How Lies Spread Online • Hacker News Board

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#41

Post by SpikeDad » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 10:59 PM UTC

prolikewh0a wrote: post #23

influx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's treasonous not to trust the 17 intelligence agencies.

I can't tell if you're just using sarcasm here, but there's nothing "treasonous" about not trusting intelligence agencies that throughout history have not been very trustworthy. You should also stop using "treason" incorrectly. Here [1] is a great debate between Glenn Greenwald and James Risen where Glenn breaks down how important it is to not use Treason in an incorrect manner, and explains (sourced) exactly what Tr…

Interesting to have Greenwald define treason. Is he trying to keep himself out of that illustrious crowd? Guess living in a foreign country makes one braver than usual.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#42

Post by SpikeDad » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:00 PM UTC

prolikewh0a wrote: post #20

octonion wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, it was all the New York Times & the US government had nothing to do with it? Go away, propaganda troll.

There's no "propaganda trolling" here. The newspapers & media conglomerates pay a big role in lying to the American public to manufacture consent, with the help of the US government and intelligence agencies. They work together. Check out Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

On occasion maybe individuals. And certainly more on the right than the left. But they don't work together in the least.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#43

Post by growlist » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:02 PM UTC

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth overtones.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#44

Post by SpikeDad » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:03 PM UTC

Jerry2 wrote: post #35

After reading about all this "fake news" phenomena, I came across this TEDx talk by Sharyl Attkisson: How Real Is Fake News? [1]. She's a former reported for CBS News [2] and in the video, she explains where the term comes from and what the long-term consequences are. If you have 10 min of free time, give it a listen. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson

Come on. Sheryl Attkisson is now a reporter for Sinclair - the local news equivalent of Fox. Her integrity was compromised at CBS News and it's now non-existent.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#45

Post by ChuckMcM » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:05 PM UTC

pnathan wrote: post #36

ChuckMcM wrote: post #18

This was from March but it is a good question. It prompted me to do some spot checks on Facebook virality and Twitter virality as well. One of the things that stands out in false stories is that because they are false they stay "on message" in their falseness. This contrasts with stories that are more truthful which tend to include questions and unknowns that might later contradict or modify the story. So for an exam…

This is used in assessing stories from history as well - a story with aspects that reflect poorly on the hero is considered to be more likely to be truthful than one that lauds the hero in all things.

It makes sense, I just am trying to figure out if there is a reasonable way to numerically denote this characteristic.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#46

Post by ajross » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:06 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #43

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth ov…

> the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left

Could be true, I guess. Everyone has "perspective" about what is important. That still doesn't seem to be a reason to disbelieve a fact checker when they tell you that, say, POTUS is lying, though.

> Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth overtones.

There are literally multiple competing fact checking organizations. How exactly does that have overtones of centrally enforced authority? How in particular given that the actual central authority in this country has made a habit about calling correct but unflattering coverage "lies"?

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#47

Post by toyg » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:09 PM UTC

GW150914 wrote: post #27

munk-a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the backlash we're seeing against mainstream media these days are, I believe, in a large part driven by those reporters that failed to do their due diligence when it came to Iraq. Reporters should expect to be told lies often, when those lies are blindly printed and distributed it does a lot of damage to society's trust. I think with Iraq it went beyond negligence, but likely not at all levels, preferring to hir…

Nah, the backlash we're seeing against mainstream media these days are, I believe, in a large part driven by those reporters that failed to do their due diligence when it came to Iraq. Except that the “MSM is lying” crowd still overwhelmingly supports W. bush and the Iraq war, and didn’t seem to mind what the media had to say for 8 years of his presidency. This whole thing kicked off under Obama when “alt” news was t…

As it happens in most things related to media, the left blazed a trail and the right perfected the exploitation techniques.

The internet in the '90s was a fervour of "indie media", "citizen reporting", "the revolution will not be televised", culminating in the Iraq war build-up, which was a watershed of sorts. Now the exact same attitudes are being exploited in a coordinated manner by the right, anti-vaxxers, astroturfers and other special interests.

This is not just a US phenomenon, by the way -- the same can be observed pretty much globally.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#48

Post by trentnix » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:17 PM UTC

You misspelled Jayson Blair.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#49

Post by Avshalom » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:21 PM UTC

influx wrote: post #9

sien wrote: post #6

You hire Judith Miller to write about WMDs. Then get 'quality' news to publish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller The cost of the NYT's 'disinformation' about Iraq was a war that cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.

It's treasonous not to trust the 17 intelligence agencies.

whether I am addressing this to you or the audience: it has come out in the years since that in fact the US intelligence community agreed there was no credible threat of WMDs in Iraq, but they mostly kept their mouth shut when the Bush administration claimed otherwise.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#50

Post by kingbirdy » Wed, Jul 25, 2018, 11:26 PM UTC

shmageggy wrote: post #29

css wrote: post #4

Kind of annoying how they mention the journal article and then don't link to it. Here is the actual research (paywalled): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full

This drives me nuts that our supposedly best publications still have not developed the habit of linking sources, especially on an article that is concerned with spreading falsities. The irony is overwhelming.

This is an op-ed so in this case I'd say it's more on the author than the publication. In general though I agree, it'd be good to see a well cited news source.