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

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

#211

Post by HSO » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #104

HSO wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

And of course it wouldn't be Twitter without fake news... sorry you've been had! https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/17/which-can... Edit, fixed AMP version.

I didn't say they dropped him from the debates. Of course they cannot do that, this is already decided by the DNC.

What MSNBC did, and has been doing for months now, is "conveniently", "innocently" not show him in graphics where he would belong. For example, when they show literally all other candidates except him.

Or, when they discussed the Monmouth poll, showed the list of the top eight names (AY is now 8), went through (again, literally) all names on the list up to number seven and then "conveniently", "innocently" on to the next slide.

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

#212

Post by jlawson » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 4:13 PM UTC

mcv wrote: post #204

jlawson wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Republicans did not shift leftward, they shifted far to the right. In the 1980s, the Dems and Reps overlapped quite a lot. If you go back far enough, they even switched position (Eisenhower was effectively a social democrat, for example, while pre-WW2 Dems were racists). The US didn't even have a meaningful left in the 1980s, and has recently been developing one because people were horrified by how far the countr…

You can flatly assert that, but it'd be more interesting if you made an argument or cited some evidence.

On what issues have the Republicans shifted to the right since, say, 1985?

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

#213

Post by jlawson » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 4:16 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #207

jlawson wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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: No it doesn't [1], using data from [2] and [3]. Maybe double check information you get from youtube pundits, especially those with an egregious agenda. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/ye…

Atlantic's chart from Poole says the Republicans now are far more right-wing than they were in 1955. That was during Jim Crow and Operation Wetback, when the US's immigration policy was formally, "whites only".

I mean, seriously?

Moreover, they ignored everything since 2012, when the social justice movement really gto going only in 2013 [0]. Which means they're not even really addressing the meaningful recent leftward lurch. This is exactly the kind of obvious manipulation I'm talking about. Leaving out 7 years of data that are the core of the entire argument.

[0] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/06/th...

The Pew data, which is what Tim Pool was working from, and which comes from an extremely reputable source, stands strong and it reinforces what I've said.

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

#214

Post by jlawson » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 4:18 PM UTC

newhaus1994 wrote: post #146

jlawson wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peop…

I don't have time to reply to this in-depth, but I think that your comment actually elucidated the biggest issue, which is that this demonization and distrust of the mainstream media has conflated commercialized TV news like CNN (which, I'll freely admit, has embraced terrible framing) with actual news outlets (WashPo, Atlantic, NYTimes, etc). There is a difference between what CNN does and what WashPo does. Also, ha…

Just another note on your last paragraph - I'm honestly not as concerned about financial corruption from the sales side. That's fairly predictable and orthogonal to most issues that really matter. It's the ideological bent of the reporters and staff themselves that worries me. No different than if the entire media institution was taken over by Scientologists.

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

#215

Post by croon » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 5:34 PM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #213

croon wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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: No it doesn't [1], using data from [2] and [3]. Maybe double check information you get from youtube pundits, especially those with an egregious agenda. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/ye…

Atlantic's chart from Poole says the Republicans now are far more right-wing than they were in 1955. That was during Jim Crow and Operation Wetback, when the US's immigration policy was formally, "whites only". I mean, seriously? Moreover, they ignored everything since 2012, when the social justice movement really gto going only in 2013 [0]. Which means they're not even really addressing the meaningful recent leftwar…

> Leaving out 7 years of data that are the core of the entire argument.

The study was published in 2014, and it's not uncommon to have no finalized data for the year prior on all sources you want to aggregate. There is no grand conspiracy.

> The Pew data, which is what Tim Pool was working from, and which comes from an extremely reputable source, stands strong and it reinforces what I've said.

Again, no it doesn't. And how could it if it was published in 2014, going by your assertion?

Poole used congress voting records, and racism isn't the only (do I even need to state this?) conservative metric.

Regarding your link I don't know what you think it means. That terms and concepts that come into the discourse are discussed more? I'm not shocked.

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

#216

Post by germanlee » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 7:31 PM UTC

TomMckenny wrote: post #159

germanlee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Infowars: Clinton runs a child abuse ring from a pizza shop. Pulitzer Prize winning news source: Clinton does not run a child abuse ring. How does ignoring Infowars because it is intentionally lying make me less informed? >Every comment about being skeptical about media ( especially mainstream media ) gets met with your type of comment. Makes me wonder. Our conspiracy has been exposed! Back to Moscow comrades!

You forgot other Pulitzer Prize gems.

Pulitzer Prize winning news source : Nayirah, Yellow cake, assad syria chemical attack, Trump working for Putin conspiracy.

But then again, Pulitzer was the founder of yellow journalism, the original fake news.

I don't think winning an award named after the founder of yellow journalism is anything to be proud of.

"Back to Moscow comrades"?

That sounds like the fake news we've been hearing from many pulitzer winners.

The difference between infowars fake news and pulitzer winners fake news is that the pulitzer winners' fake news has resulted in the death of millions of people and the pulitzer winners should be facing war crime charges.

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

#217

Post by germanlee » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

SantalBlush wrote: post #145

germanlee wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I didn't say all news sources are "equally biased". >I didn't say the "aggregates" produce an unbiased result. This is correct. I didn't quote you. I'm saying that in order for your conclusion to hold, the above assumptions must be true, which they're not. Whether or not you stated the assumptions is irrelevant. >Seeing different opinions exposes to you the biases of every news source. If you just watch foxnews or c…

I told you why your assumptions were false. And please don't use philosophical and logical concepts you clearly don't understand.

> To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources.

Actually you are better off since you can then verify the "factual statement".

You are assuming "news A" is pushing "factual statements". That is itself a logical fallacy. I'll let you furiously google a list of logical fallacies to find out which.

You aren't addressing any "fallacy" because you built up false assumptions and are now arguing against your incorrect assumptions. That is also another logical fallacy.

You have a very "journalist" way of thinking. Illogical, agenda driven and misleading.

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

#218

Post by dang » Thu, Jun 27, 2019, 9:51 PM UTC

germanlee wrote: post #217

SantalBlush wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I didn't say all news sources are "equally biased". >I didn't say the "aggregates" produce an unbiased result. This is correct. I didn't quote you. I'm saying that in order for your conclusion to hold, the above assumptions must be true, which they're not. Whether or not you stated the assumptions is irrelevant. >Seeing different opinions exposes to you the biases of every news source. If you just watch foxnews or c…

I told you why your assumptions were false. And please don't use philosophical and logical concepts you clearly don't understand. > To give an example, if news A presents a factual statement, and news B presents a lie that contradicts A, you are no better off by watching both news sources. Actually you are better off since you can then verify the "factual statement". You are assuming "news A" is pushing "factual stat…

Crossing into personal attack like this is a bannable offense on HN. I don't want to ban you, but if you keep posting flamewar comments, we're going to have to. We've already asked you repeatedly to stop.

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

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

#219

Post by mcv » Fri, Jun 28, 2019, 12:01 AM UTC

jlawson wrote: post #212

mcv wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Republicans did not shift leftward, they shifted far to the right. In the 1980s, the Dems and Reps overlapped quite a lot. If you go back far enough, they even switched position (Eisenhower was effectively a social democrat, for example, while pre-WW2 Dems were racists). The US didn't even have a meaningful left in the 1980s, and has recently been developing one because people were horrified by how far the countr…

You can flatly assert that, but it'd be more interesting if you made an argument or cited some evidence. On what issues have the Republicans shifted to the right since, say, 1985?

Taxes. Since 1980, they have lowered taxes to ridiculous extremes. Deregulation of businesses. Doing everything to give large businesses, CEOs and large shareholders free reign, while undermining the middle class. Income of the middle class has been pretty much stagnant since about 1980, while incomes of the top 1% has gone through the roof since then. Wealth inequality has gone way up.

I recently read that in 1970, Republicans still supported Basic Income.

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

#220

Post by null000 » Sat, Jun 29, 2019, 9:19 AM UTC

EndXA wrote: post #5

Key quote from the article: To gauge the effects of the game, players were asked to rate the reliability of a series of different headlines and tweets before and after gameplay. They were randomly allocated a mixture of real (“control”) and fake news (“treatment”). The study, published today in the journal Palgrave Communications, showed the perceived reliability of fake news before playing the game had reduced by an…

I played through the game and did the pre- and post- game study.

At the beginning, I tried pretty hard to genuinely gauge reliability, and was more willing to use some nuance (maybe I don't think the tweet is written fairly, but it touches on a genuine trend, so I'll give it a 3/10). There was also one that I just let slip by me (HBO tweet with some random characters that I realized probably weren't intentional markers to dodge trademarks after I instinctively hit 10/10 reliability, and also you can't go back and correct yourself).

After the game I was just so worn out I didn't feel like giving any credence to anything. Looks like you're kinda emotional? 1/10. Talking about an opinion instead of a fact? 1/10. From a celebrity? 1/10. It also looked like they weren't throwing in many or any tweets that were supposed to be "credible" or "reliable" in the feed.

I'd be interested in seeing the results 2 or 3 weeks out, and with a more even mix of "credible" and "non-credible" tweets. I have the suspicion the results won't stick, or at least won't stick well.