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

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#71

Post by ringbugger »

creato wrote: post #70
ringbugger wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping". Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship. Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a…

> Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination. > Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial. For measles, the herd immunity threshold is 93-95% [1]. 1.…

That might be true. I should have added that protection rates are rising.

Even with legislation, you wouldn't achieve a 100% protection rate.

You can also verify the insignificance of this discussion if you look at the victims of measels.

You can always argue that one is one too many and I would agree. But I disagree about the means in case of doubt. But all that is off topic.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#72

Post by ubernostrum »

ringbugger wrote: post #68
vinhboy wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping". Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship. Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a…

Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow.

Earlier today I saw a thread of tweets criticizing a media figure for promoting the claim that Chelsea Clinton is married to a nephew of George Soros.

This is a relatively easy claim to check; the identity of Chelsea Clinton's husband is not a secret, and Soros' family tree is also known. Her husband is not, in fact, a nephew of George Soros.

Do you believe it is correct, then, to identify a tweet claiming "Chelsea Clinton is married to George Soros' nephew" as "misinformation"? Or would you, in a sense of charitable benevolence to the shifting nature of truth, want to hold off, just in case tomorrow she wakes up, decides she's unhappy, and files for divorce so that she can actually go marry a Soros nephew?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#73

Post by masswerk »

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.

The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.)

The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group boundaries and the respective framework of shared world view. Social media will always reinforce such bias, it's part of the setup.

Lastly, if we acknowledge that there's no way to identify an unbiased (positive) truth, it may be also hard to identify bias at all. It may be possible to identify misinformation which is spread arbitrarily as part of a broader strategy (then better called disinformation) but even then it may be hard to reach consensus. (Elefant in the room may be the UN presentation proceeding the last Golf War.)

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#74

Post by ringbugger »

ubernostrum wrote: post #72
ringbugger wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping". Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship. Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a…

Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Earlier today I saw a thread of tweets criticizing a media figure for promoting the claim that Chelsea Clinton is married to a nephew of George Soros. This is a relatively easy claim to check; the identity of Chelsea Clinton's husband is not a secret, and Soros' family tree is also known. Her husband is not, in fact, a nephew of Geor…

I love this. Taking a politically charged topic and trying to prove something irrefutably false while trying to make a completely different point. Yes, of course that is misinformation.

Let's try it more neutral. Water is an aggregate state of carbon dioxide. Is this misinformation? Yes. Do I want social networks to be chemical teachers? No.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#75

Post by orf »

jakeogh wrote: post #51
orf wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You still seem to be unable to articulate what you believe. I've asked you what, 3 times now? Still you deflect.

Why is that? Is your conviction in what you believe that weak?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#76

Post by baud147258 »

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…

Misinformation can be true information, but presented in a way to mislead the reader.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#77

Post by catawbasam »

masswerk wrote: post #73
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.

The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.) The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group…

2+2=4 regardless of ideology.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#78

Post by thaumasiotes »

masswerk wrote: post #73
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.

The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.) The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group…

Counterpoint: https://www.xkcd.com/263/

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#79

Post by taejo »

masswerk wrote: post #73
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.

The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.) The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group…

> The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.)

Aristotle defined truth essentially correctly: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true."

Are you saying that reality is also ideological (quite a radical claim) or simply that perceptions of reality (and therefore what people think is true) are ideological (which is a rather tamer claim)?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#80

Post by thaumasiotes »

catawbasam wrote: post #77
masswerk wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth is necessarily a question of ideology.) The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group…

2+2=4 regardless of ideology.

Other counterpoint: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-beautiful
Post reply on HN