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

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#41

Post by JadeNB »

jakeogh wrote: post #30
52-6F-62 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Both of you have beliefs head so strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested.

Aside from documenting to what 'Skippy' refers, you don't seem actually to have suggested anything in particular—at least, not clearly enough that I can tell what it is. (It's quite possible that I would be defensive if I understood what you were suggesting, but I can't now because I have no idea against what I'm trying to defend.)

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#42

Post by jakeogh »

orf wrote: post #40
jakeogh wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything to avoid that "art" collection.

Anything to avoid accurately explaining what you mean or believe.

I believe people will avoid looking at things that challenge their assumptions rather than spend a few seconds checking them. I have no doubt you can find that art collection in a few seconds, I also have no doubt you are not going to.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#43

Post by Bromskloss »

optimuspaul wrote: post #39
stordoff wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure there is a question about what it is. Misinformation is what it is, information that is wrong, it is false information. Peoples opinions cannot be misinformation, they are opinions. I do agree there is a gray area between people being mistaken and deliberate misinformation, but there is no need to draw a line there, both should be addressed. People should be corrected and misinformation should not be spr…

Even someone's honest attempt at presenting the truth can be considered, by someone else, to be worded in a misleading way.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#44

Post by orf »

jakeogh wrote: post #42
orf wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anything to avoid accurately explaining what you mean or believe.

I believe people will avoid looking at things that challenge their assumptions rather than spend a few seconds checking them. I have no doubt you can find that art collection in a few seconds, I also have no doubt you are not going to.

See above.

Also that statement applies to you as much as it does anyone else.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#45

Post by lopmotr »

jacquesm wrote: post #32
ASalazarMX wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's a reverse tragedy of the commons: the happiness of the one. Twitter's (not Tweeter) shareholders can jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned, you - and they - can't place their own interests over those of the world at large. They're a communications medium and one with serious problems, user engagement metrics come into play when what the users engage with is not outright propaganda. Fake news isn't there to…

Honestly, is fake news there to derail societies (funded by anarchist ideologues?) or is it to make advertising revenue for the publishers? As far as I've worked out, it's the latter. What's the evidence that it's done with a political aim of derailing a society?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#46

Post by jakeogh »

orf wrote: post #44
jakeogh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe people will avoid looking at things that challenge their assumptions rather than spend a few seconds checking them. I have no doubt you can find that art collection in a few seconds, I also have no doubt you are not going to.

See above. Also that statement applies to you as much as it does anyone else.

What's so hard about checking out Skippie's bro's art collection? It's a highly specific, easy to check thing. It's so common to try and distract specific stuff with something else; I strongly suspect you wouldn't be commenting about this if you had.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#47

Post by dionian »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #21
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…

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.

everyone's biased, the key is being able to separate fact from opinion, whether a producer or consumer of an argument

The same is true when it comes to source versus fact. A broken watch is still right twice a day

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#48

Post by forapurpose »

JadeNB wrote: post #28
forapurpose wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 so…

> 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?".

I see your point, but I think the propagandist is only effective if we buy their premise, that there is no way to distinguish between biased and unbiased sources (and information). My point is that there are many ways to respond, that it's not at all a new problem, and that the solution is reason, in the Enlightenment sense. The propagandist says it's all arbitrary faith, but reason always has been their downfall (which is why propaganda often appeals to hatred, to crowd out the application of reason).

(On one had, this comment and my GP comment are written so loosely and broadly that it's a bit embarrassing; on the other, I think my point gets across and I don't have time to write a treatise.)

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#49

Post by orf »

jakeogh wrote: post #46
orf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See above. Also that statement applies to you as much as it does anyone else.

What's so hard about checking out Skippie's bro's art collection? It's a highly specific, easy to check thing. It's so common to try and distract specific stuff with something else; I strongly suspect you wouldn't be commenting about this if you had.

If anyone here gives a crap, he believes that John Podesta's art collection means he is part of an international pedophile ring, seemingly run out of a pizza place.

Not sure why he is too scared to just say this. I guess in the cold light of day it sounds pretty stupid. Perhaps if you wrap it up in code words it sounds a bit better, or at least makes him feel special.

The Russians really did a number on the US didn't they.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#50

Post by twentyOne »

cloggifier wrote: post #13
aaron-lebo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What aspect of the study makes you believe they are relying on popularity? They are mostly relying on a very limited set of approved sources (which could be criticized), but their approach seems pretty straightforward. You've gotta have some baseline to compare to. I'm glad someone is making a public/academic attempt to measure this, because it's hard to imagine just how easy it is to spread disinformation. What woul…

So, they're talking about how to disrupt the propagation of information deemed deleterious, given that actors are operating networks of amplifiers. They target the network to disrupt, and then strategize methods of dismantling the network. But the qualifier " bad " is ensconced in lofty vocabulary. The reality is this is likely a generalizable analysis of how to attack information networks regardless of alignment. Al…

Once a take-down resistant network is assembled, it can be filled with any sort of content.

Given that the content may be arbitrary, looking at the content alone is not enough. Analysis of at-risk "swing voting" audiences would be the qualifier for an offending orchestrated botnet.

The intent of these botnets for the past victory was to "milgram" people into voting Trump (influence opinion, by surrounding and immersing of easily swindled individuals in currated content, many sources creating a magnitude perception for illusory peer pressure) [0] so, the content is nothing if it isn't seen.

Whatever the case, this is last year's tactic. It's possible that it may never be used again, in anticipation of adaptaion to defend against it. That's if you buy into the hypothesis that this is why people voted the way they did in the 2016 election, and that external technical influence was truly responsible, and even capable of such a manner of attack.

To be honest, it also sounds like a kissing cousing to the hand-wavey premise of flashing inserts of suggestive hypnotic single-frame advertisments (BUY MORE POPCORN fnord) in movie theaters to provoke subliminal brainwashing so that people buy more popcorn at movie theaters.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Post reply on HN