5 ms·

Why not to use detected bots for automatic false-news alerter, like ad-block or spam filter, but for false news? I currently use few accounts, which are spread

Why not to use detected bots for automatic false-news alerter, like ad-block or spam filter, but for false news? I currently use few accounts, which are spreading false-news, as indicators with great efficiency. A bit of automation and a browser plugin from trusted source (like Bellingcat) can help to fight that problem.

ASalazarMX 8y ago
Fake news increase user engagement. I don't think Tweeter can convince its shareholders to invest in lowering user engagement.
- bigiain 8y ago
  In time, we'll look back on this argument and ask ourselves "Why the fuck didn't we all delete our accounts as soon as that became obvious?" (As the world burns around us...)
- jacquesm 8y ago
  That's a reverse tragedy of the commons: the happiness of the one. Twitter's (not Tweeter) shareholders can jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned, you - and they - can't place their own interests over those of the world at large. They're a communications medium and one with serious problems, user engagement metrics come into play when what the users engage with is not outright propaganda. Fake news isn't there to drive user engagement, it is there to derail societies and institutions that underpin those societies.
  - lopmotr 8y ago
    Honestly, is fake news there to derail societies (funded by anarchist ideologues?) or is it to make advertising revenue for the publishers? As far as I've worked out, it's the latter. What's the evidence that it's done with a political aim of derailing a society?
    - toofy 8y ago
      > funded by anarchist ideologues? I could be wrong, but I don’t think the poster above yours were implying the aim was to take down all of society — I think they were implying the goal of some of these networks is to bring down particular targeted societies. I tend to think you’re both correct. I think it’s a combination, some people are into driving traffic through clickbait and some networks are amplifying divisive subjects in an attempt to make The Others appear to be unreasonable. There are certainly many other networks taking part as well. There are definitely other networks of unorganized regular citizens who are also intentionally pushing misinformation in order to make their ideological rivals appear to be completely irrational. Whether these citizen groups are a consequence of the former groups I’m not sure, but knowingly pushing misinformation is definitely not isolated to governments and clickbait sites. We seem to be overrun with unapologetic and ideology driven liars. This is somewhat of a tangent but still related, we can see an active attack on science and higher education right now and it’s pretty clear why, many of these ideological driven people instinctively know they’ll never return to their former glory when science and an educated populace stands in their way. I think we’re going to discover many of the root causes of the misinformation campaigns stem from the same battleground - many groups and individuals who instinctively know science and the-closest-thing-to-truth-we-have stands in their way.
      - lopmotr 8y ago
        People talking about politics always try to make their opponents appear unreasonable. You surely can't be complaining about normal people grouping together and promoting the ideas they believe in, can you? The alternative would be censorship of all political dissent, and suppression of citizens talking about opposition political parties. It would be non-democracy. Your last paragraph about science could be about all sorts of groups but it sounds like you have your personal political enemy in mind. You could be describing Muslims who are opposed to science's revelation that women are as smart as men. Or it could be about liberals who are opposed to science's revelation that the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women (male IQ has a higher standard deviation than female). Or is about feminists who are trying to suppress science that shows that women aren't as hard-working as men? Or is it about transgender activists who are trying to suppress science showing that women are not men? I wouldn't want to censor any of these people. Who am I to say what the one true truth really is for all time? Even science doesn't know that. What I really think the GP meant, but didn't say because when you actually write it down, it sounds ridiculous, was a conspiracy theory like "Putin wants to destroy America so he supported fake news to get Trump elected and since Trump is obviously bad, he'll destroy America.". As far as I can tell, that's what the opposition to fake news is all about - Trump winning the election. That's certainly when it started anyway.

ASalazarMX 8y ago

Fake news increase user engagement. I don't think Tweeter can convince its shareholders to invest in lowering user engagement.

bigiain 8y ago
In time, we'll look back on this argument and ask ourselves "Why the fuck didn't we all delete our accounts as soon as that became obvious?" (As the world burns around us...)
jacquesm 8y ago
That's a reverse tragedy of the commons: the happiness of the one. Twitter's (not Tweeter) shareholders can jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned, you - and they - can't place their own interests over those of the world at large. They're a communications medium and one with serious problems, user engagement metrics come into play when what the users engage with is not outright propaganda. Fake news isn't there to drive user engagement, it is there to derail societies and institutions that underpin those societies.
- lopmotr 8y ago
  Honestly, is fake news there to derail societies (funded by anarchist ideologues?) or is it to make advertising revenue for the publishers? As far as I've worked out, it's the latter. What's the evidence that it's done with a political aim of derailing a society?
  - toofy 8y ago
    > funded by anarchist ideologues? I could be wrong, but I don’t think the poster above yours were implying the aim was to take down all of society — I think they were implying the goal of some of these networks is to bring down particular targeted societies. I tend to think you’re both correct. I think it’s a combination, some people are into driving traffic through clickbait and some networks are amplifying divisive subjects in an attempt to make The Others appear to be unreasonable. There are certainly many other networks taking part as well. There are definitely other networks of unorganized regular citizens who are also intentionally pushing misinformation in order to make their ideological rivals appear to be completely irrational. Whether these citizen groups are a consequence of the former groups I’m not sure, but knowingly pushing misinformation is definitely not isolated to governments and clickbait sites. We seem to be overrun with unapologetic and ideology driven liars. This is somewhat of a tangent but still related, we can see an active attack on science and higher education right now and it’s pretty clear why, many of these ideological driven people instinctively know they’ll never return to their former glory when science and an educated populace stands in their way. I think we’re going to discover many of the root causes of the misinformation campaigns stem from the same battleground - many groups and individuals who instinctively know science and the-closest-thing-to-truth-we-have stands in their way.
    - lopmotr 8y ago
      People talking about politics always try to make their opponents appear unreasonable. You surely can't be complaining about normal people grouping together and promoting the ideas they believe in, can you? The alternative would be censorship of all political dissent, and suppression of citizens talking about opposition political parties. It would be non-democracy. Your last paragraph about science could be about all sorts of groups but it sounds like you have your personal political enemy in mind. You could be describing Muslims who are opposed to science's revelation that women are as smart as men. Or it could be about liberals who are opposed to science's revelation that the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women (male IQ has a higher standard deviation than female). Or is about feminists who are trying to suppress science that shows that women aren't as hard-working as men? Or is it about transgender activists who are trying to suppress science showing that women are not men? I wouldn't want to censor any of these people. Who am I to say what the one true truth really is for all time? Even science doesn't know that. What I really think the GP meant, but didn't say because when you actually write it down, it sounds ridiculous, was a conspiracy theory like "Putin wants to destroy America so he supported fake news to get Trump elected and since Trump is obviously bad, he'll destroy America.". As far as I can tell, that's what the opposition to fake news is all about - Trump winning the election. That's certainly when it started anyway.