6 ms·

This is worse than that. Imagine your Trump-supporting extended family voting down CNN news stories as "not credible." Expect mass brigading by The_Donald.

sergiotapia 9y ago
This is worse than that. Imagine your Bernie-supporting extended family voting down Fox news stories as "not credible." Expect mass brigading by /r/politics.
- oculusthrift 9y ago
  yeah only one side routinely falls for russian propaganda, downright lies and breitbart.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Charges of being Russian tools have been hurled at everyone left and right of the DNC (for instance they were going after Jill Stein).
  - irori929 9y ago
    Why the generic labels? If they mention specifics, Bernie or a particular forum, there’s usually plenty of real arguments that can separate those specific things When the discourse devolves left/right and liberal/conservative tags you’ve landed in nonsense-land Tear down nonsense directly and call a person out for THEIR own BS.
  - MBCook 9y ago
    Really? Here’s a paper (PDF) showing some of the most active & influential #BlackLivesMatter tweeters were linked to Russia. On BOTH SIDES. http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/examining-trolls-polarization.pdf http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/examining-trolls-polar... This matches similar research I saw in the last few days on some other political topic (can’t remember which) were some of the most important and active tweeters were Russian on both sides. Russia wasn’t trying to get Trump elected (though they HATED Clinton). They were trying to get America to fight with itself and sew division. They did a really good job.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Certainly people on both sides were accused of that but the idea that Black Lives Matter was actually just a Russian plot is frankly pretty repellent, and that paper in the end just defers to Twitter's ideas of who's a Russian troll, and how did they decide? We've seen a lot of really shoddy work in this department.
      - MBCook 9y ago
        No, I’m not saying it was a Russian plot at all. It’s a real thing. I’m saying they seized on it as something they could use to push division between people.
        mike_hearn 9y ago
        I find that incredibly unlikely. I used to work in bot fighting on Google. Claims of Russian bots on Twitter and especially claims by academics are invariably riddled with methodological errors that render the "research" useless. I wrote about this problem here: https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f08c014a https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f... These studies are seeing patterns in noise. That's why the narrative changed over time - it used to be "Russian twitter bots got Trump elected!" and now it's "they're supporting both sides .... to sow division!". The former claim was extremely implausible but at least it had some sort of inner logic to it, in that Trump was more friendly to Russia than Clinton. The new spin doesn't even make logical sense. However it makes perfect sense if you're just picking random Twitter users and trying to explain their behaviour through the prism of some convoluted conspiracy.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        The article linked is excellent. Thanks.
        hackinthebochs 9y ago
        >the new spin doesn't even make logical sense. Sure it does. The appearance of a wide division in our political landscape leads to a wide division in our political landscape. People tend to "pick sides" in political fights and when something gives the appearance of a serious political dispute, people are motivated to pick sides and entrench their opinions. This is in keeping with getting Trump elected, as a large part of his support was due to the fear created by the appearance of growing civil unrest. None of this is particularly hard to understand.
- irori929 9y ago
  When Bernie and crew start killing people and beating down inter-racial couples, and running a news network staffed by serial sexual abusers, you’ll have a point Just cause you can write the words to sound the same doesn’t mean it is the same
emodendroket 9y ago
I suppose that's possible, but I expect that, like Google's attempts to address the same issue[0], the biggest loser in this change is going to be independent news sources. [0] https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32d https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to...
- ucaetano 9y ago
  From the article, it weren't independent sources which were punished, but far-left and far-right sources. > However, in addition to AlterNet and other left-wing news sites, Rosenfeld said right-wing, alternative media outlets have also seen a reduction in viewership due to the change in Google’s algorithm.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    So? Independent news sources almost always have a non-mainstream political bent; that's why the writers aren't just writing in the New York Times. I don't think most people understand "weeding out fake news" to mean "only allowing a narrow spectrum of respectable opinion." And these sources do real reporting and break real news.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      So that, unlike what OP mentioned, independent sources aren't being "punished", heavily biased sources are. Which is fine, IMHO. Notice that Mother Jones (independent, leftist) and Fox News (non-independent, large) have not been "punished".
ppbutt 9y ago
You think CNN is 100% honest and credible? The same could be said of liberals or any arbitrary group of people.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Yeah, I think "I can turn my brain off and just trust anything this source says" is probably the wrong approach to news.
- MBCook 9y ago
  I don’t think that was the point. The point is that even credible sources are going to be voted down as “idealogically biased“ no matter how neutral the story is. Headline says candidate Johnson lost by 15%? Better vote it down. After all, you hate candidate Johnson. Doesn’t matter if he actually lost.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    That's true but that seems like the easiest issue to deal with, considering how much information you have about user's political preferences if you're Facebook.
- paulie_a 9y ago
  No they are just incompetent and pointless. The Kardashians of news
threeseed 9y ago
Please read the article. This isn't how any of this works. It is a randomised sample of their user base. It will not be possible for any group to gain an advantage.
- pixl97 9y ago
  Bots! Bots! Bots! Bots! A random sampling of shit is still shit.
paulie_a 9y ago
To be fair, nothing on CNN is credible. They are not partisan, they are simply the "off" cousin your family ignores
fortythirteen 9y ago
The problem isn't that simple. Most mainstream news, including CNN, have traded in objective reporting for idealogical dissemination. You can very often, legitimately call CNN "not credible". Just in the last couple years they have: 1. Told their viewers that it was illegal to read the DNC emails leaked to Wikileaks themselves, and to just listen to what CNN has to say about them. 2. Got caught posing one of their cameramen as a protester/rioter for an interview about why he was "in the streets". 3. Deceptively edited a video of Trump dumping fish food into a koi pond to omit the fact that he was following the Japanese PM's lead, then spent a whole day talking about how disrespectful it was. 4. Spent a whole morning talking about how Trump drinks diet coke, while there was an active terrorist attack in NY. That's just what I pulled off the top of my head, too. Edit: to the user that downvoted my comment: which of the four bullet points was false? It's easy to protect the liars who benefit our goals. It takes intellectual honesty to criticize one's allies.
- dagw 9y ago
  to the user that downvoted my comment: which of the four bullet points was false? Didn't downvote (and I don't have CNN), but your complete lack of links to back up any of the things you mentioned makes it very hard to judge if they're actually true or false.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    I was under the assumption that most of these were well known. Links: * "‘Remember, it’s illegal to possess’ WikiLeaks Clinton emails, but ‘it’s different for the media,’ says CNN’s Chris Cuomo": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.c685ab9056e7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Fake protester is a CNN cameraman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57pKCRcuF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57pKCRcuF4 * Snopes: An image showing President Trump dumping fish food into a koi pond was shared with misleading statements about his behavior: https://www.snopes.com/did-trump-impatiently-dump-fish-food-in-japanese-koi-pond/ https://www.snopes.com/did-trump-impatiently-dump-fish-food-... * "CNN mocked for airing segment on Trump's soda consumption while NYC faced terror attack": http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/11/cnn-mocked-for-airing-segment-on-trumps-soda-consumption-while-nyc-faced-terror-attack.html http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/11/cnn-mocked-f...

sergiotapia 9y ago

This is worse than that. Imagine your Bernie-supporting extended family voting down Fox news stories as "not credible." Expect mass brigading by /r/politics.

oculusthrift 9y ago
yeah only one side routinely falls for russian propaganda, downright lies and breitbart.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Charges of being Russian tools have been hurled at everyone left and right of the DNC (for instance they were going after Jill Stein).
- irori929 9y ago
  Why the generic labels? If they mention specifics, Bernie or a particular forum, there’s usually plenty of real arguments that can separate those specific things When the discourse devolves left/right and liberal/conservative tags you’ve landed in nonsense-land Tear down nonsense directly and call a person out for THEIR own BS.
- MBCook 9y ago
  Really? Here’s a paper (PDF) showing some of the most active & influential #BlackLivesMatter tweeters were linked to Russia. On BOTH SIDES. http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/examining-trolls-polarization.pdf http://faculty.washington.edu/kstarbi/examining-trolls-polar... This matches similar research I saw in the last few days on some other political topic (can’t remember which) were some of the most important and active tweeters were Russian on both sides. Russia wasn’t trying to get Trump elected (though they HATED Clinton). They were trying to get America to fight with itself and sew division. They did a really good job.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Certainly people on both sides were accused of that but the idea that Black Lives Matter was actually just a Russian plot is frankly pretty repellent, and that paper in the end just defers to Twitter's ideas of who's a Russian troll, and how did they decide? We've seen a lot of really shoddy work in this department.
    - MBCook 9y ago
      No, I’m not saying it was a Russian plot at all. It’s a real thing. I’m saying they seized on it as something they could use to push division between people.
      - mike_hearn 9y ago
        I find that incredibly unlikely. I used to work in bot fighting on Google. Claims of Russian bots on Twitter and especially claims by academics are invariably riddled with methodological errors that render the "research" useless. I wrote about this problem here: https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f08c014a https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f... These studies are seeing patterns in noise. That's why the narrative changed over time - it used to be "Russian twitter bots got Trump elected!" and now it's "they're supporting both sides .... to sow division!". The former claim was extremely implausible but at least it had some sort of inner logic to it, in that Trump was more friendly to Russia than Clinton. The new spin doesn't even make logical sense. However it makes perfect sense if you're just picking random Twitter users and trying to explain their behaviour through the prism of some convoluted conspiracy.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        The article linked is excellent. Thanks.
        hackinthebochs 9y ago
        >the new spin doesn't even make logical sense. Sure it does. The appearance of a wide division in our political landscape leads to a wide division in our political landscape. People tend to "pick sides" in political fights and when something gives the appearance of a serious political dispute, people are motivated to pick sides and entrench their opinions. This is in keeping with getting Trump elected, as a large part of his support was due to the fear created by the appearance of growing civil unrest. None of this is particularly hard to understand.
irori929 9y ago
When Bernie and crew start killing people and beating down inter-racial couples, and running a news network staffed by serial sexual abusers, you’ll have a point Just cause you can write the words to sound the same doesn’t mean it is the same

emodendroket 9y ago

I suppose that's possible, but I expect that, like Google's attempts to address the same issue[0], the biggest loser in this change is going to be independent news sources. [0] https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to-fight-fake-news-hurts-independent-news-sites-a01b2d2ed32d https://medium.com/@evanpopp/google-changes-its-algorithm-to...

ucaetano 9y ago
From the article, it weren't independent sources which were punished, but far-left and far-right sources. > However, in addition to AlterNet and other left-wing news sites, Rosenfeld said right-wing, alternative media outlets have also seen a reduction in viewership due to the change in Google’s algorithm.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  So? Independent news sources almost always have a non-mainstream political bent; that's why the writers aren't just writing in the New York Times. I don't think most people understand "weeding out fake news" to mean "only allowing a narrow spectrum of respectable opinion." And these sources do real reporting and break real news.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    So that, unlike what OP mentioned, independent sources aren't being "punished", heavily biased sources are. Which is fine, IMHO. Notice that Mother Jones (independent, leftist) and Fox News (non-independent, large) have not been "punished".

ppbutt 9y ago

You think CNN is 100% honest and credible? The same could be said of liberals or any arbitrary group of people.

emodendroket 9y ago
Yeah, I think "I can turn my brain off and just trust anything this source says" is probably the wrong approach to news.
MBCook 9y ago
I don’t think that was the point. The point is that even credible sources are going to be voted down as “idealogically biased“ no matter how neutral the story is. Headline says candidate Johnson lost by 15%? Better vote it down. After all, you hate candidate Johnson. Doesn’t matter if he actually lost.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  That's true but that seems like the easiest issue to deal with, considering how much information you have about user's political preferences if you're Facebook.
paulie_a 9y ago
No they are just incompetent and pointless. The Kardashians of news

threeseed 9y ago

Please read the article. This isn't how any of this works. It is a randomised sample of their user base. It will not be possible for any group to gain an advantage.

pixl97 9y ago
Bots! Bots! Bots! Bots! A random sampling of shit is still shit.

paulie_a 9y ago

To be fair, nothing on CNN is credible. They are not partisan, they are simply the "off" cousin your family ignores

fortythirteen 9y ago

The problem isn't that simple. Most mainstream news, including CNN, have traded in objective reporting for idealogical dissemination. You can very often, legitimately call CNN "not credible". Just in the last couple years they have: 1. Told their viewers that it was illegal to read the DNC emails leaked to Wikileaks themselves, and to just listen to what CNN has to say about them. 2. Got caught posing one of their cameramen as a protester/rioter for an interview about why he was "in the streets". 3. Deceptively edited a video of Trump dumping fish food into a koi pond to omit the fact that he was following the Japanese PM's lead, then spent a whole day talking about how disrespectful it was. 4. Spent a whole morning talking about how Trump drinks diet coke, while there was an active terrorist attack in NY. That's just what I pulled off the top of my head, too. Edit: to the user that downvoted my comment: which of the four bullet points was false? It's easy to protect the liars who benefit our goals. It takes intellectual honesty to criticize one's allies.

dagw 9y ago
to the user that downvoted my comment: which of the four bullet points was false? Didn't downvote (and I don't have CNN), but your complete lack of links to back up any of the things you mentioned makes it very hard to judge if they're actually true or false.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  I was under the assumption that most of these were well known. Links: * "‘Remember, it’s illegal to possess’ WikiLeaks Clinton emails, but ‘it’s different for the media,’ says CNN’s Chris Cuomo": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.c685ab9056e7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... Fake protester is a CNN cameraman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57pKCRcuF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s57pKCRcuF4 * Snopes: An image showing President Trump dumping fish food into a koi pond was shared with misleading statements about his behavior: https://www.snopes.com/did-trump-impatiently-dump-fish-food-in-japanese-koi-pond/ https://www.snopes.com/did-trump-impatiently-dump-fish-food-... * "CNN mocked for airing segment on Trump's soda consumption while NYC faced terror attack": http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/11/cnn-mocked-for-airing-segment-on-trumps-soda-consumption-while-nyc-faced-terror-attack.html http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/11/cnn-mocked-f...