How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study • Hacker News Board

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#61

Post by hodgesrm » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:20 AM UTC

The focus on the corrosive effects of money on the political system has hidden what looks like the real threat to the American constitution: the Internet. The founders understood the threat of monied interests pretty well--after all the problem was described by historians of the late Roman republic like Sallust. The mechanics of communication in social networks are completely different from anything in the classical world. It's a genuine paradigm shift.

Does anyone remember the Foundation Trilogy by Asimov? There's a point in the story where the calculations of the future developed by Hari Seldon are derailed by the arrival of the Mule, a black swan event that could not be predicted easily. It's hard to understand paradigm shifts when they are happening but it feels as if the US has hit a similar point where an unforeseeable event overthrows the stable equilibrium of the past 225 years. What happens next is hard to guess but the range of outcomes seems pretty broad. I don't think you can rule out the breakup of the United States.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#62

Post by rdtsc » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:24 AM UTC

narrator wrote: post #16

It's funny how the next big idea for the news media to get on board with starts at the New York Times and then filters it's way down the food chain through the less influential newspapers, CNN, and other mainstream news outlets, etc. It's sad that nobody is coming up with their own material much any more among the big networks. The agenda is set and it's all just a bunch or mstaphorical retweets. It's like there's so…

Good point. It would be good to see a tree (or graph, it's probably cyclic at some point) of exactly how it spreads.

The left and the right have those as well (although calling Hillary and Trump supporters "left" and "right" is inaccurate, but that's for another discussion).

The "right" had "the protests are started by Soros" and so they saw buses everywhere for a whole week or so. There was another such thing for a "get paid $3.5k to attend an anti-Trump protest" that ended up as a fake CL screen capture.

The left first started with "let's hack the electoral college". There was a lot of discussion about that - "what if we convince/force them to vote the other way. Maybe invoke some hidden article from the Constitution..." or some thing like that. That went on for a while. It died down.

Then "fake news" started, almost overnight. And it's been fake news since then.

Just yesterday here there was some discussion about an oil field in Texas, and it seems they overestimated the cost or used a different metric or some such thing. But people here were calling it "Fake News". I thought it was initially supposed to lizard people controlling the government?

Then this story as another example. A major fuck up, everyone got worked about stuff without verifying. The source doesn't seem to have done it on purpose and has since deleted it (but it was too late) of course. Everyone in the chain begin idiots and overreacting. But NYT, CNN, CBS, FOX, NBC have been doing this stuff for years! Especially regurgitating anything coming out of the State Department or other government institutions. They are billion dollar corporation, if anyone can verify stuff it should be them. Would they consider themselves "Fake News"...

The problem is they are realizing they are losing the ability to manufacture consent like they could before. That must be terrifying, so they have to respond or do something about it. "Fake News" is their response.

To be fair, is a useful PR technique - a label that can be quickly thrown on anything. This makes sense also in the context of how popular Identity Politics became, where flinging labels like "fascist", "racist", "sexist" is done all too easily. Also with Twitter becoming an acceptable political discourse medium, try to argue a complex point in 140 characters. You can't! Instead throw a short label in there and you're done. Wipe hands on pants and refresh to see the results.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#63

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:25 AM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #54

WalterBright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a big step to go from using obviously fakes to sell the idea that fake news must be stopped, to having someone decide if less obvious cases are fake or simply don't fit the agenda. Censorship of news is always sold as keeping people from being misinformed.

Hold on a minute there, you almost disappeared down that slippery slope... All this piece is pointing out is that the difference between 'fake news' and 'real news' is the act of verification prior to publication. The thing journalists do, which makes what they publish worth paying attention to.

I've been personally involved in some news worthy events, and then watched the reporting of it. The professional media was invariably sloppy and flat out wrong with many of the facts of the case. And these were events where there was nothing political - the reporters simply couldn't be bothered with fact checking.

It's made me skeptical ever since.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#64

Post by birken » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:26 AM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #60

woodruffw wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq. Newspapers make mistakes, recognize them, and apologize publicly. That's journalistic ethics. They were also forwards about their editorial support for HRC, having declared her their candidate well before she became the presumptive DNC nominee. You might not like the fact that pro-HRC opinion pieces made…

There's not an ethical dilemma in pushing a candidate but an issue of trust. Lots of people don't trust Hillary. So when a publication goes out it's way to pump her up and writes biased hit pieces on the opposition are people who mistrust Hillary going to trust the publication? The point is, you can't argue why people should trust you rather than the opposition. You have to provide reasons for them to do so. It would…

Links to the biased hit pieces please?

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#65

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:32 AM UTC

andrepd wrote: post #55

WalterBright wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a big step to go from using obviously fakes to sell the idea that fake news must be stopped, to having someone decide if less obvious cases are fake or simply don't fit the agenda. Censorship of news is always sold as keeping people from being misinformed.

Granted, but that's not the case here and I have no reason to believe such a slippery slope is a reasonable fear.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#66

Post by colllectorof » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:33 AM UTC

augustt wrote: post #59

necessity wrote: post #10

Said the newspaper spreading cheap pro-Hillary propaganda the entire election cycle.

I'm curious what you would call Breitbart. Or is this a case of people saying things I don't like = propaganda?

I am amused by how often people these days defend NYT by comparing to to Breitbart. How the mighty have fallen... Breidbard is a right-wing propaganda outlet. There are facts somewhere in there, but they spin those fact to the utmost degree. Sadly, NYT is going down the same route right now. They used to be much more objective just several years ago.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#67

Post by davepeck » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:36 AM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #7

"Fake News" is a Orwellian double-speak for alternative news. Mainstream media lost its grip on propaganda and now they're trying to push for censorship of opposing views (this past election is the proof of that). Read this interview with the founder of Snopes for the background of this [0]. Never mind the fact that "real news" organizations have been caught lying so many times and have collaborated, behind the close…

In this context, "fake news" means just that: verifiable falsehoods echoed misleadingly as fact.

This is hardly Orwellian, although I do enjoy an overwrought appeal to his name now and again.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#68

Post by woodruffw » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:39 AM UTC

mythrwy wrote: post #60

woodruffw wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq. Newspapers make mistakes, recognize them, and apologize publicly. That's journalistic ethics. They were also forwards about their editorial support for HRC, having declared her their candidate well before she became the presumptive DNC nominee. You might not like the fact that pro-HRC opinion pieces made…

There's not an ethical dilemma in pushing a candidate but an issue of trust. Lots of people don't trust Hillary. So when a publication goes out it's way to pump her up and writes biased hit pieces on the opposition are people who mistrust Hillary going to trust the publication? The point is, you can't argue why people should trust you rather than the opposition. You have to provide reasons for them to do so. It would…

I'm sorry, but what hit pieces? The NYT's coverage of Trump hasn't been favorable, but it would be difficult to characterize their exclusives on him as hits. Even their most negative coverage (the $916 million story comes to mind) was, at its core, factual.

You could argue that it's indicative of bias for the NYT to break such a story at all, but it's in the public interest to know the financial solvency of their leaders. At the risk of conflating news and opinion, there was no shortage of opinion pieces calling on HRC to release her speeches - also in the public interest.

It's difficult to ask the NYT to "establish a reputation of trust" when it already has one, deserved or not. Such a request, to the editors and ethicists of any media outlet, is just a nice way to ask for more favorable (or perhaps less damning) coverage of your candidate of choice.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#69

Post by honkhonkpants » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:43 AM UTC

birken wrote: post #64

mythrwy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not an ethical dilemma in pushing a candidate but an issue of trust. Lots of people don't trust Hillary. So when a publication goes out it's way to pump her up and writes biased hit pieces on the opposition are people who mistrust Hillary going to trust the publication? The point is, you can't argue why people should trust you rather than the opposition. You have to provide reasons for them to do so. It would…

Links to the biased hit pieces please?

There aren't any. The Times bent over backwards to stab Clinton in the back at every opportunity, to avoid accusations of bias.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#70

Post by okreallywtf » Mon, Nov 21, 2016, 3:45 AM UTC

devoply wrote: post #31

okreallywtf wrote: post #17

First off this is terrifying. Additionally I was realizing the other day I thought of another reason fake news might resonate so quickly with people that doesn't get brought up as much (not that I think I've had a novel idea of course, it probably isn't true or has been brought up and I haven't seen it): fake news has little nuance. Its part of what I think makes conspiracy theories so attractive, they give the impre…

> I think the alternative that nobody is in control at all is even more scary for some people (maybe all people). But that's not true either, those two are not the only possibilities. The fact is that what happens in the world is usually due to the collective action of many different people and groups, with converging and diverging opinions. It's something like vector math, the resultant vector determines direction o…

> The fact is that what happens in the world is usually due to the collective action of many different people and groups

Thats exactly what I mean, it seems like most conspiracies stem from the idea that some person or a group of persons is able to manipulate world events. In the fake news world, it is insinuations that circumstances have a very simple cause->effect relationship. Rather than having to comprehend the huge number influences on events, it is boiled down to a simple "they did it." narrative, which is appealing because its not challenging.

Also I think calling it vector math is misleading because the number of datapoints and the complexity of the system makes any discrete analysis impossible, short of inventing psychohistory[1] for real.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychohistory_(fictional)