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

91–100 of 111 posts

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#91

Post by JdeBP »

forapurpose wrote: post #26
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…

> 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…

It was also said by Jeffrey David Sinclair. (-:

It is useful, in this regard, to read about the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, and to read Aaron Delwiche's http://propagandacritic.com/ .

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#92

Post by sidr »

vinhboy wrote: post #60
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…

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…

> 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".

The .01% is enough of a basis for a lawsuit. And grandstanding by the right claiming the company is biased (never mind that almost all "misinformation" is right leaning, so it's likely the .01% false positives are also likely right leaning). I would absolutely not want to be taking on such risks from a business perspective. If it's societal good we're aiming for, let society (elected officials) figure out how best to achieve that. Do you really trust for-profit organizations to not have their "editors" swayed by customers?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#93

Post by heroprotagonist »

toxic_ wrote: post #89
tptacek wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

> I can't speak to how the warped Hebraic mind operates

Was that really necessary? Casual racism completely undermines any point you might be trying to make.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#94

Post by alien_at_work »

croon wrote: post #67
wysisyg wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

"Despite being a good god-fearing American, I'll vote for Satan in 2020, because of his fiscal conservatism and his views that immigrant children should be separated from their parents" Your point would be valid if religion was a low priority hobby. It isn't, so (a subset of) [religious voting block] are just religious when it suits them, ie hypocrites.

Ugh. Is what happened so very difficult to understand? Chistians were faced with voting for someone they were generally not comfortable with vs. someone believed to be truly evil. Her husband votoed a bill to ban so named "partial birth abortion" and Hillary expressed support for late term abortions.

If you could get over your contempt for people who see things differently than you do and actually talk with some of them you might find that a lot of people were voting against Hillary instead of for Trump.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#95

Post by alien_at_work »

wysisyg wrote: post #55
dstroot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

They weren't voting between Trump and no one. The alternative was Hillary Clinton. For a conservative christian you'll have a hard time finding someone they'd be more scared of having as president.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#96

Post by pvg »

heroprotagonist wrote: post #93
toxic_ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> I can't speak to how the warped Hebraic mind operates Was that really necessary? Casual racism completely undermines any point you might be trying to make.

The point they're trying to make is 'I'm a Nazi'. Should just be nuked offsite.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#97

Post by alien_at_work »

TomMckenny wrote: post #53
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…

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.

Are you seriously trying to claim Snopes isn't biased? I would say that's the more outrageous claim here. If Snopes is absent of any bias, what is their methodology by which they achieve that? Here is someone [1] who tried to find out and could not.

And as far as bias, a quora post [2] seems to give the impression that Snopes was heavily favoring Hillary Clinton through the campaing.

So I'd like to turn this around: could those that believe Snopes is not biased give some kind of citation?

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...

[2] https://www.quora.com/Is-Snopes-biased-Why-do-some-people-be...

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#98

Post by jakeogh »

orf wrote: post #75
jakeogh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe people will go to extreme lengths to avoid specific things that challenge their wold view. This is an excellent example, you are not going to look at the art collection, but need a way to deflect that fact, so instead you demand I talk about something else. Maybe make some personal attacks and keep trying to change the subject?

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#99

Post by orf »

jakeogh wrote: post #98
orf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I believe people will go to extreme lengths to avoid specific things that challenge their wold view. This is an excellent example, you are not going to look at the art collection, but need a way to deflect that fact, so instead you demand I talk about something else. Maybe make some personal attacks and keep trying to change the subject?

It's funny that you say that after having repeatedly avoided stating your world view for fear that it will be challenged, and constantly deflecting (the comment I am replying to is an excellent example of a deflection). I'm positive the irony is completely lost on you though.

So, one last time, share your views and maybe a link or two. No deflections, no comments on your irrelevant theories about peoples worldviews (obviously born by reactions to when you behave as you have in this thread) and no childish code words.

Thanks.

Re: Anatomy of an online misinformation network

#100

Post by jakeogh »

orf wrote: post #99
jakeogh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe people will go to extreme lengths to avoid specific things that challenge their wold view. This is an excellent example, you are not going to look at the art collection, but need a way to deflect that fact, so instead you demand I talk about something else. Maybe make some personal attacks and keep trying to change the subject?

It's funny that you say that after having repeatedly avoided stating your world view for fear that it will be challenged, and constantly deflecting (the comment I am replying to is an excellent example of a deflection). I'm positive the irony is completely lost on you though. So, one last time, share your views and maybe a link or two. No deflections, no comments on your irrelevant theories about peoples worldviews (…

I made a suggestion, that people, on their own, checkout an art collection and a (archived) Instagram account. You have more than enough information to find both. If you don't want to, then don't. Asking that I instead talk about something else, or elaborate on what I suggested you look at is fine, ask all you want. It might be obvious if you took a few seconds to search for "podesta art" why I am not going to link to it.
Post reply on HN