14 ms·
How Lies Spread Online
- metabagel 8y agoThis is not a new phenomenon. https://fair.org/extra/the-right-of-the-story/ https://fair.org/extra/the-right-of-the-story/
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- css 8y agoKind of annoying how they mention the journal article and then don't link to it. Here is the actual research (paywalled): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146.full
- shmageggy 8y agoThis drives me nuts that our supposedly best publications still have not developed the habit of linking sources, especially on an article that is concerned with spreading falsities. The irony is overwhelming.
- kingbirdy 8y agoThis is an op-ed so in this case I'd say it's more on the author than the publication. In general though I agree, it'd be good to see a well cited news source.
- fireattack 8y agoThe author is also one of the paper's author, maybe he intentionally wanted to avoid link to its own publication?
- js2 8y ago> Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect… Jonathan Swift (1710) https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
- jcl 8y agoThanks for the quoteinvestigator link... I was likewise reminded of Terry Pratchett's version, also mentioned there: "A lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on." It's quite amazing that the researchers essentially quantified those idioms. And it's also somewhat surprising that none of the idioms found their way into the article. :)
- js2 8y agoIndeed, I went looking for the version I was familiar with ("A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.") in order to correctly attribute it, whereupon I discovered the source of that version is unknown, so I quoted the Swift version since I it's centuries older, sourced, and I liked it best after reading them all.
- sparkling 8y agoReminder: this the same news paper that, on election day, predicted a 98.2% chance of Hillary Clinton winning the election.
- avgDev 8y agoMaking a prediction and writing about events that have occurred is two different things. Goldman Sachs predicted World Cup winners and were wrong.
- orf 8y agoAre you suggesting she did not have that chance of winning? I think you are misunderstanding polls. Vote wise they where spot on.
- jibal 8y agoThey said 85%, not 92.8%
- andrewingram 8y agoWell 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.
- jibal 8y agoActually, according to their prediction, Trump wins 3 in every 20 times: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential...
- andrewingram 8y agoGood to know, but my comment was on the assumption that the parent comment provided the correct percentage.
- sien 8y agoYou hire Judith Miller to write about WMDs. Then get 'quality' news to publish it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller The cost of the NYT's 'disinformation' about Iraq was a war that cost hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.
- influx 8y agoIt's treasonous not to trust the 17 intelligence agencies.
- 1337biz 8y agoYour irony is too subtle.
- prolikewh0a 8y agoI can't tell if you're just using sarcasm here, but there's nothing "treasonous" about not trusting intelligence agencies that throughout history have not been very trustworthy. You should also stop using "treason" incorrectly. Here [1] is a great debate between Glenn Greenwald and James Risen where Glenn breaks down how important it is to not use Treason in an incorrect manner, and explains (sourced) exactly what Treason is defined as under US law with examples throughout history. [1] https://youtu.be/LsY70_uIXNc?t=5m34s https://youtu.be/LsY70_uIXNc?t=5m34s
- dredmorbius 8y agoThe missed penny is what notable persons have long and loudly proclaimed distrust of the US Intelligence Community.
- monocasa 8y agoYeah well, a broken clock can still be right twice a day.
- SpikeDad 8y agoInteresting to have Greenwald define treason. Is he trying to keep himself out of that illustrious crowd? Guess living in a foreign country makes one braver than usual.
- cityzen 8y agoNPR did a similar story/podcast on fake news in June: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/25/623231337/fake-news-an-origin-story https://www.npr.org/2018/06/25/623231337/fake-news-an-origin... Interesting to read that fake news is just part of our culture. It seems like a real problem now is the hyper-awereness that the internet has brought us all.
- WalterBright 8y agoI'm sure the NYT's articles are never biased :-)
- ChuckMcM 8y agoThis 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 example, a false story about a series of events leading up to an outcome, there are no events mentioned that suggest randomness or any discussion of alternate ways the outcome could have come about. Where as truthful stories have either tests that were done for counter factual narratives or suggestions for other areas that were not covered as completely. Basically a common theme in truthful stories was they still included "inconvenient" facts which might or might not be significant and the false stories contain no such facts or even hints. If I still had an ontologist I could talk to I'd try to figure out if we score stories using an ontological structure score (where perfect scoring is most likely false :-).
- pnathan 8y agoThis is used in assessing stories from history as well - a story with aspects that reflect poorly on the hero is considered to be more likely to be truthful than one that lauds the hero in all things.
- ChuckMcM 8y agoIt makes sense, I just am trying to figure out if there is a reasonable way to numerically denote this characteristic.
- dredmorbius 8y agoI ran across an intance of this from a few years ago ... 1892: the J.P. Morgan and the Bankers' Manifesto hoax. This turned up as a meme, but it seemed a litle too good to be true. Still, the story had legs, getting passed around progressive-party newspapers of the late 19th centuries (or at least the ones with snoozing or unscrupulous editors who didn't denounce the author), in books, and by Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. (father of the aviator) on the House floor in Washington, D.C. And in contemporary Internet memes 125 years later. The denunciations are piquant. This from The advocate and Topeka tribune. (Topeka, Kan.), 14 Sept. 1892: In an editorial note last week calling attention of editors of reform to the so-called Wall street circular fake first published in the Chicago Daily Press, we wrote that "the thing originated in the fertile brain of T. W. Gilruth, who held a position for a time on the editorial staff of the Press." The compositor transformed the name into Gilmore. We desire to make this correction lest there be somebody named Gilmore who might object to the charge, and because the fraud should be placed where it belongs. Gilruth is a snide, and if anyone who knows him has not yet found it out, he is liable to do so to his sorrow. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85031982/1892-09-14/ed-1/seq-6/ http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85031982/1892-09-14... That corrects an earlier account which misstated Gilruth's name: The Great West and one or two other exchanges reproduce the Chicago Daily Press fake purporting to be a Wall street circular. The thing originated in the fertile brain of F. W. Gilmore [sic: should be T. W. Gilruth], who held a position for a time at the Press. He has been challenged time and again to produce the original if it is genuine, and has failed to do so. The thing is a fraud and so is its author, and neither of them is worthy of the confidence of the people. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85031982/1892-09-07/ed-1/seq-6/ http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn85031982/1892-09-07... I've not found another substantial examination of the particulars, so I wrote one myself. https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/39w8u4/jp_morgan_and_the_bankers_manifesto_of_1892_hoax/ https://old.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/39w8u4/jp_morg...
- JBiserkov 8y agoMostly via HTTP(S).
- Jerry2 8y agoAfter 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQcCIzjz9_s [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharyl_Attkisson
- SpikeDad 8y agoCome 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.
- cosmojg 8y agoDo you have any arguments against the content of her talk?
- jibal 8y agoHer talk is a carefully crafted piece of propaganda (which is consistent with her career as a right wing ideologue who is quite selective of who and what she chooses to investigate). The reality is that, for about 2 weeks in 2016, the term "fake news" was used to refer to the sort of manufactured lies that were spread by Russian bots on Facebook ... before the right wing coopted term to refer to actual news stories from legitimate news organizations, and to this day Trump and the right wing routinely dismiss true stories as "fake news". (And of course some right winger was quick to downvote this.)
- dang 8y agoPlease don't use HN for ideological battle. Edit: it looks like you've been doing this a ton, as well as posting uncivil and unsubstantive comments repeatedly. We ban accounts that do this. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
- growlist 8y agoIn 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 overtones.
- ajross 8y ago> 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 Ministry of Truth overtones. There are literally multiple competing fact checking organizations. How exactly does that have overtones of centrally enforced authority? How in particular given that the actual central authority in this country has made a habit about calling correct but unflattering coverage "lies"?
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago>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 It gives reason to doubt based on a known political bias. >How exactly does that have overtones of centrally enforced authority? Because it implies one is unable to determine truths and falsehoods for themselves
- growlist 8y agoThe 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/liberals-donald-trump-support https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/23/libera...
- mirimir 8y agotl;dr = lies spread faster because they're more shocking And not, I think, just because they're more shocking. Also because they're more interesting. And more validating. Because they simplify complexity and ambiguity. While it's unfair to single out NYT's role, the Iraq War was indeed a major propaganda effort. It worked, I think, because it helped many people deal with 9/11. But the largely unasked question has been "Whose propaganda effort?" Except, ironically enough, for stuff that many would call "fake news" or "conspiracy theory". I suspect that much of the "fake news" that mainstream liberals are upset about now is driven by Russian propaganda. Back in the day, Russia targeted mainly the radical left. But by the mid 80s, they were focusing more on the radical right and libertarians. And for those that remember Joseph McCarthy, that is extremely ironic.
- trentnix 8y agoYou misspelled Jayson Blair.
- DonaldFisk 8y agoI know the authors suggested and found some evidence for novelty being the reason why false news is so compelling, but might it not be that it fits whatever narrative or agenda is being promoted? You can make up whatever false news you want, but you can't make up facts, so false news will always be more likely to fit the narrative. Another possible reason is that if you tell your friends something is true, and later find out from a more reliable source that you were deceived, you then look gullible believing it in the first place, and even if you don't tell them, you'll feel gullible unless you hang on to your original belief.
- iamleppert 8y agoThis 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 good or bad per se, as it does with the path of least resistance; a lie is almost always more connvienent than the truth. People who are most successful tend to be those that are the most dishonest and are also very good at knowing how to tell fact from fiction which they then use to create more elaborate offensive and defensive models of the world. If you think about it this way it doesn’t seem that odd, as even nature and evolution are constantly truth testing, it’s like at some level you must assume everything is a lie until proven otherwise, and even that evidence may itself be just a more elaborate falsehood. People rarely go to the movies to be entertained by the truth.
- fouc 8y agoThings are probably more nuanced than that. People are also honest by nature. Telling the truth has way less cognitive load, and people generally aren't going to be stupid enough to get stuck in weaving an elaborate net of lies just to support that one original lie that they refuse to come clean on. But there's also certain levels of dishonesty or lies by omission etc that people will do at a social level. Sometimes it's even beneficial for greater harmony between people. I bet game theorists have studied this type of stuff quite a bit.
- forapurpose 8y agoIIRC, 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.
- Tycho 8y agoYou know what else spreads online? Truth that the mainstream media wont touch, or would rather suppress. Take for instance this smug, misrepresentative Washington Post editorial on a documentary about the geopolitically significant Magnitsky Act, a film which western audiences would probably never see if it wasn't for the internet. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russian-agitprop-lands-in-washington/2016/06/19/784805ec-33dc-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3a74c4293ce4 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russian-agitprop-lan...
- known 8y ago"Media does not spread free opinion; It generates opinion" --Oswald,1918 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democracy,_media,_and_money https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democr...