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

171–180 of 229 posts

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

#171

Post by jeremyjh »

cat199 wrote: post #166
btilly wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best comment that I heard about media bias was from a conversation I had with a major news anchor nearly 20 years ago. Off the record she says, "We are biased both ways. Most reporters are liberal, and most owners of the media are right-wing. So most stories slant left, but on the big ones we're forced to slant right.* This was before Fox News became so powerful, and media became more explicitly ideologically div…

> left, but on the big ones we're forced to slant right so peculiar that while existing in a 4d space, we are so prone to believing that politicians only operate on a 1d vector.

In the US we have only two political parties that are able to regularly elect people to national offices. So yes, its pretty one-dimensional politicking here.

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

#172

Post by alexmlamb »

Why don't mainstream newspapers (like NYTimes, Economist, etc) include a list of citations at the end of articles the way that scientific papers do? It seems like this would be easy to do, and would help to restore a lot of trust, because people could easily see if they like the sources being referenced and if the sources are actually fairly represented in the article.

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

#173

Post by [deleted] »

alexmlamb wrote: post #172

Why don't mainstream newspapers (like NYTimes, Economist, etc) include a list of citations at the end of articles the way that scientific papers do? It seems like this would be easy to do, and would help to restore a lot of trust, because people could easily see if they like the sources being referenced and if the sources are actually fairly represented in the article.

[deleted]

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

#174

Post by dang »

m0zg wrote: post #133
Marazan wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump lost the popular vote. National polls captured that perfectly. The polling failure came in the rust belt where the polling models were not tuned to turnout correctly. Turnoit model is the secret sauce of political polling and the most likely source of failure. I was betting on the election and this proved an expensive failure for me. However, your notion of deliberately skewed polls by 'oversampling' Democratic…

I see you're trying to gaslight, but it's not working. Most per-state polls from the swing states said he was going to lose, as well (which was strange for a candidate who was routinely drawing 50K person crowds in those same states). NYT has a really nice visualization: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.... As to oversampling, see the attachment for this email: https://wikileaks.org/podesta…

> I see you're trying to gaslight

Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines so we don't have to ban you?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#175

Post by pessimizer »

jlawson wrote: post #121
conception wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 layi…

Bill Clinton and the New Democrats were the rightward shift in the Democratic Party.

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

#176

Post by SiempreViernes »

grawprog wrote: post #167
throwaway5752 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Errors are not lies. Disinformation is the latter. You should take everything with a grain of salt, but motivation is the critical distinction.

All of the info was provided both directly to the news companies and was available in the description in the original and videos that were reuploaded by the licensee. There was no excuse for it not to be corrrect.

Sure, messing up details about a fishing clip is inexcusable, but you still have a long way to go before showing there was an conspiracy that ensured all those details ended up wrong.

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

#177

Post by btilly »

cat199 wrote: post #166
btilly wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best comment that I heard about media bias was from a conversation I had with a major news anchor nearly 20 years ago. Off the record she says, "We are biased both ways. Most reporters are liberal, and most owners of the media are right-wing. So most stories slant left, but on the big ones we're forced to slant right.* This was before Fox News became so powerful, and media became more explicitly ideologically div…

> left, but on the big ones we're forced to slant right so peculiar that while existing in a 4d space, we are so prone to believing that politicians only operate on a 1d vector.

Depending on which issues matter to you, there are a lot more than 4 dimensions.

I'm a fun example. Of the major candidates in the last election, preference list read (best to worst) Ted Cruz, Bernie Sanders, (big gap) John Kasich, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton. This does not fit with ANYONE's idea of the political spectrum.

Why that order, and how do the most oppositely polarized candidates wind up on top? My top issue is NSA surveillance. Ted Cruz opposed NSA surveillance and has publicly voted and taken a stand on it. Sanders has questioned it and been luke-warm against it. Kaisich at least made some comforting noises about controls. The only good thing to hope for about Trump is that he will be incompetent. The remaining two are strongly pro-NSA and bureaucratically competent enough that they would have been able to push the NSA agenda forward.

That said, people like me are weird. As survey data shows, the parties are polarizing along the traditional left/right divide. See https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarizati... for data showing that now over 90% of Democrats/Republicans are farther left/right than the average Republican/Democrat. While back in the mid-90s, there was a much, much larger overlap of views.

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

#178

Post by colordrops »

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…

> Subtle framing, selective quotation, anonymous sources, "repeat the lie" techniques, and so on,

I can recall this being a part of the news since I was a young child, and I'm in my mid 40s. It's certainly not a new phenomenon.

A good documentary about the topic is The Century of Self, a BBC doc about the inception of propaganda and marketing in the US.

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

#179

Post by grawprog »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #176
grawprog wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of the info was provided both directly to the news companies and was available in the description in the original and videos that were reuploaded by the licensee. There was no excuse for it not to be corrrect.

Sure, messing up details about a fishing clip is inexcusable, but you still have a long way to go before showing there was an conspiracy that ensured all those details ended up wrong.

Not a conspiracy. Willful negligence to make their story. They don't care about facts. They care about what they think gets them views. I don't think it's nefarious. The point is if they're willing to change facts to suit their needs for such an insignificant story, chances are it happens regularly with more important things.

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

#180

Post by astine »

grawprog wrote: post #110
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…

My favourite example of fake news came from real life. A friend uploaded a video of him salmon fishing on Haida Gwaii a sea lion came and snatched their fish off the line just as they were about to get it on the boat. He ended up licensing the video out and it ended up on msnbc, some news talk show and a few other news sites. Not a single one gave the correct information. One video said it was in california another g…

This is pretty incredible. Do you have any links to these news stories?
Post reply on HN