Live data from Hacker News

‘Pre-bunk’ game reduces susceptibility to disinformation

cam.ac.uk

201–210 of 229 posts

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

#201

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…

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

[dead]

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

#202
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,…

He's probably not extreme enough. A classic liberal is basically viewed as a republican these days.

Republicans are not remotely classic liberals. Unless by "classic" you mean "stuck in the 19th century".

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

#204

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…

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 country had moved to the right.

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

#205

"Fake news" isn't the problem, it's the symptom of a mainstream media landscape which has sacrificed its credibility for partisanship, activism, and sensationalism. People are willing to believe new sources because they don't know who to trust.

Where does mainstream end? Is HN mainstream? Reddit? Twitter? Breitbart? Fox? The problem with dichotomous categorization is it loses a lot of information. These are all offenders in vastly different ways, best not to lump and over generalize about them.

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

#206

"Fake news" isn't the problem, it's the symptom of a mainstream media landscape which has sacrificed its credibility for partisanship, activism, and sensationalism. People are willing to believe new sources because they don't know who to trust.

Where does mainstream end? Is HN mainstream? Reddit? Twitter? Breitbart? Fox? The problem with dichotomous categorization is it loses a lot of information. These are all offenders in vastly different ways, best not to lump and over generalize about them.

When people talk about the "mainstream media" in this context, they tend to mean established pre-web mass media - television, radio and newspaper, and any official web presence by these companies. So Reddit no, Twitter no, Breitbart no, Fox yes.

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

#207

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…

> 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/yes-pol...

[2] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Vital-S...

[3] https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarizati...

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

#208
post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion is falling to a trap where "Fake News" is diluted to synonym for all influencing in and propaganda. Fake News is propaganda that consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes. Nothing mentioned mention here falls into a category of Fake News. Fake News creates cognitive dissonance and distrust. More subtler methods work differently. "But mainstream media also does Fake News" arguments are whatabouti…

Wasn't "fake news" a term popularised by someone accusing others of lying about him ? So that he'd look like the victim ?

Fake news was initially popularized in reference to hoaxes and propaganda being spread on the internet under the guise of legitimate news, and the effect that increasing public trust in such stories had on the recent Presidential campaign cycle.

Trump supporters found themselves more strongly associated with such stories than the Democrats (not surprising given his support among right-wing social media,) so they attempted to reframe "fake news" as, itself, a fake phenomenon invented by the left to discredit alternative media out of fear of the threat it presented to the leftist media establishment status quo.

This to further the narrative that the mainstream media was little more than a propaganda wing of the DNC and its globalist masters, and that any Trump-critical stories from the MSM were likely to be fabrications and thus not to be trusted (but you could trust those stories on your Facebook feed about HRC having Parkinsons' disease or running a child sex slave ring out of a pizza parlor.)

And then Trump himself picked up on it somehow and now likes to label anything and anyone that criticizes him as fake news.

Ironically, the least likely thing to be called fake news nowadays is news that is actually fake.

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

#209
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true, but the biggest problem today is people who have gone to the other extreme and have been told to not trust anything that appears to be "trustworthy articles vetted by sources, studies or science". Like, because something cites scientific research, or tries to appear to be credible and informative rather than just straight up telling people how to feel, they disbelieve it because it doesn't feel right to…

I've never heard somebody say he doesn't believe in science, but maybe we just know different people. Scientific studies are subject to bias. Scientific reports are often non-reproducible, yet are peer-reviewed and in the public domain (well, maybe behind a paywall) because peer-review is not about repeating experiments but about persuading a small number of reviewers of your results. And since publishing good result…

> Scientific studies are subject to bias. Scientific reports are often non-reproducible,

This is huge lie

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

#210
post #97
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,…

They didn't replace him in the debate, the mistakenly omitted him from a graphic on screen and later corrected it. He only barely cracked the top 8 as of two weeks ago, and with a paltry 2% with a net favorable of +8 in Monmouth's latest poll, which is not very good. I don't really know much about the guy, but he's not making much of a showing in the polls so I'm not surprised that networks aren't focusing on him.

I didn't mean 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.

What the hell?

> He only barely cracked the top 8 as of two weeks ago, and with a paltry 2% with a net favorable of +8 in Monmouth's latest poll, which is not very good.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment because it misses the context of these numbers. Top 8 in a field of 24 candidates, most of whom established career politicians with national platforms, is huge for someone who was virtually unknown until only a few months ago. The Rogan podcast in February put him or his ideas on the radar of many people and his twitter acct went from less than 40k to over 400k followers. He qualified for the debate stage earlier than most of the field, and the "paltry" 2% polling (a criterion for the later debate stages) beats many national politicians like Gillibrand etc. It should also be viewed in context with his still very low name recognition. 2% national polling when most Americans still don't even know you exist is remarkable. It means there is huge potential.

>I don't really know much about the guy, but he's not making much of a showing in the polls so I'm not surprised that networks aren't focusing on him.

I was blown away by the sheer amount of sense and rationality when I first heard him speak. It is so unlike a politician, and of course it should be because he isn't one. More than this almost, I was blown away by the responses of other people across the political spectrum. Specifically, it made me see that I had a completely wrong image of Trump voters. He seems exactly what America needs -- a uniter around ideas, not identities -- and I mean this as an outsider who wishes America well (but is deeply concerned about what you are doing to yourself). I really, really hope that more Americans will hear him out and listen with an open mind.

Post reply on HN