Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of an online misinformation network

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#31

Post by allenz »

stordoff wrote: post #24
allenz wrote: post #7

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…

There's also the question of what is misinformation? You have a continuum from differences of opinion, to people being mistaken, to deliberate misinformation. Where do you (reliably) draw the line? I can see why they wouldn't want them to be "arbiters of truth" -- I'm not sure I would want them to be either.

I agree that it's a difficult social and political problem. Interestingly, companies are fine banning hate speech, for which the same can be said.

There might be better solutions. One idea is to pay nonpartisan organizations to fact check viral posts. Another is to reduce the use of engagement as a metric, which tends to promote emotionally charged rather than factual content. For example, in January Facebook committed to prioritizing "meaningful social interactions".

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#32

Post by jacquesm »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #11
v_lisivka wrote: post #9

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.

Fake news increase user engagement. I don't think Tweeter can convince its shareholders to invest in lowering user engagement.

That's a reverse tragedy of the commons: the happiness of the one. Twitter's (not Tweeter) shareholders can jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned, you - and they - can't place their own interests over those of the world at large. They're a communications medium and one with serious problems, user engagement metrics come into play when what the users engage with is not outright propaganda.

Fake news isn't there to drive user engagement, it is there to derail societies and institutions that underpin those societies.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#33

Post by jacquesm »

robotrout wrote: post #3

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…

There's a huge difference between institutions that have made mistakes and those that spread lies with abandon, there is no equivalency between the two.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#34

Post by dstroot »

keyle wrote: post #29

This looks at the election days. What worries me most is that it's still is ongoing today, and it's more obvious than ever, and completely taking over social networks. Every presidential tweet is followed by a horde of bots praising some religious aspect of belief in the greater work achieved here. None of it makes sense. Why is twitter not fixing these issues?

Cambridge Analytica showed that they figured out that people who are highly religious can be manipulated easily. They are called them something like “low information” voters. Meaning they vote more on emotion vs facts. The fact that Trump got the religion vote astounds me as he seems to hold no Christian morality at all.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#35

Post by orf »

jakeogh wrote: post #30
52-6F-62 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re peddling conspiracy theories as if they’re just maligned truths being persecuted by the media.

Consider suggesting to a parishioner that a priest they deeply trust is up to no good. How similar is your reaction? Both of you have beliefs head so strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested. I cant imagine you would make that comment if you really looked at the "art" collection I alluded to.

Let me guess, pizzagate right? If so just come out and say it, own the fact you believe such nonsense.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#36

Post by beager »

keyle wrote: post #29

This looks at the election days. What worries me most is that it's still is ongoing today, and it's more obvious than ever, and completely taking over social networks. Every presidential tweet is followed by a horde of bots praising some religious aspect of belief in the greater work achieved here. None of it makes sense. Why is twitter not fixing these issues?

Twitter's not fixing these issues because they're not issues.

Their stock up 100% from the 52 week low. Nothing's broken.

How could disinformation running rampant on your platform be bad, if your stock is up 100%?

Shareholders are happy, the market's happy, who cares if your pipe is carrying a cultural toxin, as long as that pipe is also delivering revenue and shareholder value?

(Of course, I disagree with what I wrote above. But it lays bare why this hasn't been addressed. Also applies to other social networks, owners of digital, print, and broadcast media outlets.)

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#37

Post by jakeogh »

orf wrote: post #35
jakeogh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consider suggesting to a parishioner that a priest they deeply trust is up to no good. How similar is your reaction? Both of you have beliefs head so strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested. I cant imagine you would make that comment if you really looked at the "art" collection I alluded to.

Let me guess, pizzagate right? If so just come out and say it, own the fact you believe such nonsense.

Anything to avoid that "art" collection.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#38

Post by empressplay »

The fundamental problem to all of this is those who believe they are righteous (on any side of politics) will use whatever methods they can to promote their "truth". This includes infiltrating "credible" sources. So it's impossible to have an entire organisation that can be universally considered to be an arbiter of truth, because you can be fairly certain at least some of its members are bad actors. That's not to say some organisations aren't more accurate than others – of course some are. But if you can't entirely remove the need for critical analysis on the part of the reader, you would be better off teaching the reader to be critical than attempt to "fix" a system which fundamentally can't be fixed.

Deciding who we should and shouldn't silence is not the solution. Whatever one chooses, some propagandists are going to win. Giving people the tools to determine the veracity of a statement themselves is (usually this is simple common sense, the ability to reason, some knowledge of rhetoric and an understanding that personal bias in prevalent in themselves and others - that it's human nature). Throw in a bit of knowledge about politics (both domestic and international) and armed with these tools I'm confident the majority would be able to come to accurate conclusions on their own.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#39

Post by optimuspaul »

stordoff wrote: post #24
allenz wrote: post #7

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…

There's also the question of what is misinformation? You have a continuum from differences of opinion, to people being mistaken, to deliberate misinformation. Where do you (reliably) draw the line? I can see why they wouldn't want them to be "arbiters of truth" -- I'm not sure I would want them to be either.

I'm not sure there is a question about what it is. Misinformation is what it is, information that is wrong, it is false information. Peoples opinions cannot be misinformation, they are opinions. I do agree there is a gray area between people being mistaken and deliberate misinformation, but there is no need to draw a line there, both should be addressed. People should be corrected and misinformation should not be spread further.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#40

Post by orf »

jakeogh wrote: post #37
orf wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me guess, pizzagate right? If so just come out and say it, own the fact you believe such nonsense.

Anything to avoid that "art" collection.

Anything to avoid accurately explaining what you mean or believe.
Post reply on HN