11–20 of 111 posts
Why not to use detected bots for automatic false-news alerter, like ad-block or spam filter, but for false news? I currently use few accounts, which are spreading false-news, as indicators with great efficiency. A bit of automation and a browser plugin from trusted source (like Bellingcat) can help to fight that problem.
Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art collection Skippy's brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but thoroughly archived) Instagram account.
"Fact checking" sites are about as unscientific as it gets. They have two obvious flaws, first they generally only "check" facts they can "debunk", second, they often frame what they are checking in a way that lets them use a corner case.
The right way would be to just list data, things others can independently check and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Not everything is a technical problem to solve and acting like it is is a dangerous path. This will never work in practice, truth is not a popularity contest.
What aspect of the study makes you believe they are relying on popularity? They are mostly relying on a very limited set of approved sources (which could be criticized), but their approach seems pretty straightforward. You've gotta have some baseline to compare to. I'm glad someone is making a public/academic attempt to measure this, because it's hard to imagine just how easy it is to spread disinformation. What woul…
But the qualifier "bad" is ensconced in lofty vocabulary. The reality is this is likely a generalizable analysis of how to attack information networks regardless of alignment. All of the high-level adjectives ascribed to these networks are window dressing, related to a separate discrete task: target selection.
After that, it's just take down operations.
The inverse activity is conceptualizing "take-down resistant" information networks, at which point, it becomes evident on closer inspection that all of this is just the throes of an arms race. So let's just cut to the chase, and stop thinking in terms of cat and mouse games.
This is all simply reduced to harasser/harassed relationships. Calculate motives, look at what the objectives of the belligerents are, and instead of feeding into the meat grinder, aim for greener pastures. Go where everyone else isn't.
Reminds me of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16664759 Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (…
This paragraph is almost incomprehensible to me. Is it meant to be read with a lot of background knowledge, or am I just being dumb (or both)?
The article specifically mentions snopes and politifact as sources of truth. They can be, but have also been shown to be less than perfect, and do tend to lean left. Yesterday, twitter was full of pictures of the immigrant kids that Trump put in cages. This morning, we find out that the pictures were taken in 2014. It's a difficult problem because the retractions are never broadcast/retweeted as prevalently as the or…
> have also been shown to be less than perfect Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. > do tend to lean left Citation needed. And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.
> Citation needed.
I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree). Here's the first hit in a search for "Snopes biased". I've intentionally mangled the first component of the URL to avoid linking to whatever kind of site this is.
http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi...
I don't know Daily Caller, but the title alone makes me fairly confident that it's a biased source; but there it is, a citation to back up the claim that Snopes is biased.
Reminds me of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16664759 Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (…
> Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look u…
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta-talks...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look u…
Ya, it requires significant background. The trouble is, if I just say exactly what it is about, people will automatically assume things about stuff they haven't checked themselves, but have been strongly conditioned to believe. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta-talks...
Not everything is a technical problem to solve and acting like it is is a dangerous path. This will never work in practice, truth is not a popularity contest.
The truth is one, but lies are many
"... If falsehood had, like truth, but one face only, we should be upon better terms; for we should then take for certain the contrary to what the liar says: but the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand forms, and a field indefinite, without bound or limit. The Pythagoreans make good to be certain and finite, and evil, infinite and uncertain. There are a thousand ways to miss the white, there is only one to hit it…
In addition to identifying the network, the authors also calculate that taking down as few as ten influential accounts can halve the retweets of misinformation. I'm not convinced that it's quite that easy, because the network would respond and adapt, but it's still an eye-opening demonstration of the power of social media companies. The paper also finds that many misinformation accounts are not bots. Currently, misin…