Live data from Hacker News

‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

cam.ac.uk

121–130 of 229 posts

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

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's probably not extreme enough. A classic liberal is basically viewed as a republican these days.

A "center" dem from today is 100% a 1980's republican. Their platforms are basically indistinguishable.

1980's Republicans supported sanctuary cities, gay marriage, free college, and socialized health care? No, they didn't.

Data shows that the American left shifted far leftward over the last 30 years, with the left edge going the furthest. The Republicans shifted leftward only a small amount. Here's Tim Pool covering the data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grXCooL3-M

Listen to Bill Clinton in the 90's basically laying down the Trump line on 'illegal aliens':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnOpGI0qRhA

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

#122
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relying on propaganda for social stability is a recipe for authoritarianism.

You sure? American society is full of propaganda and yet it doesn’t feel very authoritarian to me ...

One could make the argument that the US of today is far more authoritarian than it was 100 years ago before the concept of propaganda was industrialized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

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

#123
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.

I'm not saying people should blindly trust "the science". I'm just saying the far bigger danger these days is people who blindly distrust science, and think that people like Alex Jones are somehow keeping it real and funneling the truth to them because it makes them feel like an insider in this huge world that they don't understand.

I don't think people should blindly trust much of anything or anyone. But I also think the attitude of "don't trust anything that comes from mainstream media, don't trust expertise, don't trust science" is a hell of a lot more destructive than "trust mainstream news organizations somewhat but not blindly, trust expertise but not blindly, trust science but not blindly, always consider the source, and try to be cognizant of your own and other people's biases".

Also, if someone is so intellectually challenged that they can only take binary, black and white positions on things like trusting mainstream media, trusting expertise, and trusting science, well, we'd all be a lot better off if they just erred on the side of less random bullshit and actually did blindly trust all of those institutions. Because otherwise they're just blindly trusting other people who've rejected all human knowledge and are just driven by emotions and imagined narratives. Blindly trusting the big evil establishment will result in them buying into some misinformation, sure, but they're not going to turn into anti-vaxxers or fascists or flat earthers or religious fundamentalists at least.

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

#124
post #63
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…

I think the point is that by presenting opinions as fact and mixing them in with enough breadcrumbs of truth, you can confuse people into taking them as fact.

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

#125
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There is a revolving door between the Trump administration and Fox News today, with multiple high-profile Fox News personalities campaigning with Trump. This is not normal. Previous presidents, regardless of political party, did not engage in this behavior.

Former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile works for Fox now. It would seem the revolving door is rather different from what you are seeing. She went from CNN to the DNC by being Hillary Clinton's choice to run the DNC, right after the scandal where she gave debate questions to Hillary Clinton in advance.

It looks like this is in fact normal. It's understandable too, since connected people with an understanding of media and politics are obviously of value.

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

#126
post #66
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”?

Regarding standards, which you are in agreement with me on in terms of identifying them:

Clarity in the majors is pretty low right now.

Transparency in bias.

Bias is not really getting an honest discussion on the major networks right now. It should. And the moment it does, there are issues to work through. Some of those may be costly to the majors too.

On some topics, and I have a random list here, bias gets in the way, and the only real discussion is side discussion like ours happening right now:

War (framing in terms of it being generally good, necessary)

Economics (No labor point of view)

Media / Internet (Neutrality, impact of massive consolidation, access journalism...)

In any case, just know I was not intending to make any negative statements your way. Just asked the question to provoke some discussion, nothing more.

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

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 part…

It's... pretty incredible that this comment subtly shifts the blame for fake news from networks of coordinated, decentralized, anti-mainstream actors to the mainstream. It's almost like this comment itself is about "enforcing a certain narrative." Independent "journalists" are the ones causing a lot of the crisis of truth currently underway. Indie YouTube channels garner credibility by pushing an "alternative" viewpo…

> Independent "journalists" are the ones causing a lot of the crisis of truth currently underway.

Perhaps your viewpoint relates to what you think the “big” risk are with fake news. If the biggest risks to you are antivaxers and flat earthers then I can see where you’re coming from with YouTube. If you think the biggest risks are those that jeopardize democracies then I think the big money goes into the MSM to shape our ideas and control the narrative.

It’s made especially dangerous because these MSM outlets are given the gravitas of independence even though the writers are biased, fallible people just like the rest of us. And these news outlets are a commercial enterprise who have owners who themselves have agendas. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

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

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Science is science as long as it is used and examined by scientific minds. Scientific results and studies are indistinguishable from propoganda when used to sway/lead/inform the public. I'm not saying science is propoganda, I'm saying it becomes indistinguishable for those who aren't participating in performing the research or understanding the research methodologies.

It's also been used to deliberately mislead and misinform the public. The tobacco industry had no problems finding scientists willing to mislead the public about the impacts of their products on consumers heath.

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

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

1. I didn't say all news sources are "equally biased". Saying all news sources are biased is not the same as saying equally biased. Some are obvious more biased and more propagandistic than others. But without a doubt, every news source has biases. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to look into the history of every news company. Who created them, funded them and who is running them. But I suspect you already know thi…

>But if you watch both, the biases of both become blatantly obvious.

I don't think this is true, though. You may be able to see differences between them, but without access to the "ground truth" (whatever that might be) you can't tell how each source differs from the ground truth.

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

#130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 part…

It's... pretty incredible that this comment subtly shifts the blame for fake news from networks of coordinated, decentralized, anti-mainstream actors to the mainstream. It's almost like this comment itself is about "enforcing a certain narrative." Independent "journalists" are the ones causing a lot of the crisis of truth currently underway. Indie YouTube channels garner credibility by pushing an "alternative" viewpo…

The only reason people look to those independent journalists is because they notice the manipulation in the mainstream media.

Some people are personally involved in a news event, and they read/watch about it and notice that the report is completely different from what happened, cause and effect are reversed, and the journalist is obviously pushing a narrative that was pre-decided before doing any research.

Other people read news articles and then look at a more primary source and notice that the news was completely wrong. This is easy to do with science articles. But it also happens with video news - I remember when CNN ran a clip of a black woman addressing a riot related to a police shooting. They labeled it as a call for peace. Go on YouTube, and see the next 20 seconds of the clip that they edited out, and she's calling for violence - she's calling for the black rioters to stop trashing their own neighborhood and instead 'take that shit to the suburbs' and trash white neighborhoods. CNN flatly lied and edited in the most blatant way.

Or perhaps you know someone like Jordan Peterson from his work, and then he makes an argument about pronoun usage, and suddenly he's on the news juxtaposed with a word cloud of 'Nazi', 'alt-right', 'sexist', all framed as a question, and designed to create the association below the level of conscious thought.

Others notice obvious selective reporting. E.g. BBC sings to the heavens a story about some Viking warriors found buried 1000 years ago, because scientists thought they were women, but they were buried with weapons. Oh, it demonstrates that women were warriors, hooray feminism! Not much later, the scientists check more closely (DNA or whatever) and realize the warriors were all men. There is no story about this, or absolutely minimal corrections. They didn't lie, they just selectively report.

Or you just look at the poll numbers and note that in all these organizations, the employees poll and donate to Democrates 90-100% of the time. Simple example: Google employees gave $1.3 million to Hillary, and zero dollars to Trump in 2016.

Or you just see the subtle conflation of concepts to create a false impression when you know better. "10 million native Americans were killed by genocide and disease..." When you know 95%+ of them were killed by the disease, you know whoever wrote this intended to create a false impression. It's "In WW2, 6 million Jews died of disease and chemical poisoning" level lying.

Eventually this happens over and over and it because overwhelmingly obvious that this is happening all the time. You can learn about so many things that ought to be reports but aren't, and see so many reports that are twisted in obvious ways.

So where do you go when it's incredibly obvious the mainstream are manipulating you - and are not owning up to their biases? You have no choice; you go find independent journalists with acknowledged biases and try to peice together the truth that way. The media forced you to do it.

Post reply on HN