Live data from Hacker News

The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

slowboring.com

111–120 of 355 posts

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#111
I don't quite get where the author is coming from.

>And on the basics of civic life, that doesn’t seem to be the case. A survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that in 2006, only 33 percent of people could correctly identify the three branches of government. By 2021, that was up to 56 percent. That’s way higher than 33 percent!

Is that really what anyone means about misinformation? I don't think so...

As for say the Joe Rogan examples, are knowing factoids that someone thinks support their other opinions really knowledge, or are they things they just like to gather to support public statements?

Often I get those factoids tossed at me on the internet and even links to pages that someone thinks supports their opinions but if you read 3 paragraphs in clearly doesn't.

That's not being knowledgeable...

In fact celebrating those little factoids seem right up the alley of misinformation where someone announces that "5 men were discovered to be impotent after getting the vaccine!" where that might be true, but the intent of the misinformation is obviously to push something else.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#112

In my opinion, the "misinformation problem" breaks down into a couple of separate causes. Mainly the odd inability of people not being able to view a comment that they disagree with and not try to "correct" that person (highly related to the inability people have to let the other person have the last word) and simple tribalism. I don't know what to do about the "inability not to respond" issue, I suffer from that mys…

> pick out the pieces of their posts related to the discussion topic and reply to those

100% this. AFAICT, part of where this is coming from is formal debate style, where (IMHO) there's a subtle pressure to address everything the other side said. But in a conversation, you don't have to do that. You can pick up just the parts you want to reply to.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#113
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You can also fight noble cause in a wrong way, you go with the alert against racial prejudice and discrimination in a way that causes other issues, I am against woke because they want people banned or muted or offended from platform for saying things that they don't agree with I think you're oversimplifying serious issues there, it's not being against or pro racial prejudice, it's being against racial prejudice but a…

I don't think that I am oversimplifying anything.

Why are you conflating freedom of speech, moderation and censorship?

Freedom of speech means the government won't come and arrest you for saying something. That's got nothing to do with wokeness or Twitter.

Twitter (et al) are commercial businesses. They have terms of service and if you don't abide to them you get kicked. It's very simple. You're not paying for it - you're not the customer.

If a pig farm discovers that some pigs have started tail-biting and annoyng the other pigs then they'll take 'em out back. Letting a minority annoy the other pigs, resulting in a less valuable product doesn't benefit them. Twitter users are the pigs, not the supermarket. it's just good business.

I'll defend to the death your right to your freedom of speech even though don't agree with it, but I'm damned if I'm going to lend you a megaphone to express it. Particularly if you're going to, say, deny the holocaust and my granparents were exterminated in it.

And as for the idea that racists are going to stop being racists if theyre not on Twitter for people tell them that they are wrong, well bless your heart.

> now that Trump is banned from Twitter, he is still growing his user base, away, unmoderated, and without the opportunity to discuss

I thought that you were against moderation?

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#114
I am genuinely surprised at the comments in this thread. This article starts "That said, I do not think there is much evidence that misinformation has become more widespread, that this increase in misinformation is due to technological change, or that it is at the root of the political trends liberals are most angry about", which is immediately making this a partisan issue.

Secondly: "The internet makes me better informed". This is his perspective. Many people are not actively looking for information outside of their own biases. Thirdly: "Cranks often know a lot"... Should be titled "Cranks often think they know a lot". Just because someone can state a fact does not mean they are sufficiently educated to analyze that fact. Saying that there are "vaccine side-effects" (stated in the article) does not mean that Joe Rogan is able to weight the information in totality with other information from the studies. After this, the article got into a bunch of "whataboutism" and doesn't really compel me to believe that misinformation is not a problem. I agree with polarization getting worse, but could that be a symptom/signal of misinformation, is there a cause/effect relationship?

My thoughts:

There are multiple categories of false information spreading on the internet right now. I honestly believe that there is manipulation of the public happening on all sides of this problem, the thing that is still unclear is whether there is a coordinated source of this manipulation or if it is organic.

I disagree pretty strongly with the "misinformation problem" being misinformation. Anecdotally (yes, I know it's not scientific but it is the same information the author is giving) the amount of things shared on social media that are demonstrably wrong has increased over the past couple of years. There are people who truly believe that Trump was going to rally the military on January 20th or whatever date to "take back the white house". This got shared to numerous social media sites and was reposted that the "true president" was coming back. This is one explicit example, but similar things have been popping up for the past couple of years and spreading like wildfire. 5G vaccines, QAnon, flat earth, and many other fringe movements exist and ARE misinformation, the questions is how broad these movements are.

If you claim that misinformation is just "information that is partisan" or "wrongthink" I would urge you to dig further into some real, damaging examples. I think there are times when the term is weaponized, but there is a serious increase in how easy it is to spread words in this day and age. The internet, social media upvotes and shares, and other technological tooling has made the problem worse by letting people feel validated by opinions and "likeableness" of something versus things based in facts.

Real people are dying because of perpetuated information on social media and "news" outlets. Yes I understand that "individualism" should let them decide whether to make that choice, but there is a public health issue here when people are basing that choice off of Facebook memes and shared content that has no basis and gets 100k shares because it sounds cool.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#115

IMO the author displays confirmation bias in the post. He doesn't think about the effects of a higher availability information with a lower ability to seek out other contradicting points of view. If you're deluged with carefully chosen factual information, that's more convincing than outright lies. And this is often the situation we are in more often than not these days. Along with an inability to spot logical fallac…

Not all contradicting points of view are created equal. Just because someone can make up a contradicting position doesn't mean it's got any relevance or merit. Couching a meritless position in pseudoscience doesn't make it any better.

The problem we too often see is people, mass media especially, trying to appear "fair" by airing statistically unrepresentative positions just because they are contrary to some mainstream position. There's not two equal sides to all positions. Even when there are two (multiple) sides not all of them have statistically significant representation or are equally rigorous.

Just because I'm not seeking out arguments claiming COVID vaccines have 5G or the Earth is flat doesn't mean I have a lower ability to seek out contrary opinions. It just means I've got some basic scientific literacy and a bullshit filter.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#116

Ever since a high school current events class, I have questioned the motives of the media. This was circa 2008 after the stock market crash. The common question of "why is significantly more negative news highlighted than happy news?" What matters to me is the truth. In times of FUD(fear, uncertainty, doubt), the information dials are all set to 11. It's an absolute firehose of all the above. It's less misinformation…

> The internet does not make me feel better informed. I feel more informed when I read books or..

100% this, excellent observation.

> FUD makes the truth hard to decipher

One thing I try to do now is "filter out the FUD". I think I'm succeeding, but I don't know how to teach others to do it, so maybe I'm not, haha. Anyway! I filter out the FUD and then look at what's left.

To, perhaps, step in it: my current case study for this is pro/anti-vax. "Both sides" definitely use and spread FUD. But, when I filter out the FUD, there's almost nothing left on the anti side, and still piles of stuff left on the pro side.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#117
post #111

I don't quite get where the author is coming from. >And on the basics of civic life, that doesn’t seem to be the case. A survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that in 2006, only 33 percent of people could correctly identify the three branches of government. By 2021, that was up to 56 percent. That’s way higher than 33 percent! Is that really what anyone means about misinformation? I don't think so... A…

And factoids don't mean that there is analysis being done on those facts. I can state partial facts or misleading facts all day long that might get upvotes/retweets. That doesn't mean that it is properly conveying information that is needed to analyze the subject.

The Covid19 vaccine discussion isn't: "There are side effects that are worse than you think". There are hundreds if not thousands of data points that have to be analyzed together to understand the negatives or benefits of something as complex as this. Cherry-picking on factoid to back up your bias does not make you smart.

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#118
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Only 60 something percent of Americans believed the moon landings were real the year they happened. What is your basis for this? Were you alive then? I was. I watched the first Moon landing on television. Nobody was talking about how it was faked.

Same here, I was 7. Nobody was saying "did you see that fake moon landing?". It was only years later that I became aware that there were people on the fringe who thought it was faked, but I never personally met anyone with that opinion.

>"It was only years later that I became aware that there were people on the fringe who thought it was faked..."

Certain groups (namely the Soviets) ran a number of conspiratorial propaganda campaigns, which were much more effective outside 'the West' (NATO-affiliated countries).

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#119
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also fight noble cause in a wrong way, you go with the alert against racial prejudice and discrimination in a way that causes other issues, I am against woke because they want people banned or muted or offended from platform for saying things that they don't agree with I think you're oversimplifying serious issues there, it's not being against or pro racial prejudice, it's being against racial prejudice but a…

I don't think that I am oversimplifying anything. Why are you conflating freedom of speech, moderation and censorship? Freedom of speech means the government won't come and arrest you for saying something. That's got nothing to do with wokeness or Twitter. Twitter (et al) are commercial businesses. They have terms of service and if you don't abide to them you get kicked. It's very simple. You're not paying for it - y…

Just come forward and say that you're a trolling woke this thing about freedom of speech and governments is like one of your(theirs?) preferred point, but who cares? Governments are people elected by people, not coffee machines elected by coffee machine so I can also be a supporter of freedom of speech within people and their neighbours outside of the boundaries of the law, also yeah Twitter can do whatever it wants, I needed a mainstream platform which helped alienating people towards their circle

Re: The “misinformation problem” seems like misinformation

#120

The author is correct that in any debate, the prominent skeptics are often extremely well informed (joe Rogan on vaccines, in his example). I think what the author is missing is that Joe Rogan and the likes are not spreading misinformation, but spreading tools for misinformation. My mother in law is very deep in misinformation. I’m not talking simple anti vax, I’m talking “trump will raid the Vatican for stolen gold…

You should be careful about placing the blame on skeptics for misuse of their opinions by nutbags. Because the nutbags would have likely just latched onto something else. They didn't reason themselves into their crazy beliefs. So removing reasonable opinions isn't going to change their beliefs one bit. The conspiracy theorists often latch onto proponent's factual claims and misinterpret them as supporting the conspir…

I’m only trying to describe, not assign blame.

To be clear, I’ll repeat myself:

> I don’t think it’s wrong to be a skeptic

Post reply on HN