Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of an online misinformation network

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 111 posts

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#21

Post by 52-6F-62 »

JadeNB wrote: post #15
panarky wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have also been shown to be less than perfect Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. > do tend to lean left Citation needed. And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

> > do tend to lean left > Citation needed. I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties…

Daily Caller is a news/opinion blog owned by Fox News talk show host Tucker Carlson.

In my experience they tend to be biased against truth as it were (and so would happily choose Snopes as a target)— but that’s just the humble opinion of one observer.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#22

Post by 52-6F-62 »

rtb wrote: post #17
jakeogh wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, it requires significant background. The trouble is, if I just say exactly what it is about, people will automatically assume things about stuff they haven't checked themselves, but have been strongly conditioned to believe. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta-talks...

I still have no idea what this is about

They’re peddling conspiracy theories as if they’re just maligned truths being persecuted by the media.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#23

Post by gitgacutils »

panarky wrote: post #10
robotrout wrote: post #3

The article specifically mentions snopes and politifact as sources of truth. They can be, but have also been shown to be less than perfect, and do tend to lean left. Yesterday, twitter was full of pictures of the immigrant kids that Trump put in cages. This morning, we find out that the pictures were taken in 2014. It's a difficult problem because the retractions are never broadcast/retweeted as prevalently as the or…

> have also been shown to be less than perfect Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. > do tend to lean left Citation needed. And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

> Citation needed.

So you want a link snope or politifact link? Even if people provided citations, wouldn't you reject them because it isn't snopes or politifact ( the approved "fact" finders )?

The fact that much of the liberal media and institutions have rallied around snopes should indicate that snopes has a left bias. The fact that you ( likely a left leaning individual working in the media ) support it probably indicates it as well.

> And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

Everyone is biased. Especially when politics, money and propaganda is involved.

The issue with news media isn't facts. It's the spin on the facts.

Look at Trump backing out of the NK meeting last week - which is a fact. But look at how CNN and Foxnews spun that.

CNN : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he is a bumbling fool failing at NK negotiations"

Foxnews : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he a deal making genius who won't let NK screw over the US again."

Same "fact", but wildly different spin. Fact checking is never going to solve this issue because "facts" are only a small part of the news industry. The core of the news industry is to push propaganda and to influence the people to think a certain way.

Also, propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. Every country needs propaganda to exist.

If you are interested, here is a former TIME magazine editor speaking on the topic of propaganda, history and news.

https://youtu.be/wu64HP-PL40?t=4525

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#24

Post by stordoff »

allenz wrote: post #7

In addition to identifying the network, the authors also calculate that taking down as few as ten influential accounts can halve the retweets of misinformation. I'm not convinced that it's quite that easy, because the network would respond and adapt, but it's still an eye-opening demonstration of the power of social media companies. The paper also finds that many misinformation accounts are not bots. Currently, misin…

There's also the question of what is misinformation? You have a continuum from differences of opinion, to people being mistaken, to deliberate misinformation. Where do you (reliably) draw the line? I can see why they wouldn't want them to be "arbiters of truth" -- I'm not sure I would want them to be either.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#25

Post by txsh »

panarky wrote: post #10
robotrout wrote: post #3

The article specifically mentions snopes and politifact as sources of truth. They can be, but have also been shown to be less than perfect, and do tend to lean left. Yesterday, twitter was full of pictures of the immigrant kids that Trump put in cages. This morning, we find out that the pictures were taken in 2014. It's a difficult problem because the retractions are never broadcast/retweeted as prevalently as the or…

> have also been shown to be less than perfect Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. > do tend to lean left Citation needed. And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

> Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile.

Citation needed.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#26

Post by forapurpose »

JadeNB wrote: post #15
panarky wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have also been shown to be less than perfect Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then it's worthwhile. > do tend to lean left Citation needed. And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

> > do tend to lean left > Citation needed. I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties…

> I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority

> biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree)

That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'.

In fact, humanity has developed many ways of distinguishing truth from lie, fact from superstition, critical thought from ideology, physics from alchemy. That is, in a significant way, the project of the Enlightenment, which led to science, the rule of law, liberty, democracy, and all the things that have been born of them (including the Internet). Not coincidentally, I think, the propagandists are generally enemies of democracy and seek to suppress its effectiveness and the power of the public, in part by undermining its foundation of informed citizenry and open debate by interfering with it and saying it's impossible.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#27

Post by bigiain »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #11
v_lisivka wrote: post #9

Why not to use detected bots for automatic false-news alerter, like ad-block or spam filter, but for false news? I currently use few accounts, which are spreading false-news, as indicators with great efficiency. A bit of automation and a browser plugin from trusted source (like Bellingcat) can help to fight that problem.

Fake news increase user engagement. I don't think Tweeter can convince its shareholders to invest in lowering user engagement.

In time, we'll look back on this argument and ask ourselves "Why the fuck didn't we all delete our accounts as soon as that became obvious?" (As the world burns around us...)

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#28

Post by JadeNB »

forapurpose wrote: post #26
JadeNB wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > do tend to lean left > Citation needed. I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties…

> I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually recognised authority > biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely to disagree) That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is…

> That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone lies'.

Yes, this was my point. If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be trusted to judge bias?".

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#29

Post by keyle »

This looks at the election days. What worries me most is that it's still is ongoing today, and it's more obvious than ever, and completely taking over social networks. Every presidential tweet is followed by a horde of bots praising some religious aspect of belief in the greater work achieved here. None of it makes sense.

Why is twitter not fixing these issues?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#30

Post by jakeogh »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #22
rtb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still have no idea what this is about

They’re peddling conspiracy theories as if they’re just maligned truths being persecuted by the media.

Consider suggesting to a parishioner that a priest they deeply trust is up to no good. How similar is your reaction? Both of you have beliefs head so strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested. I cant imagine you would make that comment if you really looked at the "art" collection I alluded to.
Post reply on HN