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

How Lies Spread Online

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#91

Post by forapurpose »

growlist wrote: post #43

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth ov…

> the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me

I think it would trouble anyone. However, there are many, many media sources and several major fact-checkers, including six used in the article:

We started by identifying thousands of true and false stories, using information from six independent fact-checking organizations

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#92

Post by forapurpose »

iamleppert wrote: post #57

This pretty much quantifies one of my core beliefs about human behavior: people are dishonest by nature. The reward mechanisms for our world are clearly optimized for dishonesty and deception. This isn’t to make some kind of statement about our culture, rather it’s an observation about reality. Dishonesty and falsity are everywhere, and you even find it in nature and animals. I don’t think it has anything to do with…

IIRC, the research (or some research) shows that altruism is an adaptive behavior, an evolutionary advantage. We're social beings; we survive or die as groups.

If you think about it, most people are honest most of the time. Most comments in this discussion are honest; if I go to the store, the salesperson doesn't lie to me. My coworkers and family don't. There are exceptions, but honesty is pretty normal.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#93

Post by jibal »

kryogen1c wrote: post #72
ChuckMcM wrote: post #18

This was from March but it is a good question. It prompted me to do some spot checks on Facebook virality and Twitter virality as well. One of the things that stands out in false stories is that because they are false they stay "on message" in their falseness. This contrasts with stories that are more truthful which tend to include questions and unknowns that might later contradict or modify the story. So for an exam…

> One of the things that stands out in false stories is that because they are false they stay "on message" in their falseness. This contrasts with stories that are more truthful which tend to include questions and unknowns that might later contradict or modify the story. This is the main barometer that I use to see if I live in an echo chamber or not and orient myself in the world. The people I listen to (Rogan, Pete…

It's funny how people attribute all sorts of wonderful qualities to the people they agree with and negative qualities to the people they disagree with, independently of whether they actually have those qualities.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#94

Post by jibal »

growlist wrote: post #43

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth ov…

> either it's predominantly the right that lies

Yes.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#95

Post by jibal »

SpikeDad wrote: post #44
Jerry2 wrote: post #35

After reading about all this "fake news" phenomena, I came across this TEDx talk by Sharyl Attkisson: How Real Is Fake News? [1]. She's a former reported for CBS News [2] and in the video, she explains where the term comes from and what the long-term consequences are. If you have 10 min of free time, give it a listen. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson

Come on. Sheryl Attkisson is now a reporter for Sinclair - the local news equivalent of Fox. Her integrity was compromised at CBS News and it's now non-existent.

[flagged]

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#96

Post by growlist »

ajross wrote: post #46
growlist wrote: post #43

In my observation these fact checking organisations usually fall down on the left's side of things, so either it's predominantly the right that lies, or the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left, or my perception is incorrect. Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Ministry of Truth ov…

> the fact checkers conveniently ignore controversies that are open and shut bad behaviour on the left Could be true, I guess. Everyone has "perspective" about what is important. That still doesn't seem to be a reason to disbelieve a fact checker when they tell you that, say, POTUS is lying, though. > Though I have to say the whole concept of a single self-appointed authoritative source troubles me, what with its Min…

The problem I see is that unless these organisations are beyond criticism they can always be accused of bias and all their work dismissed, and then consider the context:

'It is impossible to overstate the degree of daily vituperation visited upon the president in the media. Comics and actors use their non-political programs to attack him, often to the implicit applause of the press. Virtually all coverage outside the conservative Fox News and isolated conservative outlets is negative, often couched in highly hostile terms. Virtually all of the columnists at the New York Times and the Washington Post, America’s two most respected dailies, despise Trump – and that includes nearly all of the conservative, libertarian and Republican columnists too. Trump supporters who follow news at all cannot escape the daily blast of negativity. This has, predictably, hardened the attitudes of many Trump supporters.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/libera...

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#97

Post by jibal »

sparkling wrote: post #7

Reminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.

That's a flat out lie. They said that she had an 85% chance of winning. And by a Bayesian analysis, they were right.

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#98

Post by jibal »

orf wrote: post #11
sparkling wrote: post #7

Reminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.

Are you suggesting she did not have that chance of winning? I think you are misunderstanding polls. Vote wise they where spot on.

They said 85%, not 92.8%

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#99

Post by jibal »

rfrey wrote: post #16
sparkling wrote: post #7

Reminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.

You may believe you are being downvoted because you said something about Clinton, but it’s likely actually because you are quoting statistics without understanding how they work.

And he's simply lying ... the NYT said 85%: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential...

Re: How Lies Spread Online

#100

Post by jibal »

andrewingram wrote: post #12
sparkling wrote: post #7

Reminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.

Well yeah, but just because Trump won doesn’t mean they were wrong. According to their prediction, Trump wins in one in every fifty times. There might be plenty of reasons to believe their analysis was flawed, but by itself the fact the Trump won doesn’t actually imply that.

Actually, according to their prediction, Trump wins 3 in every 20 times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential...
Post reply on HN