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

How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 85 posts

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#51

Post by devoply »

cryoshon wrote: post #43
devoply wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the alternative that nobody is in control at all is even more scary for some people (maybe all people). But that's not true either, those two are not the only possibilities. The fact is that what happens in the world is usually due to the collective action of many different people and groups, with converging and diverging opinions. It's something like vector math, the resultant vector determines direction o…

>The headline might as well as be mass propaganda techniques no longer working. HALP! i read the opposite: the propaganda technology known as "clickbait" has become so widely disseminated that truth or factual information can't compete because it doesn't translate as smoothly. the truth and the facts are always a bit less streamlined, and are always presented in a slightly more complex way-- slightly more cognitively…

Human brain is easily hijacked by memes, propagandists have been doing it for a century, now the masses are doing it too -- and they are mad (are the masses mad? or the propagandists? why not both? what's the truth? i don't know!).

Richard Dawkins on memes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRggkkAIC5A

For instance this meme sunk Howard Dean's campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwkNnMrsx7Q

Dan Quayle and the potato incident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wdqbi66oNuI

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#52

Post by woodruffw »

cryoshon wrote: post #46
birken wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT seemingly has written a well supported and fact checked story explaining how a verifiably false tweet from a person with few followers spread far and wide. What exactly is being pushed on the American people?

>What exactly is being pushed on the American people?' what about that time the NYT pushed the iraq war or that time they pushed hillary clinton or that time they pushed (insert whatever their paid PR "article" of the second is pushing for)

If I remember correctly, the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq. Newspapers make mistakes, recognize them, and apologize publicly. That's journalistic ethics.

They were also forwards about their editorial support for HRC, having declared her their candidate well before she became the presumptive DNC nominee. You might not like the fact that pro-HRC opinion pieces made their way to the top, but there's no ethical dilemma there either.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#54

Post by jameshart »

WalterBright wrote: post #42
andrepd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your trying to suggest? This is objectively fake. The claim (that protesters were bussed to this place to protest against Trump) is objectively, demonstrably, false.

It's not a big step to go from using obviously fakes to sell the idea that fake news must be stopped, to having someone decide if less obvious cases are fake or simply don't fit the agenda. Censorship of news is always sold as keeping people from being misinformed.

Hold on a minute there, you almost disappeared down that slippery slope...

All this piece is pointing out is that the difference between 'fake news' and 'real news' is the act of verification prior to publication. The thing journalists do, which makes what they publish worth paying attention to.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#55

Post by andrepd »

WalterBright wrote: post #42
andrepd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your trying to suggest? This is objectively fake. The claim (that protesters were bussed to this place to protest against Trump) is objectively, demonstrably, false.

It's not a big step to go from using obviously fakes to sell the idea that fake news must be stopped, to having someone decide if less obvious cases are fake or simply don't fit the agenda. Censorship of news is always sold as keeping people from being misinformed.

Granted, but that's not the case here and I have no reason to believe such a slippery slope is a reasonable fear.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#56

Post by gr_thrwy »

ttam wrote: post #11

The amount of attention that fake news are receiving from traditional media _AFTER_ the elections is astonishing... almost as if they wanted to blame fake news for the results of the election and the failure of their own forecast Why were they not so active about this phenomenon during elections? I doubt they were unaware of it since even I saw many tweets that were obviously fake

To have done so DURING the election would have created accusations of bias. This was always going to be a big story post-election. Stories about troll factories and the Macedonian clickbait troll town were out before the election. The comment trolling phenomenon hasn't even picked up much coverage yet.

That said, a lot of blame does need to be apportioned to western intelligence agencies. The idea that hostile foreign actors could (if they wanted) manipulate large segments of electorates seems to have escaped them entirely. This is especially damning since they saw how those tools were effectively deployed in the Arab Spring and elsewhere to foment revolutions (if they weren't behind those movements themselves). It is an epic fail, and joins a long list of intelligence failures.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#57

Post by norikki »

psychometry wrote: post #12
Jerry2 wrote: post #7

"Fake News" is a Orwellian double-speak for alternative news. Mainstream media lost its grip on propaganda and now they're trying to push for censorship of opposing views (this past election is the proof of that). Read this interview with the founder of Snopes for the background of this [0]. Never mind the fact that "real news" organizations have been caught lying so many times and have collaborated, behind the close…

Maybe instead of reading that WND crap you instead try reading the article you're commenting on?

Obviously the article doesnt mention wikileaks. The point is that this article isnt being published in a vacuum.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#58

Post by noobermin »

exolymph wrote: post #3

I agree with something Ben Thompson said on his podcast Exponent — fake news is a problem intimated tied to Facebook as a platform and the filter bubbles that most people create for themselves. This material functions less as news, per se, and more as performative identity affirmation.

Somewhat true. There was a bit of this in the blogger bubbles of the 2000s too, but facebook does bring it to a larger audience.

Re: How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study

#60

Post by mythrwy »

woodruffw wrote: post #52
cryoshon wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What exactly is being pushed on the American people?' what about that time the NYT pushed the iraq war or that time they pushed hillary clinton or that time they pushed (insert whatever their paid PR "article" of the second is pushing for)

If I remember correctly, the NYT published a written apology for their role in popularizing the invasion of Iraq. Newspapers make mistakes, recognize them, and apologize publicly. That's journalistic ethics. They were also forwards about their editorial support for HRC, having declared her their candidate well before she became the presumptive DNC nominee. You might not like the fact that pro-HRC opinion pieces made…

There's not an ethical dilemma in pushing a candidate but an issue of trust. Lots of people don't trust Hillary. So when a publication goes out it's way to pump her up and writes biased hit pieces on the opposition are people who mistrust Hillary going to trust the publication?

The point is, you can't argue why people should trust you rather than the opposition. You have to provide reasons for them to do so.

It would be like building an app that wasn't getting positive reception and then trying to argue or shame people into liking it rather than giving people what they want. It plain doesn't work.

People want to know what is going on. Tell them to the best of your ability. Don't couch it in spin, don't support sides, don't appear biased. That is how you establish a reputation of trust. It's not a matter of what is legal or ethical in this case at all.

Post reply on HN