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

51–60 of 111 posts

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#51

Post by jakeogh »

orf wrote: post #49
jakeogh wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You are so sure of your beliefs that you are not going to look at the art collection (don't even think about the Instagram account!). By all means, swear, blame the Russians, and make basic mistakes that prove you cant bring yourself to click. Think about it, you are spending all this time refusing to make a simple search. Why? You reaction is a textbook emotional reaction.... denial at all costs.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#52

Post by jimjimjim »

I wish there was a way of making misinformation a punishable offense. (cue people moaning about misuse, who decides what is misinformation etc which is why I said wish).

At the moment people can publicly and on-the-record spout the most outrageous bullshit and even when they get proven wrong there is no repercussion. none.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#53

Post by TomMckenny »

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…

But surely anyone who believes Snopes is biased must have some real evidence they could point to.

The above "Citation needed." is an opportunity to point out the concrete reasons (if any) why bias is supposed. If the only evidence is from sources that are widely questioned then that itself is something to note.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#54

Post by pryce »

beager wrote: post #36
keyle wrote: post #29

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?

Twitter's not fixing these issues because they're not issues. Their stock up 100% from the 52 week low. Nothing's broken. How could disinformation running rampant on your platform be bad, if your stock is up 100%? Shareholders are happy, the market's happy, who cares if your pipe is carrying a cultural toxin, as long as that pipe is also delivering revenue and shareholder value? (Of course, I disagree with what I wro…

I agree with your reading of the current situation. The spread of bots, propaganda and disinformation campaigns is of course a huge threat to the longer-term viability of their platform, but I'm not really convinced anyone is prioritizing that right now, they're all too drunk on sailing into worldwide prominence.

Either they'll fix it, or at some point, consumers will jump ship to a competing platform that includes appropriate protections against these issues.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#55

Post by wysisyg »

dstroot wrote: post #34
keyle wrote: post #29

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?

Cambridge Analytica showed that they figured out that people who are highly religious can be manipulated easily. They are called them something like “low information” voters. Meaning they vote more on emotion vs facts. The fact that Trump got the religion vote astounds me as he seems to hold no Christian morality at all.

It is surprising that Trump got the religious vote, since he had shown support for abortion previously, had been divorced multiple times, and engaged in recreational sex with women he was not married to.

Maybe religious people aren't the one-dimensional voters that you imagined them to be. But if you were to admit that, how would you slam both Trump and non-atheists in the same post?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#56

Post by tptacek »

makomk wrote: post #20
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…

One problem with making misinformation a bannable offense on Twitter is that they'd have to ban so many mainstream journalists. (Seriously, it's obnoxious how many totally bogus viral claims they start and spread on Twitter; some combination of wide reach, trust, and never bothering to verify anything they post on social media.)

Cite an example of a mainstream journalist propagating a viral claim that any reasonable person should have known was false? That's what misinformation networks do.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#57

Post by [deleted] »

Bromskloss wrote: post #43
optimuspaul wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#58

Post by olefoo »

stordoff wrote: post #24
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.

Also things like, sarcasm, metaphor and weird twitter.

Which by their very nature subvert and stretch the simple true/false dichotomy.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#59

Post by toofy »

lopmotr wrote: post #45
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> funded by anarchist ideologues?

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the poster above yours were implying the aim was to take down all of society — I think they were implying the goal of some of these networks is to bring down particular targeted societies.

I tend to think you’re both correct. I think it’s a combination, some people are into driving traffic through clickbait and some networks are amplifying divisive subjects in an attempt to make The Others appear to be unreasonable.

There are certainly many other networks taking part as well. There are definitely other networks of unorganized regular citizens who are also intentionally pushing misinformation in order to make their ideological rivals appear to be completely irrational. Whether these citizen groups are a consequence of the former groups I’m not sure, but knowingly pushing misinformation is definitely not isolated to governments and clickbait sites. We seem to be overrun with unapologetic and ideology driven liars.

This is somewhat of a tangent but still related, we can see an active attack on science and higher education right now and it’s pretty clear why, many of these ideological driven people instinctively know they’ll never return to their former glory when science and an educated populace stands in their way. I think we’re going to discover many of the root causes of the misinformation campaigns stem from the same battleground - many groups and individuals who instinctively know science and the-closest-thing-to-truth-we-have stands in their way.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#60

Post by vinhboy »

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…

There is nothing more infuriating than watching educated left-leaning people twist themselves into a knot trying side step calling lies, lies, because they want to appear impartial.

There are lots of people who will "question" endlessly the meaning of "misinformation". Trying to make exceptions for that .01% of the time a "gray area" can exist, while ignoring the real harm to society caused by the 99.99% "deliberate misinformation".

I guarantee you, the responses to your comment will be exactly that.

I would compare it to science-denial. Like people who refuse vaccines because of the tiny risks involved, while ignoring the outsized benefits.

People who continuously debate the nuance of "what is" "misinformation", while ignoring the harm it does, is no better.

And while one singular bit of misinformation may seem harmless, goofy, and opinionated, ie. Obama is a muslim, crowd size, "Uranium One" etc... A constantly stream of them practically creates an alternate reality for people who believes them, and that is extremely dangerous.

Post reply on HN