times, False information inadvertently injected into the system by an authoritative source (e.g. a respected news media organization) keeps propagating as a legitimate piece of content until someone proves it False.
Given the context described above, it should be clear that trying to understand the nature of contemporary disinformation by focusing solely on the initial step of the process -when someone introduces information into the system -is at the very least an oversimplification.
Over 60 years ago, Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) argued that mass information flows depended on the personal influence that opinion leaders exercised upon other citizens,  (3) judges as 'true' Misinformation propagated through disinformation (2) Pure misinformation (4) showing how, in a process, the 'first step' is not necessarily the most important one. Testing the two-step flow theory in the context of social media, Hilbert et al. (2017: 456) empirically demonstrated how, by considering the multiple perspectives of all actors involved in information cascades, the model best describing information flows can vary from a simple single step to a 'some kind of intricate network-step flow'. Similarly, Messing andWestwood (2014: 1058) contend that, within social media ecologies, the agenda-setting power that was originally concentrated in journalists' hands is now diffused across social networks. The multiple actions of propagation, guided by single judgements and decisions, have thus become the backbone of news flows within the contemporary hybrid information system. Information cycles are thus better represented by a dynamic growing tree-like structure of propagation cascades, conceptually similar to those studied in the field of complex propagation (Centola et al., 2007). Conceptualizing False information cycles in terms of propagation cascades has two major consequences. First, a cycle/cascade is very unlikely to exclusively include propagations of a single type. Every real-world cycle is most likely a combination of multiple semi-independent types of propagation (Table 1) in which individual assessments and decisions are constantly influenced but not determined by the local dynamics discussed above. This process is illustrated in Figure 1. A central consequence of this way of understanding information cycles is that, despite each information cycle being a set of diverse propagations, it is still possible to theoretically describe 'global cascades' as an emergent and thus autonomous phenomenon.
Within this perspective, the emergence of spreading dynamics on a systemic level (e.g. news and misinformation propagating through viral and apparently unstoppable dynamics) is coherently built upon several individual processes, thus the study of specific cases of propagation can be used to understand underlying dynamics and how these micro and meso dynamics merge into the macro evolution of a single information cycle. Keeping this is mind, it is important to stress that while every information cycle is most probably composed of several coexisting types of propagation, it is likely that every cycle will be dominated by a single type or by a combination of types.

The real story of fake news
On 15 November 2015, the Spanish newspaper La Razon published on its front page the face of one of the terrorists responsible for the attacks that had hit Paris a few days earlier. Unfortunately, the face did not belong to one of the terrorists involved in the terrible attack on the French capital but instead to Veerender Jubbal, a young Canadian man. Before the attacks, Veerender Jubbal -who is Sikh and wears a turban -had posted a selfie taken with his iPad, asking his Twitter followers to wish him 'good luck'. After the attack, someone easily edited the photograph by replacing the iPad with a Quran and Photoshopping a suicide vest onto his shirt. The fake picture went viral online and was shared by various news organizations, even making it to the front page of the print edition of La Razon, before it was finally debunked and people began listening to Veerender's complaints. The origin of the Photoshopped image is in some sense largely irrelevant to the study of the cycle of False information. The picture was created and shared with the knowledge that it was a fake, but it was quickly picked up by several sources who judged it true. The diffuse proximity allowed by social media, confirmation bias dynamics (terrorists must wear turbans, and it does not matter if it is a dastar, a Sikh turban) and the 'tweet first, verify later' logic can perhaps explain how a photograph of a smiling man from the internet can be judged as the true picture of a suicide bomber, taken just before an attack. Nevertheless, once the picture was online, it was quickly shared as a legitimate picture of a terrorist, and it took over 24 hours to stop the dissemination of the False information.
On 18 November 2016, Chris Lamb wrote in the US edition of The Huffington Post a satirical piece in which he imagined the US president Donald Trump suggesting the removal of the Statue of Liberty because it encouraged immigration. Despite the obvious satirical content of the article, several Italian newspapers (including the leading Il Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica) and TV channels (including La7 and RAI News) reported the news that 'Trump attacked the Statue of Liberty'. The news got great attention in Italy and was widely shared as a story confirming the unpredictability and unorthodox behaviour of the US president, before being retracted by the same newspapers that initially shared it.
On 9 November 2016, the day after Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump claimed an unexpected victory in the US presidential race, a grainy picture began circulating on social media, along with the claim that the Ku Klux Klan were openly marching in Mebane, North Carolina to celebrate the win. According to investigations by the website Snopes.com (Palma, 2016), the people marching were indeed supporters of the conservative candidate celebrating the victory, but what the original creator of the picture mistook as a robe was in fact a flag. Nevertheless, the photo circulated widely on social media and partisan websites as an evidence of the connection between the conservative president-elect and the Ku Klux Klan.
These are just three minor stories that illustrate key elements of the system we have described: a. The intention of the injector does not determine the future evolution of the False information cycle. Given the contemporary hybrid media system and the complex nature of information cycles, False and misleading information need not be born as such. The real goal behind the production of a piece of False information may be largely unknown (as in the case of Veerender Jubbal), can be satirical (as in the case of Lamb's article) or may be born from an honest mistake (as in the case of the picture taken in North Carolina). b. False news can only be understood as a process. Information will be constantly assessed by a number of different actors, which will act in accordance with their individual criteria to establish its truthfulness. If and when these individuals share the information, this will generate a nearly unique chain of types of propagations, defined by the model presented in Table 1. c. Information equilibrium does not imply consensus. One consequence of the model and the first two points above is that societal consensus regarding the nature of any information is somewhat unlikely. When information is constantly assessed by a number of independent actors acting in accordance with the aforementioned principles, every operation aimed at establishing the real nature of a piece of content (e.g. debunking or fact checking a piece of news) will itself be judged as true or false and ultimately accepted only by a limited group of actors.

Conclusions
In this article, we have proposed a new approach to studying False information. Building upon an interdisciplinary theoretical background, we have suggested moving beyond a simple focus on the initial step of the news cycle (when news is actually produced and regarding the producer's intentions) to instead observe the cycle as an emergent whole influenced but not determined by individual assessments (concerning the nature of the information) and decisions (concerning whether to propagate the information). We have suggested that this is necessary due to the hybrid nature of contemporary media systems, and we theoretically grounded our approach in a second-order perspective. We have suggested that the propagation of False information should be investigated especially at the micro level (actors' judgements) and meso level (combinations of actors' decisions), while we contend that the processes characterizing the macro level should be seen as the result of the multiple combinations characterizing the previous two levels.
We have argued that, at the micro levels, all actors in the hybrid media system operate, at their very core, in the very same way (despite the different levels of perceived responsibility, ethical concern, and ultimate goals characterizing them). These key processes, when connected within a relational model, produce a set of four typologies of propagation that can explain all the various types of actual propagation, including those that have always been highly problematic for pre-existing models (e.g. satire, bullshit).
We therefore suggest that 'theorizing about the propagator' is beneficial to understand, mutatis mutandis, how both False and True news circulate.
Certainly, we are not the first to suggest placing more focus on propagation processes. Academic research on rumours and conspiracy theories has gone beyond the generative moment of information, looking at the process of disseminating misleading information. And yet the scenarios that emerge from this wide body of research have focused only on a type of propagation in which -at times clashing with the initial goals of the authorspeople share False information while believing it to be true.
A more coherent focus on the propagation process would allow us to address a number of cases that would otherwise be difficult to explain with an appropriate theoretical model, such as the case of propagators of False information who recognize its falsehood but nevertheless decide to diffuse it. This also applies to the cases of satire and parody, which may be generated with positive intentions but may nevertheless be judged true and diffused as such as the result of an honest yet dangerous mistake.
Adopting this approach allows us to observe diffusion of False information as a much more nuanced phenomenon that, as shown in our examples, does not require a single understanding of the news or assume a single possible reaction. When information is constantly assessed by a number of independent actors, who then act in accordance with their assessments, a situation of coexisting opposing beliefs is the normal status of the system rather than the exception.
Finally -much like Niklas Luhmann's idea of communication as an ephemeral event -a propagation is, by definition, an event in a chain of propagations and a specific cascade of propagations with its emergent properties becomes observable as an autonomous phenomenon. As such, societal communication can reference this whole case in terms of codes other than true/false. Different systems in a functional differentiated society (Luhmann, 2012) can thus address a cascade as a whole using their own perspective. While true/false is the code used by science, the media system would deal with this case in terms of its informativeness (information/non-information) and the law system using its own binary code (legal/illegal). The term 'fake news' as it is now commonly used covers completely such reality, which is why we provocatively argue that only a liar can breezily use it.

Author biographies
Fabio Giglietto is Associate Professor at the Department of Communication Sciences, Humanities and International Studies at the University of Urbino 'Carlo Bo', where he also teaches Social Media Analysis. His main research interests are theory of information, communication and society with a specific focus on the relationship between social systems and new technologies. A full and up to date list of publications is available at https://goo.gl/pbXyBd Laura Iannelli is Assistant Professor in Sociology of Culture and Communication at the Department of Economics and Business of the University of Sassari. Her research addresses the relations between media ecosystems, civic engagement and political participation.
Augusto Valeriani is Associate Professor in Sociology of Culture and Communication at the Department of Political and Social Sciences of the University of Bologna. His research addresses political communication and participation, with a focus on digital media environments.
Luca Rossi is Associate Professor of Digital Media Analysis at the Department of Digital Design of IT, University of Copenhagen. He is also coordinator of the Data Science & Society research lab. His interdisciplinary research tries to connect traditional sociological theory with computational approaches.


The Principles and Objectives of Logistics Enterprise Warehouse Layout and Its Layout Mode and Design -- Taking Ordinary Warehouse Layout Plan as an Example

This paper takes the logistics enterprise warehouse layout as the research object, the ordinary warehouse layout plan as an example, summarizes and analyzes the eight principles and three objectives of the logistics enterprise warehouse layout and its four layout patterns and five design contents, It has certain reference significance for helping logistics enterprises in reality to carry out warehouse layout plan, as well as improve warehouse utilization efficiency and economic benefits.

Introduction
Warehouse layout is the scientific plan and overall design of the quantity, scale, geographical location, warehouse facilities, roads and sites of a certain area or warehouse area in a certain period of time and so on. The warehouse layout is very far-reaching for the logistics enterprise, because the main operation content of the logistics enterprise is closely related to the warehouse in all aspects. If the warehouse layout is unscientific and unreasonable, then the warehouse itself not only can be fully utilized, but also it will affect other purchase, transportation, packaging, loading and unloading, distribution processing, delivery and other links, resulting in adverse effects of low overall operating level and high cost of logistics enterprises, etc. Therefore, logistics enterprises must scientifically and rationally carry out warehouse layout, in order to make full use of the warehouse and other links related to the warehouse, the general warehouse layout plan is taken as an example to analyze how the logistics enterprises should conduct warehouse layout under normal circumstances, it is conducive to help logistics enterprises in the real world to carry out scientific and rational warehouse layout plan, and improve warehouse utilization efficiency and economic benefits.

Principles of Warehouse Layout of Logistics Enterprise
For logistics enterprise, warehouse layout is a very important aspect; modern warehouses undertake more and more functions, building a powerful and well-equipped warehouse is the basis of warehouse operations. The layout of the warehouse is directly related to the smooth progress of the warehouse work, and indirectly related to purchase, transportation, distribution processing, delivery and other links closely related to warehouse; logistics enterprise must follow some basic principles of the warehouse layout.
(1) Principle of convenient storage Storage and safeguard are the most basic function of the warehouse, regardless of the type of warehouse, the storage of goods is the most basic requirement. The logistics enterprise should consider the nature and characteristics of the stored goods in the process of warehouse layout. The layout design makes the goods in the warehouse to maintain their original quality and traits in the warehouse.
(2) Principle of efficient operation Warehouse is the main venue for logistics operations of logistics enterprises. In the warehouse, it is often necessary to carry out many operations such as warehousing, delivery, transfer, loading and unloading, circulation processing, packaging, weighing, etc. When carrying out warehouse layout, it must be beneficial to improve the continuity and efficiency of the work, and do well in the correct and efficient completion of various operations.
(3) Principle of cost efficiency In the process of warehouse layout, logistics enterprises also need to pay close attention to their economic cost-efficiency. It is necessary to pay attention to saving construction investment. In the design process, power supply, water supply, heating, communication and other facilities should be arranged in centralized to save costs. In the process of operation after construction, it is beneficial to reduce operating costs and inventory costs.
(4) Principles of space utilization The space of the warehouse is limited for the logistics enterprise, every space of the warehouse must be scientifically and reasonably utilized, and the warehouse plane and space should be utilized to the utmost extent. Try to make good use of the height of the warehouse. Under the premise of meeting the requirements of the operation, we can set up several layers on the shelf, minimize the number of channels and the width of the channel, and do not waste space in space.
(5) Scientific principles of cargo space In order to scientifically and rationally plan the cargo space, the same kind of goods or similar goods should be placed together or adjacent to each other. The goods with very high frequency of entering and leaving the warehouse are placed near the exit, and the heavy goods are placed on the bottom of the light goods, the commodity with signs face the channel, reasonable collocation is conducted according to the size of the goods and reasonable conditions of the warehouse, the goods code should be scientific and standardized.
(6) Principle of convenient connection Storage is a very important part of the logistics process; it not only bears the function of custody, but also undertakes the function of connecting other links of logistics. Warehousing is closely related to logistics processes such as purchase, transportation, packaging, distribution processing, handling, and delivery. In the process of layout design, the warehouse also needs to be able to link other parts of logistics well.
(7) Principles of safety regulations In the warehouse, it is often necessary to carry out many operations such as warehousing, unloading, transferring, adjusting, packing, weighing, loading and unloading, circulation processing, etc., and in the actual operation process, so many operations are likely to be carried out simultaneously, it is required to control the relevance and security of the warehouse layout, and also pay attention to the fire and anti-theft design.
(8) Principle of beauty and harmony The goods should be neat and tidy in the warehouse, the whole warehouse should be clean and bright, the receiving area, delivery area, inspection area, storage area, sorting area, processing area, temporary storage area, packing area, tally area, equipment storage office areas must be scientific and rational layout plan etc., the entire warehouse cannot be chaotic and must be designed in a wellorganized, beautiful and harmonious.

Goals of Warehouse Layout of Logistics Enterprise
Logistics enterprise must have clear objectives in the layout of the warehouse, so that the warehouse after construction can not only complete the task of warehousing, but also complete the task with high efficiency, and also can be well connected to the other aspects of logistics operations, logistics enterprise warehouse layout, its main goal is to protect goods, improve benefit and efficiency, and maintain its advanced applicability.
(1) Goal of protecting commodity As a warehouse, protecting goods is the most basic goal. There are thousands of goods in the warehouse, and the warehouses of large logistics enterprise are very busy. There are many vehicles and goods entering and leaving every day. It is necessary to protect the quality of the goods, so that Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 375 the basic properties of the goods in the warehouse even after a long period of storage remain unchanged and are not damaged.
(2) Goal of economic efficiency Logistics enterprise must consider the efficiency and benefit issues in the process of warehouse layout, so that the planned warehouse can not only complete the tasks efficiently, but also complete the tasks with low cost and high efficiency. This requires logistics enterprise to have a reasonable layout when the warehouse is laid out, and can combine logistics efficiency with economic benefits.
(3) Goal of advance and applicability The layout design of modern warehouses should fully consider the issue of advanced nature; it is not only a simple and basic way to complete various logistics operations, it is necessary to introduce some advanced logistics mechanization, automation, intelligent facilities and equipment to fully operate science, the technical means is used to operate in the warehouse logistics, moreover, consider the enterprise's own situation to be advanced and applicable.

Modes of Warehouse Layout of Logistics Enterprise
There are many types of logistics enterprise warehouse layouts, the most representative ones are: radiation mode, absorption mode, focus mode, fan mode and so on. The specific choice of which mode depends on the logistics enterprise's own situation, the storage of goods, the storage environment requirements, the plane and three-dimensional layout, the degree of mechanization and so on.
(1) Radiation mode The radiation mode means that there are multiple users and the warehouse is in the middle position, and the goods are transported from the center to the users in all directions, and the shape is radial, as shown in Fig.1, it is suitable for economic areas where the user is concentrated, or when the warehouse is a transit point in the trunk transportation line. Fig.1 Radiation mode (2) Absorption mode Absorption mode means that goods are transported from various places to the warehouse, there are multiple places of production and the warehouse is located at an intermediate position, and its shape is absorbent, as shown in Fig.2. This type of warehouse is more suitable for manufacturing raw material warehouses, and various raw materials, parts and components are transported from various manufacturers, or commercial enterprise warehouses, and various commodities are purchased from suppliers to warehouses.

Fig.2 Absorption mode (3) Focus mode
This kind of warehouse is similar to the absorption warehouse, but it is no longer a warehouse in the middle position, but an economic area where the production enterprises gather. The warehouses are scattered around, not the users and the cargo owners. The shape is in focus, as shown in the Fig.3. This type of warehouse is suitable for situations where production enterprises are more concentrated in economic regions.

Fig.3 Focus mode (4) Fan mode
Fan mode warehouse means that the goods are transported from the warehouse in one direction, and the radiation direction is consistent with the transport direction of the trunk line, and its shape is fan-shaped, as shown in Fig.4. This type of warehouse is suitable for transporting warehouses on the main line, and the upper area of the next warehouse is just the reasonable transportation area of last warehouse.

Designs of Warehouse Layout of Logistics Enterprise
When designing warehouse layout, logistics enterprises need to consider the internal and external environment and the specific conditions of the enterprise, select the warehouse structure, design the warehouse plane shape, arrange the space of each area of the warehouse and configure the facilities and equipment needed for the warehouse.
(1) Choice of warehouse structure type There are many types of warehouse structures, mainly based on the functions and tasks of the warehouse. The main consideration of the warehouse function is simple storage or accompanying sorting, distribution processing, delivery and other functions, and its tasks are mainly storage or turnover. It is also necessary to consider the physical and chemical properties of the storage object, the internal and external environmental requirements of the warehouse, and the amount of investment in the enterprise.
(2) Design of warehouse plane shape In the general absence of construction land restrictions, ordinary warehouses are basically rectangular design, therefore, the shape design of the warehouse is determined according to the length (L) and width (W) of the warehouse plane shape. Assuming that the warehousing platform is in the corner of the warehouse, the round-trip inspection method is used. According to the research of logistics expert Francis, the warehouse plane can be designed as follows: Among them, the meanings of W*, L*, D, R, S, T* characters are: W*: optimal width (m); L*: optimal length (m); D: the unit length cost of the goods entering and leaving the warehouse and the number of goods entering and leaving the warehouse per year (yuan/meter); R: annual perimeter cost per unit length (yuan/meter); S: warehouse area (m2); T*: total associated cost (yuan) under the optimal solution.

Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 375
The relationship among the areas in each warehouse is divided into six main relationships: M, V, I, O, U, and X, the relationship among different areas may be different.
Warehouse CIO layout model method There are many warehouse layout methods. The COI layout model method is used to design the warehouse layout. The model assumes that each cargo enters and exits the I/O point in the same proportion, and the unit distance cost of the moving goods is independent of the I/O point. The model is as follows: ∑ x 1 j 1,2, ⋯ , n x 0or1 i 1,2, ⋯ , m j 1,2, ⋯ , n (7) Then: The meanings of fi , cj , pk and dkj are as follows: Fi: the frequency of entry and exit of item i; Cj: the cost of moving the unit distance of the unit item; Pk: the ratio of entering and leaving the warehouse through low k I/O points; Dkj: the distance of the storage space j to k number I/O. (4) Configuration of warehouse facilities and equipment The main operations in the warehouse include operations such as safeguard, storage, delivery, transfer, group support, sorting, and packaging. When configuring warehouse facilities and equipment, it is necessary to consider the configuration of facilities such as mechanization, automation, and intelligence required for each operation. At the same time, it is coordinated with the reasonable plan of facilities and equipment, working methods and required area. (5) Determination of warehouse storage order The warehouse storage location includes fixed cargo space and random cargo space. The warehouse storage order can be determined by the four-position method, segment positioning method, category group positioning method, address positioning method, coordinate positioning method, computer positioning method, etc. Moreover, the design of warehouse storage should be in line with the principle of convenient handling, not only to facilitate the entry and exit of goods, but also to reduce the time of receiving and dispatching operations as much as possible. For goods that adopt the delivery system, the storage location should be close to the area where the goods are loaded; the goods that are taken from the delivery system should be close to the warehouse outlet to facilitate the entry and exit, and convenient for incoming and outgoing cargo vehicles.

Conclusions and Prospects
This paper takes the general warehouse layout plan as an example; comprehensively analyzes the eight basic principles, three main objectives, four layout modes and five design contents of the logistics enterprise warehouse layout, from the main aspects, it analyzes in detail how logistics companies should carry out warehouse layout design under normal circumstances, especially help small and medium-sized enterprises in the real estate to carry out warehouse layout design, with the continuous expansion of logistics enterprises, various factors that need to be considered in warehouse layout are more and more complicated, in reality, logistics enterprises should deeply analyze their own characteristics and main business as well as the internal and external environment of the enterprise, only by analyzing specific problems can logistics enterprises make the warehouse layout design more scientific and reasonable..


Analytical Network Process (ANP) for priority setting of strategic roads handling at Tebo Regency

Development of transportation infrastructure in the region aims to meet the needs of the community to facilitate mobility of people, goods, and services. However, the work of transportation infrastructure requires a large amount of cost while the development budget is limited. Therefore, a careful determination of the priority of road handling is urgently required. In this study, an analysis was conducted to determine the priority of handling strategic roads in Tebo Regency. This study uses the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method with 4 (four) criteria to determine the priority of road handling, namely: engineering, economics, regional potential, and policies. It was found that National Road - Pintas being the first priority with a weight of 0.252, then the second priority for National Road - Lubuk Mandarsah with a weight of 0.23.The third priority is Unit I Rimbo Bujang - Unit XI Rimbo Ulu Road with a weight of 0.211.

Introduction
In order to spur economic growth in the regions and central economic regions, the Tebo Regency government has carried out various efforts. One of them is by improving transportation infrastructure in the form of opening new roads, adding lengths of roads, widening roads, and road rehabilitation/maintenance programs. The transportation infrastructure improvement program is not easy for Tebo Regency as it requires a significant amount of money while the development budget is limited. This has made it impossible for the Tebo Regency government to fulfill all of the road construction needs in one budget year so that it must determine the priority of road handling appropriately.
Previous research has introduced the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach in determining road handling priorities such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for example [1][2] [3]. The AHP method assumed that the criteria are independent, even though the interdependence between criteria exists which could lead to a bias conclusion.
The Analytic Network Process (ANP) method is an approach which takes into account the existence of dependencies in one group (inner dependence) and between different groups (outer dependence) [4]. ANP method is able to overcome the shortcomings of AHP. In addition, the ANP method is more complete and scientific than AHP, and the network structure in ANP is more complicated than the hierarchical structure. Therefore, this research utilized the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method in reviewing and analyzing the priority of strategic road handling in TeboRegency.

Analytic Network Process (ANP)
Analytic Network Process or ANPis the first mathematical theory that provides the possibility of systematic dependency and feedback [5]. It is a new theory that extends the AHPwhich were both introduced by Thomas L. Saaty [6].One of the advantages of this method is the way of obtaining decisions and calculating the scale ratio. Priority as a scale of ratios is a fundamental element in carrying out necessary arithmetic calculations by adding them on the same scale and multiplying them with different scales that are meaningful to ANP [7].
Unlike the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, ANP does not use hierarchies that are linear but in the form of networks without having to set the level as used in AHP. The basic principle of ANP is to include in the word of "influence" while in AHP is "a choice," where in this case the use of the word influence indeed requires more depth of meaning than the word choice [8]. Figure 1 shows that the linear hierarchy in AHP consists of the level of objectives, criteria, subcriteria, and alternatives, where each level has elements. Whereas in the ANP network model, the level in AHP is called a cluster where it can contain criteria and alternatives called nodes.  [4] In the ANP network, alternatives have a dependency on criteria and also have interdependencies. Likewise, the criteria in the ANP can be interdependent with other criteria as well as on alternatives. The feedback is able to provide more accurate predictions than AHP because it can increase priorities so that the results of ANP become more stable [9].

Ratter Agreement
Rater agreement is a measure that describes the level of agreement (approval) of the respondent (R 1 -R n ) on a problem in one cluster. One of the tools used to measure the rater agreement is Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W; 0 <W ≤ 1).
To calculate Kendall's (W), for example, if there are raters (respondents) as much as m and the subject as many as n will be given a rating from 1 to n, where rij is ranked on rater j against subject i, then the following steps are taken [ Calculate the square of the deviation (S): So Kendall's (W) is obtained as: The W value equal to 1 (W = 1) means that the respondents have perfect similarities in giving an assessment or opinion. Whereas the W value equal to 0 or closer to 0indicates that the respondents provide different responses [9].

Geometric Mean
When respondents more than one, an individual assessment of the respondents is needed, and then the opinions of all respondents are grouped into one group using geometric mean calculations [4]. Questions in the form of pairwise comparison of all respondents will be combined to form a consensus. Mean geometry is one of the average calculations that produce specific values with the following formula [9]:

Determination of the studied Road
The road sections reviewed in this study are strategic regency roads which are the authority of the regency government. This road segment is generally inter-city and connects cities in sub-regencies with government administration centers, centers of economic activity, and other growth centers including roads that connect between regency. The strategic road segment chosen is the road that has been damaged and needs immediate handling. Based on some of these criteria and secondary data obtained from the Office of Public Works and Spatial Planning of Tebo Regency, 5 (five) roads were obtained with a total length of 61.4 km spread in 6 sub-regency in Tebo Regency as shown in Table 1.

Data Collection
Data for this study was collected from interviews and questionnaires to respondents who are experts and understand the road handling activities. The respondents consisted of 8 experts from the TeboRegency government and 3 experts from the Tebo Regency House of Representative who were in charge of infrastructure.Interviews and questionnaires were conducted by visiting respondents at their offices, where the distribution and filling out of the questionnaire took approximately 2 months.

Identification of Criteria and Sub-Criteria
Based on the literature, the criteria and sub-criteria were identified and shown in Table 2. In the ANP model, the criteria can also be referred to as a cluster while sub-criteria are defined as elements.

Design of ANP Structure Model
Analytic Network Process (ANP) is the advancement of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) which has a network structure model that is spread in all directions and involves cycles between groups and linkages/dependencies on the same group. Determining the interrelationship/dependency relationship was done by making a questionnaire with a voting method, based on research conducted by Kasirian and Yusuff [10]. The questionnaire was given to three respondents, namely two (Head of Division or Kabid in the TeboRegency Public Works and Spatial Planning Office and one in the Regional Development Planning and Research Agency of TeboRegency. The number of respondents involved in determining the relationship between these elements (N) is three people, so that if in a cell the number of respondents who choose (Vij) is more or equal to Q, where Q is N/2 = 3/2 = 1.5, then the element that connects the cell is declared to have a relationship. Recapitulation of the results of the questionnaire regarding the interconnected relationships between elements can be seen in Figure 2. Then based on the dependency relationship between these elements, an ANP structure model was made for priority handling of the regency strategic roads as shown in Figure 3.

Survey
The questionnaires were handed to respondents at their offices and taken back a few days later or by agreement. Maximum allocated time for the respondents to complete the questionnaires was two months starting from the day of the questionnaires were handed.
At the end of the allocated time, from 11 questionnaires distributed, 1 respondent failed to return the questionnaire. Therefore, the number of returned questionnaires was 10. This was analyzed to determine the priority road to be handled.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method which was assisted by Super Decisions 2.8.0 software. The data analysis stage was divided into 2. The first stage aims to process the opinions and judgments of each respondent based on the weighting questionnaire they have filled in to see the respondent's rater agreement on one problem in one cluster. In the second stage, the consistency was tested, responses were put together using a geometric mean to obtain the results of shared opinions and assessments which will become the final results for determining strategic road handling regency in TeboRegency.

Priority Analysis for Cluster
Priority analysis for the cluster was based on rater agreement between individual and expert consensus values or geometric mean values of 10 respondents. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the results.   Figure 4. Economic cluster priority. Figure 5. Policy cluster priority. Figure 4 shows that the investment costs and maintenance and rehabilitation costs almost had the same effect in determining which regency strategic roads were prioritized to be handled with weights of 0.532 and 0.468, respectively. Respondents' opinion on the priority assessment of these two aspects is very diverse which can be seen from the rater agreement which is quite low, that is equal to (W = 0.04). With the W value almost close to 0, it can be concluded that the number of respondents who choose investment costs as a priority in the economic cluster is almost the same as respondents who choose maintenance and rehabilitation costs.
In the policy cluster, as shown in Figure 5, the collective agreement of the experts revealed that roadworks a program of the government are aspects that have a more significant influence in determining the priority of regency strategic road handling with a weight of 0.557 compared to roadworks derived from community proposals (weight is equal to 0.443. Even though the difference in assessment given to these two aspects is not so significant, the agreement on the two aspects is quite high, as indicated by the rater agreement value of (W = 0.36).  Unlike the economic clusters and policy clusters where the two elements have similar priority weights, the respondents' assessment of the elements in the engineering cluster has a different priority weight as shown in Figure 6. The combined opinion of the respondents gives priority weight to aspects of the road condition is 0.659, almost double compared to the priority weight given to the aspect of traffic volume that is only 0.341. The assessment of the priorities of these two aspects is also strengthened by the perfect rater agreement (W = 1). This means that all respondents agree that road conditions are the most influential aspect in determining the priority of handling strategic roads when viewed in terms of technique compared to aspects of traffic volume.
The next priority is a cluster of potential areas consisting of 5 elements. Figure 6 shows that the aspects of trade and services and aspects of agriculture have a higher priority weight than other aspects with almost the same value of 0.332 and 0.311 followed by aspects of population density with a priority weight of 0.219. Whereas the other 2 aspects, namely the aspect of the central government and aspects of education received very low voting. The weight is 0.07 and 0.068 respectively in the potential regional cluster. The results of the assessment of the respondents were also supported by their high agreement on the weighting of each aspect in the potential cluster area with the rater agreement (W = 0.856). The W value which is almost close to 1 indicates that the answers given by the respondents are very homogeneous. The final goal of this study was to determine the priority sequence for handling the regency's strategic road in Tebo Regency. From the results of the consensus of the opinions of all respondents who were processed using the Analytic Network Process (ANP) method, priority was given to handling strategic roads as shown in Figure 8.
Based on the weighting results in Figure 8, it can be seen that the experts chose Road 1 as the first priority in the order of handling strategic roads with a weight of 0.252. Then The second order is road 3 with a weight of 0.231, then road 5 with a weight of 0.211 is in the third priority. Road 4 with a weight of 0.202 becomes the fourth priority, while the last sequence with a weight that is much lower than the other priority is 0.105 is the Road 2.
From the rater agreement value (W = 0.502), it can be seen that the agreement in giving priority to strategic road handling by experts consisting of 10 respondents classified as high. This means that the respondents did not differ in opinion on the determination of the strategic road handling sequence.

Conclusion
In determining the priority handling of roads, the selection of criteria and sub-criteria dramatically influences the final results. The selection of criteria and sub-criteria must consider many aspects and be adapted to geographical conditions and socio-cultural conditions in the area to be studied. The results of the analysis of the priority of each cluster show that there are four elements that are most dominant in influencing the selection of regency strategic road handling, namely the agricultural aspects, trade and service aspects and aspects of road conditions. This can be seen from the magnitude of the priority given to the element compared to other elements in a cluster.
The final result of the priority sequence for handling the regency's strategic road in Tebo Regency is the National Road -Pintas, National Road -Lubuk Mandarsah, Unit I Rimbo Bujang Road -Unit XI Rimbo Ulu, Blok E Alai Ilir Road -Blok C Alai Ilir, and National Road -Paninjau. The respondent's agreement in determining the priority order for handling the road is quite high as indicated by the rater agreement value (W = 0.502).


Autonomous Vessel Technology, Safety, and Ocean Impacts

In this age of automation and robotics, it is not surprising that maritime shipping, one of the oldest and most conservative of industries, is looking to modernize and transform itself by applying autonomous technology to ships much like the automobile industry with self-driving cars and trucks, and the commercial aircraft industry with its aircraft drones. There are two types of autonomous vessel technology currently being explored by various research projects in Europe. One is a vessel operated remotely by a shoreside operator, and the other a vessel operated completely independent of human control; the second has advanced decision support systems onboard undertake all the operational decisions independently.1 The primary driving forces for autonomous ships are twofold: (1) to reduce operating costs as a result of increased operating efficiency, decreased crew and shipbuilding costs that reduce the cost per ton mile of cargo carried, and (2) to reduce potential accidents due to human error, as about 75 to 96 percent of marine casualties are caused, at least in part, by some form of human error.2 The motivation is not to just reduce operating costs and human error but to create a real transformation in the industry. Without humans being physically onboard, the deck house, crew quarters and related ventilation, heating, and sewage systems can be eliminated. Ships can be lighter and more aerodynamic thereby reducing fuel and construction costs and increasing cargo capacity. Those developing autonomous designs anticipate that the remote operations of ships will occur initially, and eventually move towards full autonomy of ships.

Introduction
In this age of automation and robotics, it is not surprising that maritime shipping, one of the oldest and most conservative of industries, is looking to modernize and transform itself by applying autonomous technology to ships much like the automobile industry with self-driving cars and trucks, and the commercial aircraft industry with its aircraft drones. There are two types of autonomous vessel technology currently being explored by various research projects in Europe. One is a vessel operated remotely by a shoreside operator, and the other a vessel operated completely independent of human control; the second has advanced decision support systems onboard undertake all the operational decisions independently.1 The primary driving forces for autonomous ships are twofold: (1) to reduce operating costs as a result of increased operating efficiency, decreased crew and shipbuilding costs that reduce the cost per ton mile of cargo carried, and (2) to reduce potential accidents due to human error, as about 75 to 96 percent of marine casualties are caused, at least in part, by some form of human error.2 The motivation is not to just reduce operating costs and human error but to create a real transformation in the industry. Without humans being physically onboard, the deck house, crew quarters and related ventilation, heating, and sewage systems can be eliminated. Ships can be lighter and more aerodynamic thereby reducing fuel and construction costs and increasing cargo capacity. Those developing autonomous designs anticipate that the remote operations of ships will occur initially, and eventually move towards full autonomy of ships.

Challenges
Although the technological building blocks are all in place for the adoption of a new technology of autonomous ships, the maritime industry is not yet ready to accept such ships. There remain a number of significant and unresolved challenges to be dealt with before such ships can ply the high seas with their cargo. These challenges, although non-technical in nature, offer perhaps greater impediments to autonomous ships than the development of the autonomous technology itself. Of the many challenges, three critical ones rise to the top of a long list: operational, regulatory, and safety considerations.

Operational Challenges
Every ship has to comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (colregs), which sets out, among other things, the 'Rules of the Road' or navigation rules to be followed by ships and other vessels at sea to prevent collisions between two or more vessels. The rules are predicated on having persons on board to make sure these regulations are adhered to. With autonomous ships a critical issue in avoiding possible collision is how manned and unmanned vessels interact with one another, especially when operating in congested traffic areas or in confined waters where the environment can change abruptly due to unexpected events. Verbal communications between manned and unmanned ships are critical and mutual agreement on the course of action to be taken between ships may be necessary to manage traffic.
A remotely operated ship will be limited in the situational awareness needed for making appropriate decisions based only on the information presented on displays. Accuracy of information on displays on a manned ship is validated by actual visual observation. In a remotely operated ship this primary means of validation of the information displayed does not exist. In fully autonomous ships, which are dependent on algorithms for ship detection and classification to obey maritime traffic rules of the road, avoid obstacles, and support decision-making, will the artificial intelligence always make the 'right' decisions in possible collision events? Limited situational awareness concerns also apply to the weather and sea state and their impact on the ship.
Displays on screens do not fully characterize or simulate the motions and physical forces of the sea acting on a ship's hull, which can be critical for safe ship handling in heavy weather and rough seas.
Operations such as docking and undocking are also problematic for autonomous ships. These and other issues related to the operational safety of navigation of an unmanned ship are challenges yet to be resolved.

Regulatory Challenges
Not only are there operational impediments, the current international maritime laws, rules and conventions under which ships and crew operate at sea such as colregs, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( unclos), the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (solas), the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (stcw), and the International Safety Management (ism) Code do not even recognize the existence of autonomous ships.
These regulations presuppose that a master, officers, and crew are operating a ship. With no humans onboard, autonomous ships are effectively prohibited. International law stipulates that the master has command of the ship. Who is the commander of the ship when it is an unmanned ship? The remote operator? The programmer who designed the computer system that runs the autonomous ship? In the event of a shipping accident, where does liability fall?
The stcw for example sets qualification standards for masters, officers, and watch personnel and applies only to 'seafarers serving on board seagoing ships' . What are the standards of training and competency for a remote control operator and other shore-based personnel if they are considered to be in command of the unmanned ship? The ism Code, which already imposes obligations relating to the shore-based personnel of shipping companies, would need revision so that the work, responsibility, qualifications and certification of shore-based controllers are properly included in a company's safety management system. An important and needed change to be made in colregs is to insure that all autonomous vessels be identified as a specific ship type so as to be readily identifiable by other ships in night and day conditions, such as by some characteristic lighting and daytime visual display marks or shapes.
In addition to the abovementioned international regulations that need revision, coastal states have national regulations that regulate the operation of manned, but not unmanned, vessels in their waters, which add another layer of regulatory impediments to autonomous ships. Clearly significant steps must be taken to revise and create new regulations that include autonomous ships. Some small steps are being taken to address these regulatory gaps related to autonomous ships. The International Maritime Organization (imo) as a specialized agency of the United Nations is responsible for promulgating the regulations for ships and their safety, security, and pollution prevention. In 2018, the imo will begin to address the regulatory gaps by exploring how existing international regulations can be applied to autonomous ships and maritime technologies. Because of the number and extent of regulations involved, it is anticipated that the imo effort of revising existing regulations, as well as adding new regulations to address autonomous ships will require at least eight to ten years to complete. With such a long timeframe it is likely that autonomous ships will face the same fate as has occurred with driverless cars and unmanned commercial aircraft drones: the autonomous technology for ships will mature much faster than the development of sufficient safety regulations. Compounding the problem is the fact that not all international conventions and regulations that come into force are adopted by all maritime countries. For example, the United States has not adopted unclos. Even when regulations that come into force are adopted by all countries party to the regulation, there may be delays in enforcement, such as with stcw.

Safety Challenges
Safety challenges related to conventional manned ships include ship safety, cargo safety, maritime traffic safety, environmental safety, human safety, and security. These sectors can be particularly challenging for autonomous ships. For example, solas regulations require that a master or person in charge of a ship is to respond to persons who are in distress at sea and is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance. It is questionable whether an autonomous ship can render assistance as effectively as a manned ship, either in search or rescue situations.
While autonomous ships will keep seafarers safely out of harm's way, there are other safety risks that will increase as a result of having no crew. In the age of unmanned shipping, it would be naive to expect that pirates and terrorists will disappear from the high seas. They may even think that such ships will be new and softer targets. Without a crew, an autonomous ship is likely at greater risk of being hijacked with the purpose of stealing the cargo or kidnapping the vessel for ransom or terrorist purposes. Vessels carrying explosive, inflammable or toxic substances could be used as weapons by terrorists. Because of their dependence on automation systems and artificial intelligence, autonomous ships are much more susceptible to hijackers of another form: hackers. Even as conventional ships become increasingly connected and reliant on softwaredependent systems, cybersecurity is already receiving increasing attention by shipping companies. With autonomous ships, cyberattacks will pose an even greater risk to safety and require new and innovative ways to defend against such attacks.
The cybersecurity vulnerability of global shipping was recently highlighted by the cyberattack on container-shipping giant AP Moller-Maersk in June 2017 when a cyberattack downed its online booking and other internal platforms, forcing it to halt operations at some container terminals. The cyberattack caused a loss of up to US$300 million and disrupted operations for two weeks.3

Conclusion
Rolls Royce, one of the companies at the forefront of development of remote controlled and autonomous ships, envisions that a remotely controlled vessel operating in local coastal waters (the first stage of autonomous ships) will be in operation by 2020. By 2025 the company hopes to have a remotely operated autonomous ship in international waters, and by 2035 a fully autonomous unmanned ocean-going ship.4 Once autonomous shipping becomes a reality, there will always be manned vessels as not all ship types lend themselves to autonomous operations (e.g., large passenger ships, ships carrying highly hazardous cargos) so it is essential that autonomous ships be able to co-exist and safely interact with manned ships.
Although the shipping industry's adoption of autonomous ships may be inevitable, the uncertainty regarding the safety of autonomous ships compared to conventional ships will be tested over time. The common wisdom is that autonomous ships must be at least as safe as conventional ships. One of the greatest risks faced by autonomous vessels will be cyber risks. Cybersecurity will be critical to the safe and successful operation of remote and autonomous vessels. Because of the uncertainty and unknown risks associated with ships having no crew aboard, public sentiment may demand that autonomous ships be even safer than conventional ones.
Even if the technology is perfected, companies are not going to use remote and autonomous ships unless the laws are changed to allow them to operate. Regulations will have to be revised; rules will need to be rewritten. Until that happens, the timeline when these ships will be permitted to operate in ocean trades remains uncertain. Autonomous shipping will happen; it is just a question of when, where, and how.