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

‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

cam.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 229 posts

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#71

Post by mc32 »

vkou wrote: post #65
bracobama wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: Google is doing this. https://www.allsides.com/blog/audit-finds-evidence-googles-b...

This analysis only looks at whether or not the source is 'left' or 'right', and not on the quality of the source. Google also rarely[1] promotes Chinese and North Korean state-sponsored media sources as 'top news', or Marxist-Leninist publications, or the moral and political degenerates behind New Trotskyism[2], but for some reason, that analysis doesn't take issue with this lack of 'balanced reporting'. It's only up…

Google US I think it’s obvious would have little reason to promote Granma or RT. But they should have a pan-US org like USA Today and WSJ more evenly distributed. Also The Miami Herald is a pretty good paper, better than some on that list. It should also be higher ranked.

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#72

Post by germanlee »

Rather than being an honest game to reduce "disinformation", this game is simply defending mainstream media. It's message is essentially "trust mainstream media". Not that shocking coming from cambridge considering they are at the forefront of cultural war being waged in the west today.

How about get opinion/news from a wide variety of sources ( mainstream and fringe, big and small, national and international, right and left, globalist and nationalist, etc )? That's the only reliable way to wade through all the disinformation.

Especially regarding controversial, cultural, military, trade and geopolitical issues.

If you are getting your "news" from one source then you are getting propaganda and lies. How many wars have we been sold on lies by the media? And yet, we are expected to trust them regardless of their lies. And that's just the most glaring and obvious example.

For example, with the recent hong kong protests. It would have been nice to see what the chinese media or asian media were also saying about the issue. I suspect it's a lot different than the "news" we've been seeing about it in the US. If we are interested in the "truth", then it would be nice to see what iranians/iranian media and the media of nearby countries are saying. Rather than just a one sided pro-war "news".

But I suspect that neither cambridge nor the media they are protecting truly care about "news, disinformation, fake news, etc".

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#73

Post by jahabrewer »

deogeo wrote: post #49
gfodor wrote: post #35

The "best" fake news these days is the stuff that doesn't register even to people are read-in on the usual anti-patterns. Subtle framing, selective quotation, anonymous sources, "repeat the lie" techniques, and so on, are the ones that I see happening today that are hard to immunize yourself from. Ironically, the people who fall for these are more likely to self-identify as being aware and clued in on how to avoid fa…

Second best. The best is selective reporting. Even if every story is reported 100% accurately and objectively, by choosing which stories are promoted, and which buried, you can set any agenda you want. Edit: See https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-i... for an example.

In your edit, are you suggesting that reporting on a topic should be proportional to how many people die from it?

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#74

Post by ddingus »

dymk wrote: post #66
ddingus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, a little nicer misinformation is OK?

Where did I say it’s okay? I said both sides are not equal, and conservative news outlets are worse than liberal ones. I believe that trend holds for conservatism in general. Is your defense of Fox News “nobody else is perfect, so why should anyone be held to any standard”?

I dislike FOX and am not defending them.

The major media companies are all doing a terrible job. Being better than FOX is a very low bar.

I am saying that inequality does not matter all that much on a growing number of issues.

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#75

Post by charlchi »

gambler wrote: post #63
gambler wrote: post #42

Every time I read about some new clever way to fight "fake news" I ask the same question. Can this method be used to reinforce any arbitrarily chosen agenda or does it work because there is something fundamentally wrong with the information it targets?

Reading the paper. Too bad the game itself is down. Something that caught my attention: >For the question about discrediting we used a different non-existent news site (“International Post Online”), employing an ad hominem (Walton, 1998) argument against the mainstream media: The Mainstream Media has been caught in so many lies that it can’t be trusted as a reliable news source. #FakeNews. This is not news. This is a…

[flagged]

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#76

Post by [deleted] »

uep wrote: post #68
bracobama wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Related: Google is doing this. https://www.allsides.com/blog/audit-finds-evidence-googles-b...

Not that I fundamentally disagree with their results, but the study seems like it has significant bias itself. In what context is Fox News only slightly right-leaning? Anything critical of the current administration is not left-leaning either. In the past, most of these organizations have been critical of the Obama administration, but they weren't considered right-leaning then.

[deleted]

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#77

Post by deogeo »

jahabrewer wrote: post #73
deogeo wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Second best. The best is selective reporting. Even if every story is reported 100% accurately and objectively, by choosing which stories are promoted, and which buried, you can set any agenda you want. Edit: See https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/05/Causes-of-death-i... for an example.

In your edit, are you suggesting that reporting on a topic should be proportional to how many people die from it?

I'd say no. But people should be very aware that the news gives a non-representative picture of reality. And I don't think they are, or not enough.

I used that example because it's the only one I have on hand. That's the trouble with biased story choice - it takes a lot of work and statistical analysis to reveal.

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#78

Post by autoexec »

iratewizard wrote: post #67
mwfunk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but the biggest problem today is people who have gone to the other extreme and have been told to not trust anything that appears to be "trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science". Like, because something cites scientific research, or tries to appear to be credible and informative rather than just straight up telling people how to feel, they disbelieve it because it doesn't feel right to…

It will be hard for the lay people trying to be informed to trust 'the science' while think tanks continually abuse science and statistics.

exactly. Science shares a fair bit of the blame too. Not enough peer review and verification of results. Corporations can pay scientists for whatever results they want to put out in a press release and there is no shortage of journals that will publish total garbage if you're willing to pay them enough. The lack of integrity and oversight in the scientific community makes it very hard for people to tell what they can safely consider authoritative.

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#79

Post by scarejunba »

gambler wrote: post #63
gambler wrote: post #42

Every time I read about some new clever way to fight "fake news" I ask the same question. Can this method be used to reinforce any arbitrarily chosen agenda or does it work because there is something fundamentally wrong with the information it targets?

Reading the paper. Too bad the game itself is down. Something that caught my attention: >For the question about discrediting we used a different non-existent news site (“International Post Online”), employing an ad hominem (Walton, 1998) argument against the mainstream media: The Mainstream Media has been caught in so many lies that it can’t be trusted as a reliable news source. #FakeNews. This is not news. This is a…

Game’s back up. I just played it. Takes a little while to load.

Re: ‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

#80

Post by [deleted] »

adrianmonk wrote: post #6

This is intriguing. Assuming more research confirms this effect, I'd go so far as to say it should be taught in schools and should be a standard part of everyone's education. Imagine a society where everyone has a stronger resistance to disinformation. It seems like it could only be a good thing.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN