The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#2> "A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compared the spread of fake news and real news on Twitter in a 2018 study published in the journal Science. Looking at 126,000 tweets of news stories over the previous 11 years, they found that fake news stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories. Real news took about six times as long to reach a benchmark audience of 1,500 people as fake news did."
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#3This is similar to publication bias for news outlets and even scientific journals, just with progressively lower standards. Each party wants to publish the most interesting things they can, therefore take it as close to the line as their reputation/judgement allows.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#4> "A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compared the spread of fake news and real news on Twitter in a 2018 study published in the journal Science. Looking at 126,000 tweets of news stories over the previous 11 years, they found that fake news stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories . Real news took about six times as long to reach a benchmark audience of 1,500 people as fake new…
I think there is an information theoretic explanation for this.
The content of fake news tends to be more surprising than factual news. It is surprising because it is less likely.
Generally speaking, the more unlikely a message is, the more information it carries. Thus, fake news appears to have higher information content then factual news to people unable to detect that it's fake.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#5> "A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compared the spread of fake news and real news on Twitter in a 2018 study published in the journal Science. Looking at 126,000 tweets of news stories over the previous 11 years, they found that fake news stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories . Real news took about six times as long to reach a benchmark audience of 1,500 people as fake new…
I think there is an information theoretic explanation for this. The content of fake news tends to be more surprising than factual news. It is surprising because it is less likely. Generally speaking, the more unlikely a message is, the more information it carries. Thus, fake news appears to have higher information content then factual news to people unable to detect that it's fake.
Wouldn't we just assume "fake news" is optimized for virality, being a contrivance in the first place.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#6> "A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compared the spread of fake news and real news on Twitter in a 2018 study published in the journal Science. Looking at 126,000 tweets of news stories over the previous 11 years, they found that fake news stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories . Real news took about six times as long to reach a benchmark audience of 1,500 people as fake new…
I think there is an information theoretic explanation for this. The content of fake news tends to be more surprising than factual news. It is surprising because it is less likely. Generally speaking, the more unlikely a message is, the more information it carries. Thus, fake news appears to have higher information content then factual news to people unable to detect that it's fake.
The spectacle of seeing a nominal fact-checking site go after an overtly satirical one has been an astounding result for our day.
I like to point out the rose colored glasses of the early internet, when the awesome signal-to-noise ratio was going to have a catalytic effect on human knowledge.
#Whoops
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think there is an information theoretic explanation for this. The content of fake news tends to be more surprising than factual news. It is surprising because it is less likely. Generally speaking, the more unlikely a message is, the more information it carries. Thus, fake news appears to have higher information content then factual news to people unable to detect that it's fake.
Wouldn't we just assume "fake news" is optimized for virality, being a contrivance in the first place.
Fiction is more popular than nonfiction generally, roughly 2x according to https://justpublishingadvice.com/is-writing-non-fiction-more..., which is about the effect size of the Twitter study.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#8> "A team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology compared the spread of fake news and real news on Twitter in a 2018 study published in the journal Science. Looking at 126,000 tweets of news stories over the previous 11 years, they found that fake news stories were 70% more likely to be retweeted than true stories . Real news took about six times as long to reach a benchmark audience of 1,500 people as fake new…
"A lie can run 'round the world before the truth has got its boots on."
There's a novel called The Truth that pokes fun at this idea through a story about the birth of daily newspapers and tabloids in a fictional city-state.
The quote that I have in mind is a little long to format here, so I'll pastebin it:
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#9I think I have the opposite problem now where I don't believe anything I'm told. Especially from friends and relatives.
Re: The Problem with Believing What We’re Told
#10I think I have the opposite problem now where I don't believe anything I'm told. Especially from friends and relatives.
I don't believe you.