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

61–70 of 111 posts

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#61

Post by toofy »

jimjimjim wrote: post #52

I wish there was a way of making misinformation a punishable offense. (cue people moaning about misuse, who decides what is misinformation etc which is why I said wish). At the moment people can publicly and on-the-record spout the most outrageous bullshit and even when they get proven wrong there is no repercussion. none.

> At the moment people can publicy and on-the-record spout the most outrageous bullshit and even when they get proven wrong there is no repercussion. none.

On a personal level, just cut those people out of your life. Refusing to interact with people who knowingly lie and knowingly spread misinformation is the only rational choice. Time is our most valuable resource, spend your time on projects and people who will carry us forward rather than wasting time on people who are just worthless timesinks.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#62

Post by CM30 »

razius wrote: post #5

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 problem with a lot of large companies (especially social media ones) is that they're stuck trying to solve non technical problems with tech because actually solving them any other way isn't scalable.

The solution to misinformation in a community would likely be community management/moderation, but that can't scale to the size of something like Facebook or Twitter. Hence the awkard tech 'solutions' that don't work.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#63

Post by CM30 »

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.

The key part is probably the distinction between deliberate and accidental misinformation. Yes the latter can be problematic as well, but it would seem ridiculous to ban someone for simply making mistakes. Everyone does so, from professional journalists to average Joes on the street.

Unfortunately, even if those pushing deliberate misinformation are banned, then the problem will keep going since others will spread the information because they mistakenly believe its true.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#64

Post by CM30 »

dstroot wrote: post #34
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.

It's all about people have multiple priorities and views really. If Trump's philosophy is closer to yours on various social views despite his religion beliefs being very different, it's possible you may vote for him anyway since you believe the alternative would be worse.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#66

Post by jimjimjim »

dstroot wrote: post #34
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.

religions seem to have completely embraced the idea of 'the ends justifies the means'. The president could probably reveal himself to be a literal demon and they would still support him.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#67

Post by croon »

wysisyg wrote: post #55
dstroot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is surprising that Trump got the religious vote, since he had shown support for abortion previously, had been divorced multiple times, and engaged in recreational sex with women he was not married to. Maybe religious people aren't the one-dimensional voters that you imagined them to be. But if you were to admit that, how would you slam both Trump and non-atheists in the same post?

"Despite being a good god-fearing American, I'll vote for Satan in 2020, because of his fiscal conservatism and his views that immigrant children should be separated from their parents"

Your point would be valid if religion was a low priority hobby.

It isn't, so (a subset of) [religious voting block] are just religious when it suits them, ie hypocrites.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#68

Post by ringbugger »

vinhboy wrote: post #60
optimuspaul wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 spr…

There is nothing more infuriating than watching educated left-leaning people twist themselves into a knot trying side step calling lies, lies, because they want to appear impartial. There are lots of people who will "question" endlessly the meaning of "misinformation". Trying to make exceptions for that .01% of the time a "gray area" can exist, while ignoring the real harm to society caused by the 99.99% "deliberate…

If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping".

Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship.

Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination.

Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial.

That said, it can be a problem in other parts of the world. So what should be the reference here?

You aren't even able to develop a theory about the damage of misinformation that would withstand scientific scrutiny. Maybe only because of lacking data than there not being a correlation, but still.

So in the end I would conclude you only want to censor things you do not like.

If you are more certain about your point of view and are able to articulate it, maybe more people will believe you.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#69

Post by closeparen »

jacquesm wrote: post #33
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.

Can you specify a bureaucratic regime for distinguishing the two that you'd trust an opposition government to operate? If not, they are equivalent for public policy purposes.

To Trump supporters, The New York Times is an institution that spreads lies with abandon, and they get to operate enforcement agencies at the moment. The belief that it's seeking the truth in good faith is essentially just liberalism. Same for Fox and friends.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#70

Post by creato »

ringbugger wrote: post #68
vinhboy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing more infuriating than watching educated left-leaning people twist themselves into a knot trying side step calling lies, lies, because they want to appear impartial. There are lots of people who will "question" endlessly the meaning of "misinformation". Trying to make exceptions for that .01% of the time a "gray area" can exist, while ignoring the real harm to society caused by the 99.99% "deliberate…

If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping". Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship. Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a…

> Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination.

> Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial.

For measles, the herd immunity threshold is 93-95% [1].

1. http://www.who.int/immunization/sage/meetings/2017/october/2...

Post reply on HN