3 ms·

It is a hard problem. The answer is it will never fully be solved but if there is enough competing information and facts are out there, you might just get most

It is a hard problem. The answer is it will never fully be solved but if there is enough competing information and facts are out there, you might just get most of the people to hold down the fort. There will always be people fooled by disinformation/misinformation and everyone probably has been fooled by some, even highly skilled intel agents that purposefully look for it and have access to more info. As long as most people can differentiate fake/real fact/fiction/bias then we are good. I do think it is better to have this information out to be fought, when you hide it, critical thinking skills aren't improved over time, and we become more susceptible to it. We need to solve it before AI and neural networks target and learn about each one of us, and where we are gullible or biased. Some of the disinformation/misinformation/fake news out there is already algorithm driven and when it can be tuned to each individual's psychology that is when it gets scary. Already these networks are grouping people in smaller and smaller target groups and the result is highly effective. Education and critical thinking is the only way, people need to challenge all authority and all information, especially after emergencies/disasters/shock/attacks as that is when the hoards emerge the most.

pjc50 8y ago
The more competing information, the fewer people left holding a full set of accurate cards; it's becoming easier to micro-target the lies to peel off individuals with what they really want to believe. > as most people can differentiate fake/real fact/fiction/bias then we are good Generally they can't, because truth is not intrinsic to the news article you have in front of you. You either check it against what you already know ("confirmation bias"), against the source of authority, or you have to go do actual research (huge amount of work and nearly always infeasible).
- drawkbox 8y ago
  It is a difficult problem, but the alternative is to have something like a Ministry of Truth, and that is scarier than information out there competing in the market.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    Do you think your version of the truth can honestly compete with the version of the truth being pushed by foreign powers? Or someone's version of the truth being pushed by the hyper-wealthy to decry vaccinations or climate change? We already have a Ministry of Truth, funded by the people who can round up the most bots or the most funds to spread their voice as far and as loudly as possible. I've spoken before about my mother falling for literal propaganda on Facebook before and if you don't see a problem yet, I recommend you start talking with your family and friends about what they consume and see.
    - drawkbox 8y ago
      The truth is we have always had propaganda all around us and gossip/rumor was even bigger pre-internet. Now we are absolutely flooded and I am not advocating against fighting it, I am just advocating against blocking or expecting some ultimate source as the truth. Critical thinking can be helped by educating and making it clear that news is like advertising today, it is mostly marketing. Like on commercials when you have the fine print or pharma meds when you have to list side effects. News should also present all sides and ones that don't should be seen as biased fully. Most people know marketing is inflated truth or lies, the same needs to be reflected of news and media. Facts and information can help decipher if it is real or not, even if people aren't paying attention or care about facts. Even small stuff like Youtube saying a certain video is marketing, unconfirmed or from a source funded by a foreign government, that is all helpful. Same way people see content in a TV ad or in a tabloid, and know not to think it is real. Now there will always be people that believe fake things, there are still people that buy goods from the phone from telemarketers, but ultimately most people know to raise their level of critical thinking and expect a higher level of trust in those areas. A big problem is when people automatically trust a source too much or it feeds into their confirmation bias, sometimes you can't change that but you shouldn't block all content or have a corruptible institution to manage it, because the people that can develop critical thinking stop relying on those skills and now you have a bigger problem. The 'truth' needs to be broadcast from many sources not a single source, the oceans of information need to be mostly fact based/correct with more quantity and quality than the tabloid fake news. "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." --Mark Twain
- arethuza 8y ago
  "it's becoming easier to micro-target the lies to peel off individuals with what they really want to believe." Or, more powerfully, what they are afraid of.
- raverbashing 8y ago
  Checking against what you know is not confirmation bias necessarily (example, not taking flat-earth or infinity-energy videos seriously) At the same time even the history of science is filled with self-contradictions against what is known, what is ignored and what is discovered, 100% "skepticism" leads people nowhere.
frereubu 8y ago
I agree that it's a hard problem, but it feels like people are shying away from the difficulty if I'm honest. My issue is particularly with social media, where people aren't presented with a balance of information. Feed algorithms are structured to increase engagement at the expense of everything else. It's this lack of balance combined with people's confirmation bias that concerns me, particularly when it comes to things that have a direct impact such as anti-vaccine information. I don't care about flat earth stuff, stupid though it may be, and I think it's right to make a distinction between harmless idiocy and the clearly harmful stuff. There's going to be a lot of grey area, but this is true of a huge amount of case law already.

pjc50 8y ago

The more competing information, the fewer people left holding a full set of accurate cards; it's becoming easier to micro-target the lies to peel off individuals with what they really want to believe. > as most people can differentiate fake/real fact/fiction/bias then we are good Generally they can't, because truth is not intrinsic to the news article you have in front of you. You either check it against what you already know ("confirmation bias"), against the source of authority, or you have to go do actual research (huge amount of work and nearly always infeasible).

drawkbox 8y ago
It is a difficult problem, but the alternative is to have something like a Ministry of Truth, and that is scarier than information out there competing in the market.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  Do you think your version of the truth can honestly compete with the version of the truth being pushed by foreign powers? Or someone's version of the truth being pushed by the hyper-wealthy to decry vaccinations or climate change? We already have a Ministry of Truth, funded by the people who can round up the most bots or the most funds to spread their voice as far and as loudly as possible. I've spoken before about my mother falling for literal propaganda on Facebook before and if you don't see a problem yet, I recommend you start talking with your family and friends about what they consume and see.
  - drawkbox 8y ago
    The truth is we have always had propaganda all around us and gossip/rumor was even bigger pre-internet. Now we are absolutely flooded and I am not advocating against fighting it, I am just advocating against blocking or expecting some ultimate source as the truth. Critical thinking can be helped by educating and making it clear that news is like advertising today, it is mostly marketing. Like on commercials when you have the fine print or pharma meds when you have to list side effects. News should also present all sides and ones that don't should be seen as biased fully. Most people know marketing is inflated truth or lies, the same needs to be reflected of news and media. Facts and information can help decipher if it is real or not, even if people aren't paying attention or care about facts. Even small stuff like Youtube saying a certain video is marketing, unconfirmed or from a source funded by a foreign government, that is all helpful. Same way people see content in a TV ad or in a tabloid, and know not to think it is real. Now there will always be people that believe fake things, there are still people that buy goods from the phone from telemarketers, but ultimately most people know to raise their level of critical thinking and expect a higher level of trust in those areas. A big problem is when people automatically trust a source too much or it feeds into their confirmation bias, sometimes you can't change that but you shouldn't block all content or have a corruptible institution to manage it, because the people that can develop critical thinking stop relying on those skills and now you have a bigger problem. The 'truth' needs to be broadcast from many sources not a single source, the oceans of information need to be mostly fact based/correct with more quantity and quality than the tabloid fake news. "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." --Mark Twain
arethuza 8y ago
"it's becoming easier to micro-target the lies to peel off individuals with what they really want to believe." Or, more powerfully, what they are afraid of.
raverbashing 8y ago
Checking against what you know is not confirmation bias necessarily (example, not taking flat-earth or infinity-energy videos seriously) At the same time even the history of science is filled with self-contradictions against what is known, what is ignored and what is discovered, 100% "skepticism" leads people nowhere.

frereubu 8y ago

I agree that it's a hard problem, but it feels like people are shying away from the difficulty if I'm honest. My issue is particularly with social media, where people aren't presented with a balance of information. Feed algorithms are structured to increase engagement at the expense of everything else. It's this lack of balance combined with people's confirmation bias that concerns me, particularly when it comes to things that have a direct impact such as anti-vaccine information. I don't care about flat earth stuff, stupid though it may be, and I think it's right to make a distinction between harmless idiocy and the clearly harmful stuff. There's going to be a lot of grey area, but this is true of a huge amount of case law already.