5 ms·

Taiwan's elections are this weekend and there's been a lot of articles about disinformation campaigns there ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/technology/taiw

by sct202 7y ago

Taiwan's elections are this weekend and there's been a lot of articles about disinformation campaigns there ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/technology/taiwan-election-china-disinformation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/technology/taiwan-electio... ), and it's interesting that the guy being interviewed is from there and speaking so openly about doing it.

mistermann 7y ago
I believe peddlers of disinformation can afford to be completely brazen about it, because nothing will ever be done about it. Oh sure, people love to complain about specific instances of disinformation (outright false or even just somewhat misleading information), but there is no similar love for even considering the idea that humanity, all of it down to a person, largely runs on half-truths and semi-delusional thinking.
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  I'll probably get downvoted for this, but here goes... I listened to a podcast with a guy who runs a ring of disinformation sites in the US. I don't think it's as big of a problem as most people think. People don't get hit with some disinformation article and then suddenly start supporting another political party. Fake news is mostly just something to make people feel better about their views -- which are already completely set in stone. Yes, it's fueling a bit of radicalization, which isn't great. But I think more people are focused on this because they think it's the reason one party is getting more votes than the other. It's just not how fake news works.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    Your theory is that babies are born with political views, or what? And it's important to spend money make them feel better about their wrong beliefs, even though it doesn't matter?
    - seppin 7y ago
      > Your theory is that babies are born with political views, or what? Actually, yes. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17380040-our-political-nature https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17380040-our-political-n...
    - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
      Most people are intelligent enough to form views outside of disinformation. For the people that read disinformation, their minds are -- for the most part -- completely made up already. People don't go from being Democrats or swing voters to reading an article about how Hillary Clinton feasts on aborted babies in a whore house she runs in Russia, to suddenly voting for Trump. I mean, sure, some people do. But the vast majority of disinformation is reinforcing.
  - dfxm12 7y ago
    I don't think it's as big of a problem as most people think. Yes, it's fueling a bit of radicalization, which isn't great. What is the output of this radicalization? Just how big of a problem is it compared to what people are making out it? We know someone opened fire a pizza place as a direct result of this. Do you think the rise in hate crime (especially violent crime) is in some way related, too? Perps have left behind manifestos, like at El Paso, Christchurch, etc., with the same language as disinfo campaigns. People are focused on this because it's the reason that people are being murdered because of their religion or where they were born.
    - cwkoss 7y ago
      > We know someone opened fire a pizza place as a direct result of this. Pizzagate resulted in someone firing a single shot at the lock on a closet door to open it. In a discussion of disinformation, I think your characterization is misleading and exemplary of disinformation as well - in a manner quite similar to the disinformation that led that individual to decide to do a vigilante raid on the pizza parlor.
      - zach_garwood 7y ago
        "Opened fire" and "firing a single shot" are the same thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
        cwkoss 7y ago
        The difference is that "opened fire" is a weasel word in this instance- it is misleading as it linguistically leaves open the interpretation that multiple people were injured or killed
        deith 7y ago
        Until I read cwkoss' comment right now I had always assumed someone came to the pizza joint and started firing rounds at people. I admit I'm not American so I never cared enough to look up what "opened fire" meant here, but I think it's evident what people will think of when they read that expression. Hint: not someone shooting a closet's lock once to open it.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    My intuition tells me you're right. My intuition also tells me that a big part of the reason people are so focused on it is that it gives them a reason to hate on their out-group. The reason I feel this is because when you encounter someone engaging in "group <x> is bad because <y>" type of behavior, and you ask them how they know(!) that <y> is true, they rarely have an answer, and they get even angrier.
  - nl 7y ago
    I don't think it's as big of a problem as most people think. Misinformation spread on Facebook led to the genocide in Myanmar[1]. Yes, it's fueling a bit of radicalization, which isn't great. Radicalization is the real problem because it leads to rejection of democracy as a method for solving disagreements. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook/u-n-investigators-cite-facebook-role-in-myanmar-crisis-idUSKCN1GO2PN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook...
    - gjs278 7y ago
      not a single person died due to facebook. it’s funny you believe this.
      - nl 7y ago
        What do you mean "due to Facebook"? It's true that the Facebook app or company didn't suddenly kill them. But my claim was very specific ("Misinformation spread on Facebook led to the genocide in Myanmar") and well backed up by the evidence. It's the same as the role Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) played during the Rwandan genocide. http://www.genocidearchiverwanda.org.rw/index.php/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines http://www.genocidearchiverwanda.org.rw/index.php/Radio_T%C3... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines#Prior_to_the_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
        gjs278 7y ago
        the genocide would have happened no matter what facebook did. nothing in source [1] you provided backs the claim up. people don’t start or stop genocide based on facebook posts.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - nl 7y ago
        Facebook itself acknowledges its role: The report concludes that, prior to this year, we weren’t doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence. We agree that we can and should do more.[1] and In a surprising concession before the Senate intelligence committee in September 2018, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg even accepted that Facebook may have a legal obligation to take down accounts that incentivize violence in countries like Myanmar. Sandberg called the situation “devastating” and acknowledged that the company needed to do more, but highlighted that Facebook had put increased resources behind being able to review content in Burmese. Shortly before the hearing, Facebook announced that it had taken the unusual step of removing a number of pages and accounts linked to the Myanmar military for “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” and in order to prevent them from “further inflam[ing] ethnic and religious tensions.”[2] The report Facebook itself commissioned and posted at [1] says: the consequences for the victim are severe, with lives and bodily integrity placed at risk from incitement to violence. and there is a high likelihood of these risks occurring in practice(they have occurred in the past and are happening today) (page 35). I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to believe if Facebook themselves say it too. [1] https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ [2]https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebooks-role-genocide-myanmar-new-reporting-complicates-narrative https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebooks-role-genocide-myanmar-...

by sct202 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

I believe peddlers of disinformation can afford to be completely brazen about it, because nothing will ever be done about it. Oh sure, people love to complain about specific instances of disinformation (outright false or even just somewhat misleading information), but there is no similar love for even considering the idea that humanity, all of it down to a person, largely runs on half-truths and semi-delusional thinking.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
I'll probably get downvoted for this, but here goes... I listened to a podcast with a guy who runs a ring of disinformation sites in the US. I don't think it's as big of a problem as most people think. People don't get hit with some disinformation article and then suddenly start supporting another political party. Fake news is mostly just something to make people feel better about their views -- which are already completely set in stone. Yes, it's fueling a bit of radicalization, which isn't great. But I think more people are focused on this because they think it's the reason one party is getting more votes than the other. It's just not how fake news works.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  Your theory is that babies are born with political views, or what? And it's important to spend money make them feel better about their wrong beliefs, even though it doesn't matter?
  - seppin 7y ago
    > Your theory is that babies are born with political views, or what? Actually, yes. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17380040-our-political-nature https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17380040-our-political-n...
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    Most people are intelligent enough to form views outside of disinformation. For the people that read disinformation, their minds are -- for the most part -- completely made up already. People don't go from being Democrats or swing voters to reading an article about how Hillary Clinton feasts on aborted babies in a whore house she runs in Russia, to suddenly voting for Trump. I mean, sure, some people do. But the vast majority of disinformation is reinforcing.
- dfxm12 7y ago
  I don't think it's as big of a problem as most people think. Yes, it's fueling a bit of radicalization, which isn't great. What is the output of this radicalization? Just how big of a problem is it compared to what people are making out it? We know someone opened fire a pizza place as a direct result of this. Do you think the rise in hate crime (especially violent crime) is in some way related, too? Perps have left behind manifestos, like at El Paso, Christchurch, etc., with the same language as disinfo campaigns. People are focused on this because it's the reason that people are being murdered because of their religion or where they were born.
  - cwkoss 7y ago
    > We know someone opened fire a pizza place as a direct result of this. Pizzagate resulted in someone firing a single shot at the lock on a closet door to open it. In a discussion of disinformation, I think your characterization is misleading and exemplary of disinformation as well - in a manner quite similar to the disinformation that led that individual to decide to do a vigilante raid on the pizza parlor.
    - zach_garwood 7y ago
      "Opened fire" and "firing a single shot" are the same thing. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
      - cwkoss 7y ago
        The difference is that "opened fire" is a weasel word in this instance- it is misleading as it linguistically leaves open the interpretation that multiple people were injured or killed
      - deith 7y ago
        Until I read cwkoss' comment right now I had always assumed someone came to the pizza joint and started firing rounds at people. I admit I'm not American so I never cared enough to look up what "opened fire" meant here, but I think it's evident what people will think of when they read that expression. Hint: not someone shooting a closet's lock once to open it.
- mistermann 7y ago
  My intuition tells me you're right. My intuition also tells me that a big part of the reason people are so focused on it is that it gives them a reason to hate on their out-group. The reason I feel this is because when you encounter someone engaging in "group <x> is bad because <y>" type of behavior, and you ask them how they know(!) that <y> is true, they rarely have an answer, and they get even angrier.
- nl 7y ago
  I don't think it's as big of a problem as most people think. Misinformation spread on Facebook led to the genocide in Myanmar[1]. Yes, it's fueling a bit of radicalization, which isn't great. Radicalization is the real problem because it leads to rejection of democracy as a method for solving disagreements. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook/u-n-investigators-cite-facebook-role-in-myanmar-crisis-idUSKCN1GO2PN https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-facebook...
  - gjs278 7y ago
    not a single person died due to facebook. it’s funny you believe this.
    - nl 7y ago
      What do you mean "due to Facebook"? It's true that the Facebook app or company didn't suddenly kill them. But my claim was very specific ("Misinformation spread on Facebook led to the genocide in Myanmar") and well backed up by the evidence. It's the same as the role Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) played during the Rwandan genocide. http://www.genocidearchiverwanda.org.rw/index.php/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines http://www.genocidearchiverwanda.org.rw/index.php/Radio_T%C3... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3257748.stm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines#Prior_to_the_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Lib...
      - gjs278 7y ago
        the genocide would have happened no matter what facebook did. nothing in source [1] you provided backs the claim up. people don’t start or stop genocide based on facebook posts.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - nl 7y ago
      Facebook itself acknowledges its role: The report concludes that, prior to this year, we weren’t doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence. We agree that we can and should do more.[1] and In a surprising concession before the Senate intelligence committee in September 2018, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg even accepted that Facebook may have a legal obligation to take down accounts that incentivize violence in countries like Myanmar. Sandberg called the situation “devastating” and acknowledged that the company needed to do more, but highlighted that Facebook had put increased resources behind being able to review content in Burmese. Shortly before the hearing, Facebook announced that it had taken the unusual step of removing a number of pages and accounts linked to the Myanmar military for “coordinated inauthentic behaviour” and in order to prevent them from “further inflam[ing] ethnic and religious tensions.”[2] The report Facebook itself commissioned and posted at [1] says: the consequences for the victim are severe, with lives and bodily integrity placed at risk from incitement to violence. and there is a high likelihood of these risks occurring in practice(they have occurred in the past and are happening today) (page 35). I think it's a pretty reasonable thing to believe if Facebook themselves say it too. [1] https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ https://about.fb.com/news/2018/11/myanmar-hria/ [2]https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebooks-role-genocide-myanmar-new-reporting-complicates-narrative https://www.lawfareblog.com/facebooks-role-genocide-myanmar-...