‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by bracobama » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

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.

From their site:

"Our Media Bias Ratings represent the average judgment of Americans. They are based on blind surveys of people across the political spectrum, multi-partisan analysis and other in-depth analyses as well as tens of thousands of user ratings. Our scientifically-generated ratings are fluid and subject to change over time as new information is gathered and biases change.

Unless otherwise noted as editorial content, all bias ratings are based on online versions of news coverage, not TV, print, or radio content."

Link: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

You can also see that they differentiate between fox's online news and opinion pieces, with the latter classified as being on the political Right.

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

#82

Post by rossdavidh » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

Yeah, they claim this supposed study showed the game increased resistance to fake news, but how do we know that's really true!?

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

#83

Post by trockbort » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

mwfunk wrote: post #59

eanzenberg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Precisely, the subtle "bias" in traditional news is extremely powerful to pull mindshare this way or that. It's not tabloid level shit like spacemen are coming to get you, but wrapped as trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science.

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…

I've never heard somebody say he doesn't believe in science, but maybe we just know different people. Scientific studies are subject to bias. Scientific reports are often non-reproducible, yet are peer-reviewed and in the public domain (well, maybe behind a paywall) because peer-review is not about repeating experiments but about persuading a small number of reviewers of your results. And since publishing good results frequently is essential to secure continued funding, there is an absolute drive to push and sensationalize questionable results.

We know that there are risks associated with vaccines. They are not "100% safe" as people have been led to believe (to suggest that anything is 100% safe is basically preposterous). Right now, pharmaceutical companies are being demonized for profiteering and getting massive numbers of people addicted to their drugs (the "legal" ones). We know that there is extreme bias and sometimes outright deceit from media outlets and especially governments. People are increasingly suspicious of all these "experts" telling them what to do because we know that these experts tell partial truths, at best.

So people are expected to overlook their distrust of drug companies, of governments and of media, all of which collectively trumpet the necessity of injecting babies with cocktails of stuff whose contents is unknown and/or not understood by the majority of people of the world. There's little in the way of elevated debate: each side just calls the other stupid. And somehow Alex Jones always comes up, as if he is the ultimate scapegoat for the "idiocy" of alternative viewpoints.

My point is that the issue is not black and white, like everyone wants it to be. It is extremely complex and we owe it to ourselves to listen to each other.

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

#84

Post by awinder » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

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.

I'm pretty sure "the best" fake news comes from state actors who have paid employees, and budgets, and a clear and clean mission statement (disrupt our enemies). Most news organizations are not these secret cabals where everyone is indoctrinated and working on some dupe-the-masses approach.

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

#85

Post by SantalBlush » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

germanlee wrote: post #72

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…

This is 100% false. It is an "appeal to the middle" fallacy based on two assumptions:

1. that all news sources are equally biased;

2. that aggregating those biases produces an unbiased result.

Neither of these assumptions are credible.

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

#86

Post by hanniabu » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

HSO wrote: post #55

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.

Speaking of, I saw a particularly blatant example yesterday: https://twitter.com/scottsantens/status/1142442971922653184 I've been following the Andrew Yang campaign since his appearance on the Joe Rogan show and so far as I can tell MSNBC has been at it for months now. The gall still astonishes me: 20 candidates qualified for the debates, he now polls in the top 8 and betting markets even place him in the top five,…

Yup, I've noticed that too. Unfortunately it seems he's making too much sense and others are trying to bury him by not covering him. It was a breath of fresh air when I discovered him. I'm somebody that absolutely hates politics because everyone's saying what people want to hear just to get votes rather and only talking about issues at surface level. You can sense the sincerity in Yang's voice, he's not a lifetime politician, he comes from a social work background, he's going after real root-cause issues, provides data to back up his arguments, talks about issues instead of trying to gain popularity by demeaning the opponent, etc etc.

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

#87

Post by scarejunba » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

ARandomerDude wrote: post #34

> A minute ago you were just an angry citizen, now you're a big shot editor-in-chief running a real news site. That statement is incredibly condescending.

It’s in the context of the story in the game. You first play “one angry citizen”, then you “make a news website and call yourself editor-in-chief” at their request. It’s not condescending. It’s just fun.

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

#88

Post by s9w » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

dymk wrote: post #44

cameronbrown wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every major network pushes their own narrative. I wouldn't single Fox News out at all.

"Both sides do it!" is a really unconvincing argument. Watch an hour of prime-time CNN and prime-time Fox News, and it's obvious that Fox is more willing to stretch the truth, mislead watchers, and spread FUD.

I would aggressively challenge that

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

#89

Post by dev_dull » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

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…

Fake news is less about outright lying and more about controlling and enforcing a certain narrative. That’s a problem especially when 6 companies own almost all of the media.

I think the solution is more independent journalism. I’m already seeing a lot of it on Twitter with independent researchers. These people have obvious biases but it’s clear, which makes these sources oddly more useful even if they’re openly partisan but independent.

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

#90

Post by vkou » Wed, Jun 26, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #71

vkou wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why not? After all, as the article posits, a diversity of opinion is important for the health of democracy. What better way to introduce diversity of opinion, then news that doesn't neatly fall into the socially-left-us-exceptional-pro-business-anti-human and the socially-right-us-exceptional-pro-business-anti-human buckets?

You don't even have to turn to foreign news for that. There's no shortage of diverse domestic ideas, that for some unfathomable reason aren't being promoted.