5 ms·

You don't need knowledge of evo-psych or "memetics" (whatever that means) to distinguish most sketchy sites from reputable ones. It may be tricky to distinguish

You don't need knowledge of evo-psych or "memetics" (whatever that means) to distinguish most sketchy sites from reputable ones. It may be tricky to distinguish more carefully-assembled fake news sites, but most of these bogus websites/Facebook groups are easy to pick out via stylistic cues alone.

ben_w 8y ago
I think it’s unwise to rely on the incompetence of fake news websites. Compare two UK newspapers, The Guardian and The Daily Mail. They are both well-known and have popular domains which have been around for ages. Considering only their contradictions on the topic of Brexit, one of them must be about as dangerously out of touch with reality as it is possible to be. Which one? I know which one I believe, but I am not a lawyer, a trade negotiator, or a politician.
- maldusiecle 8y ago
  If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. It is true that stylistic cues won't tell you everything. The rest, unfortunately, is a lot harder to teach. Avoiding the obviously-shoddy sites is sufficient as a start; the rest is really going to be dependent on particular knowledge in areas like science, history, etc. EDIT: Kinda surprised at the downvotes I'm getting here. Have you _looked_ at the Daily Mail frontpage?
  - ben_w 8y ago
    > If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. Then you missed my point. Of course I can tell the difference, but which one is true — the one founded in 1821 or the one founded in 1896?
    - maldusiecle 8y ago
      Don't look at the founding date, that's completely irrelevant. Look at the Daily Mail homepage. Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid?
      - BeetleB 8y ago
        >Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid? I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. Fake news sites have been around for a lot longer than people think. I remember quite a few years ago reading an article about an event where some minority Christians were being mistreated in some non-Christian country. It looked like any other news article. The incident in question was reported in multiple news sites. Then one person (or a team?) exposed it all. The event never happened. It was not obvious, and he/they had to do a lot of sleuthing to find out who owned the sites - a Christian advocacy group. All the other sites reporting on the incident were likewise (perhaps all under the same company - can't remember). Years before 2016. The only thing that may have clued me into it being fake news was that I hadn't heard of the news site. But then again, most people have not heard of most news sites. Don't look at style or appearances. Really. Don't. Oh, and as bad as The Daily Mail is, it is full of accurate (albeit misleading) material - compared to a typical tabloid in the US. I can easily dismiss nonsense I see on tabloids in the grocery store. With The Daily Mail, I have to work to find out if it is true or not.
        maldusiecle 8y ago
        > I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. You're reading my argument backwards. I'm not saying you should trust any website that looks reputable. I'm saying you should _distrust_ any site that looks _disreputable_. That's the first step, and it's a huge improvement over trusting everything (which is what most people who buy these fake news sites do).
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  The Guardian are known for some excellent investigative journalism bad sadly even they can't seem to resist the temptation to put up a poorly researched opinion piece / rant or two occasionally to pander to their left-wing readership. That said, the Daily Mail is a gutter tabloid and among the worst of the worst. I'd lean more towards the Guardian but I don't think I'd trust either outright.
  - maldusiecle 8y ago
    I'd agree not all of the Guardian's opinion pieces are trustworthy. This is true of a lot of news sources. I'd consider the ability to distinguish opinion pieces from factual reporting as one of the easy-to-learn stylistic differences to check, but I can see how that's unclear.
mcculley 8y ago
I find evolutionary and psychology and memetics to be powerful models for understanding my own cognitive biases and limiting their influence. Stylistic cues are not sufficient to determine if something is intended to manipulate me. Your mileage may vary, of course. I am intrigued that you would discredit such a model without knowing what it means.

ben_w 8y ago

I think it’s unwise to rely on the incompetence of fake news websites. Compare two UK newspapers, The Guardian and The Daily Mail. They are both well-known and have popular domains which have been around for ages. Considering only their contradictions on the topic of Brexit, one of them must be about as dangerously out of touch with reality as it is possible to be. Which one? I know which one I believe, but I am not a lawyer, a trade negotiator, or a politician.

maldusiecle 8y ago
If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. It is true that stylistic cues won't tell you everything. The rest, unfortunately, is a lot harder to teach. Avoiding the obviously-shoddy sites is sufficient as a start; the rest is really going to be dependent on particular knowledge in areas like science, history, etc. EDIT: Kinda surprised at the downvotes I'm getting here. Have you _looked_ at the Daily Mail frontpage?
- ben_w 8y ago
  > If you can't tell the difference between The Daily Mail and The Guardian based on stylistic cues, I don't know what to tell you. Then you missed my point. Of course I can tell the difference, but which one is true — the one founded in 1821 or the one founded in 1896?
  - maldusiecle 8y ago
    Don't look at the founding date, that's completely irrelevant. Look at the Daily Mail homepage. Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid?
    - BeetleB 8y ago
      >Does it look like a news site, or does it look like a tabloid? I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. Fake news sites have been around for a lot longer than people think. I remember quite a few years ago reading an article about an event where some minority Christians were being mistreated in some non-Christian country. It looked like any other news article. The incident in question was reported in multiple news sites. Then one person (or a team?) exposed it all. The event never happened. It was not obvious, and he/they had to do a lot of sleuthing to find out who owned the sites - a Christian advocacy group. All the other sites reporting on the incident were likewise (perhaps all under the same company - can't remember). Years before 2016. The only thing that may have clued me into it being fake news was that I hadn't heard of the news site. But then again, most people have not heard of most news sites. Don't look at style or appearances. Really. Don't. Oh, and as bad as The Daily Mail is, it is full of accurate (albeit misleading) material - compared to a typical tabloid in the US. I can easily dismiss nonsense I see on tabloids in the grocery store. With The Daily Mail, I have to work to find out if it is true or not.
      - maldusiecle 8y ago
        > I think you've just demonstrated why many people believe fake news. A lot of them are set up to look like regular news sites. You're reading my argument backwards. I'm not saying you should trust any website that looks reputable. I'm saying you should _distrust_ any site that looks _disreputable_. That's the first step, and it's a huge improvement over trusting everything (which is what most people who buy these fake news sites do).
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
The Guardian are known for some excellent investigative journalism bad sadly even they can't seem to resist the temptation to put up a poorly researched opinion piece / rant or two occasionally to pander to their left-wing readership. That said, the Daily Mail is a gutter tabloid and among the worst of the worst. I'd lean more towards the Guardian but I don't think I'd trust either outright.
- maldusiecle 8y ago
  I'd agree not all of the Guardian's opinion pieces are trustworthy. This is true of a lot of news sources. I'd consider the ability to distinguish opinion pieces from factual reporting as one of the easy-to-learn stylistic differences to check, but I can see how that's unclear.

mcculley 8y ago

I find evolutionary and psychology and memetics to be powerful models for understanding my own cognitive biases and limiting their influence. Stylistic cues are not sufficient to determine if something is intended to manipulate me. Your mileage may vary, of course. I am intrigued that you would discredit such a model without knowing what it means.