The spread of true and false news online(science.sciencemag.org)
science.sciencemag.org
The spread of true and false news online
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full
35 comments
Absolutely, I know several journalists who think about how to pitch the "health food" of boring, but important articles with clickbait titles.
Another question to ask: In old print media, is it ok to have crazily sensationalistic headlines on the front page, with the hope that it gets people read the thoughtful journalism underneath?
Just to give you a sense, I took 1.5 years of death coverage in the NY Times and compared to actual deaths. My gut is that the reason for the coverage gap is primarily a function of reader interest, which presumably gets people to read more:
https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html
As the old aphorism goes, "if it bleed, it leads"
Another question to ask: In old print media, is it ok to have crazily sensationalistic headlines on the front page, with the hope that it gets people read the thoughtful journalism underneath?
Just to give you a sense, I took 1.5 years of death coverage in the NY Times and compared to actual deaths. My gut is that the reason for the coverage gap is primarily a function of reader interest, which presumably gets people to read more:
https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html
As the old aphorism goes, "if it bleed, it leads"
Here's an antidote:
https://www.theknifemedia.com/
https://www.theknifemedia.com/
nice site, but i'll never understand the thinking behind "let's ask if they want to receive notifications immediately upon first page-hit"
does anyone actually click 'yes' to that prompt?
does anyone actually click 'yes' to that prompt?
Notifications on websites are just the pop-ups of 2018.
There are some sites on which I appreciate them, but exclusively those are sites where I have accounts and would otherwise revive them over email or something. Anything that asks to show notifications on first load gets "never show".
...which are just the spam mail of 2008, which were just the extra-volume used car ads of 1999, which were just the pushy salesman of the 19-aughts.
Everything new is old and notification prompts on first visit are still a terrible idea.
Everything new is old and notification prompts on first visit are still a terrible idea.
Thanks for the link.
Here's another, with fairly good voluntary moderation:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/
https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/
Wow, that's an interesting sub. They've formalized a lot of the HN community standards into hard rules, and brutally enforce them. For example, this[1] post has 36 comments, and 10 of them were removed for either not being substantive, not backing up statements of fact with a source, or some other reason, and another is reminder of a top level comment to include sources.
I'm not sure they haven't gone too far to some degree here, especially since the offending comments were deleted, not just hidden, so it's hard to see whether the mods are justified or not in all cases.
I subbed in any case, so I guess I'll get a chance to see more to make a more informed decision.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/81f8wf/are...
I'm not sure they haven't gone too far to some degree here, especially since the offending comments were deleted, not just hidden, so it's hard to see whether the mods are justified or not in all cases.
I subbed in any case, so I guess I'll get a chance to see more to make a more informed decision.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/81f8wf/are...
Pseudo-objectivity with pretty analytics that just happens to have a glaring selection bias and where everything is neatly explained by self-appointed analytical experts. In other words, just like existing media but with catchier design.
Pseudo-objectivity
They are at least directly addressing the mechanism of emotive language discussed in Manufacturing Consent. It looks to me, like they're doing a much better than average job at that.
glaring selection bias
Pretty much a part of the human condition. At least they're trying.
They are at least directly addressing the mechanism of emotive language discussed in Manufacturing Consent. It looks to me, like they're doing a much better than average job at that.
glaring selection bias
Pretty much a part of the human condition. At least they're trying.
Looks good, but in the end, this is what I tell people.
"The media you trust is the most dangerous media of all."
In other words, don't ever turn off your brain and just accept what you are being told. Inevitably the only solution is to question it all and get input from multiple sources.
"The media you trust is the most dangerous media of all."
In other words, don't ever turn off your brain and just accept what you are being told. Inevitably the only solution is to question it all and get input from multiple sources.
No, clickbaity headlines just make everything worse. On the other hand, knowing that fake news has much longer resharing chains is a valuable filtering tool.
This study is suspect because it does not reference propaganda history or research. It does not even use the word. Also the mechanism of defining truth is suspect: it is always possible to find several sources that agree on something and several others that disagree. There seems not much emphasis on primary sources.
Please research the history of propaganda in the United States for yourself. See articles on Edward Bernays and documentaries like The Century of the Self. Research terms like "the fourth estate".
Please research the history of propaganda in the United States for yourself. See articles on Edward Bernays and documentaries like The Century of the Self. Research terms like "the fourth estate".
Nothing has changed over the centuries but the mechanisms by which propaganda is spread. The term "fake news" is itself propaganda, playing to people's innate sense that they are not, in fact, irrational and emotional beings, and are somehow better than the "morons" who fall for false stories.
The sad truth is that even the smartest of us are, in some degree, intellectually lazy and hold at least one false belief. The only thing that has increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens.
The sad truth is that even the smartest of us are, in some degree, intellectually lazy and hold at least one false belief. The only thing that has increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens.
"increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens"
What makes you think this? Galileo was hung for what he said.
"Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force."
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
What makes you think this? Galileo was hung for what he said.
"Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force."
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
>Galileo was hung for what he said.
I get the point of what you are saying (that times in the past have had very extreme responses to people stating things that were accurate but unpopular), but Galileo was not hung or even executed. He was placed under house arrest (the trouble he got into was also more about stepping on the Church's domain of interpreting Scripture rather than astronomical facts, but that's a tangential popular misconception).
I get the point of what you are saying (that times in the past have had very extreme responses to people stating things that were accurate but unpopular), but Galileo was not hung or even executed. He was placed under house arrest (the trouble he got into was also more about stepping on the Church's domain of interpreting Scripture rather than astronomical facts, but that's a tangential popular misconception).
I think the operative word there is "westerner". Particularly in America, there has at least been room for open, somewhat peaceful discourse on contentious topics. One need only look at the Buckley/Vidal debates for proof of that.
Those days are gone, and a emboldened radical left, hell bent on stamping out heterodoxy through violence and intimidation, has the silent consent of progressives.
Those days are gone, and a emboldened radical left, hell bent on stamping out heterodoxy through violence and intimidation, has the silent consent of progressives.
"Nothing has changed over the centuries but the mechanisms by which propaganda is spread."
This is true. We now have digital platforms which reward propaganda by spreading it faster.
The speed and spread of false information has exponentially increased because social media distorts media coverage, rewarding sensational, emotionally charged content with greater reach in people's timelines and feeds.
Rumors used to spread from person to person, but the algorithms are giving them an edge. The algorithms are not neutral. They are designed to favor clickbait.
This is true. We now have digital platforms which reward propaganda by spreading it faster.
The speed and spread of false information has exponentially increased because social media distorts media coverage, rewarding sensational, emotionally charged content with greater reach in people's timelines and feeds.
Rumors used to spread from person to person, but the algorithms are giving them an edge. The algorithms are not neutral. They are designed to favor clickbait.
Did any smaller percentage of Americans go along with McCarthyism? The mechanisms of delivery are the excuse used to keep people blind to the faults that lay within.
Propaganda and its delivery methods only have the power you give them. We all have the ability to seek out truth.
Propaganda and its delivery methods only have the power you give them. We all have the ability to seek out truth.
“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it” - Jonathan Swift, 1710
“...a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on” - Terry Pratchett, 2000
“...a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on” - Terry Pratchett, 2000
the pratchett quote actually dates to much earlier. it's been attributed to churchill and twain. I used the Swift quote in my writeup of this study, though!
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
Yeah I know - I read the same quoteinvestigator article. I just liked the comparison between Swift and Pratchett.
It’s so easy to put anything on the internet and anyone could do that. I think most of the times is that people responsible for posting for bigger audience just don’t bother to check the source and publish news based on Joe Blogs tweet or post.
The truth is there are not many good journalists who cares and it’s more about making clicks rather than produce rich content.
Don’t think there is anything we can do about false news. Just learn how to live with it.
The truth is there are not many good journalists who cares and it’s more about making clicks rather than produce rich content.
Don’t think there is anything we can do about false news. Just learn how to live with it.
Media literacy is incredibly difficult.
It is difficult because independent thought is too demanding. Marketers, propagandists, and yes, even hard-core journalists all rely on this. The fake news phenomenon has always existed, but it is amplified by the ease of manufactured outrage. Instant and global spread of (mis)information makes containment practically impossible.
If you can spot good satire, you are probably more likely to be able to spot bogus news items too. But spotting satire is damn hard - and a really good satire is nearly indistinguishable from well done legitimate reporting and/or story telling.
It is difficult because independent thought is too demanding. Marketers, propagandists, and yes, even hard-core journalists all rely on this. The fake news phenomenon has always existed, but it is amplified by the ease of manufactured outrage. Instant and global spread of (mis)information makes containment practically impossible.
If you can spot good satire, you are probably more likely to be able to spot bogus news items too. But spotting satire is damn hard - and a really good satire is nearly indistinguishable from well done legitimate reporting and/or story telling.
Based on this study's conclusions it seems that the ability to easily retweet (or re-share on facebook) combined with social networks surfacing our engagement (e.g. JD liked this post) to our first degree network is really at the root of all of this.
I wonder how/if rumors used to spread on Twitter before retweet was a first party feature.
I wonder how/if rumors used to spread on Twitter before retweet was a first party feature.
While not surprising that hyperbole and bombastic claims would fare better than run of the mill news stories or opinions, seems strange to consider all tweets as news stories. Also, their cited sources of truth are overtly biased with respect to politics.
"We classified news as true or false using information from six independent fact-checking organizations that exhibited 95 to 98% agreement on the classifications."
>> What cited sources of truth are overtly biased?
>> What cited sources of truth are overtly biased?
Bias = ‘I disagree’
The definition of tweets as news is explained in the paper. The bias allegation doesn't really hold up, and anyway the researchers independently verified and tested 13,000 more stories and found the same patterns.
Great discussion on the subject of fake news:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw
At some point will the online populace be inoculated from "new surprising info" that isn't verified?
ie, distrust all news until there's corroboration?
ie, distrust all news until there's corroboration?
No. Humans tend to be emotional beings who rationalize whatever preserves their ego and confirms preexisting biases, and the opinions of friends and peers matters more to most people than fact checking by independent, objective sources.
tl;dr False news is usually more interesting because it doesn't have to be true and so it spreads faster
The study attributes most of that force multiplier to novelty and surprise, where falsehood will always have an advantage; important things that actually happen are often not surprising. Maybe people who wrap truth in clickbaity headlines are actually heroes, trying to even out the playing field... I never really thought of it that way before.