6 ms·

This. We've entered a world where the lowest common denominator of information is being used as primary source for current events. That's asinine.

phs318u 6y ago
But is that really new? Other than scale and reach (quantitative difference), how is that any different qualitatively from the old grapevine/gossip network? "My dad's co-worker's, girlfriend's uncle works at ... and said..."
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  the scale and reach
- buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
  “My dad's co-worker's, girlfriend's uncle works at ... and said...” doesn’t reach the whole world instantaneously
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    It does now.
- mc32 6y ago
  That didn't get disseminated and diffused to tens of millions. If something was published they'd look for official sources or corroborating sources and or secondary evidence. If AP, EFE, UPI, Kyodo, Interfax etc all get their news from one source [Twitter] that's just laziness.
  - baddox 6y ago
    “ A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” has been a cliche for a hundred years. I don’t think internet social networks are a difference in kind, but they probably are a difference in degree.
  - phs318u 6y ago
    Agreed but I said "apart from scale and reach". The point I was trying to make was that people have always found it fairly easy to believe non-credible sources. In this sense, social media is not qualitatively different. Only quantitatively different.
    - ergl 6y ago
      A large quantitative change is indistinguishable from a qualitative change: what's the difference between light rain and a flood, between some small waves and a tsunami?
      - phs318u 6y ago
        What I meant, is that in the eyes/ears of those RECEIVING the information (and believing it uncritically), there's no difference. People have always had a predisposition to uncritically accepting information from those "in the tribe", whether that be extended family, or an internet echo chamber. Presumably this was a survival optimisation. Trust those "close", and distrust "others".
mansion7 6y ago
That's partially because the sources formally seen as primary, at least in the US, have started to be viewed as biased and unreliable. This is largely through their own actions. Examples are legion, but a recent one is debacle at NYT over an op-ed. The news-consuming public was able to view the shenanigans of NYT reporters and staffers, which would formerly been done being the scenes. Many eyes were opened, and I'm certain I wasn't the only one thinking "These are the people in supposed to be trusting for my news and analysis?"
- blisseyGo 6y ago
  I agree. I have been following the rule of not trusting any such significant news for 48 hours and sometimes even a week because often, news gets debunked or more info comes out.
- ihsw 6y ago
  > viewed as biased and unreliable That's because they are.
- SyneRyder 6y ago
  >That's partially because the sources formally seen as primary... Newspapers and news outlets aren't actually "primary source". If you read a quoted tweet from Obama in the New York Times, the NYT isn't the "primary source" - Obama is. The NYT is a secondary source that is quoting from primary source. In that sense, Twitter is actually primary source, because Obama wrote the tweet. Well, except when Twitter is hacked, which is what makes this such a significant event. (But I agree with your general comment, especially having been interviewed a few times and seen how most reporters work. There are a handful of good ones out there though.)
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  I must have missed the example you mention, could you elaborate?
- bosswipe 6y ago
  > This is largely through their own actions. Or it could be the result of a decades long effort to attack credible authoritative institutions by forces that take a dim view of transparency and accountability.
blisseyGo 6y ago
I don't think this is new though. The same thing happens on the radio too - and radio can be hacked too.
ergl 6y ago
>is being used as primary source for current events Is it though? According to Pew, only 20% of US adults use Twitter: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-... In comparison, Fox news is used as a source by 40% of the US population: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-about-fox-news/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-... The share is bigger for Facebook, though (69%)
- heresie-dabord 6y ago
  This is a catastrophic failure in education and in US democracy.

phs318u 6y ago

But is that really new? Other than scale and reach (quantitative difference), how is that any different qualitatively from the old grapevine/gossip network? "My dad's co-worker's, girlfriend's uncle works at ... and said..."

gameswithgo 6y ago
the scale and reach
buzzerbetrayed 6y ago
“My dad's co-worker's, girlfriend's uncle works at ... and said...” doesn’t reach the whole world instantaneously
- jacquesm 6y ago
  It does now.
mc32 6y ago
That didn't get disseminated and diffused to tens of millions. If something was published they'd look for official sources or corroborating sources and or secondary evidence. If AP, EFE, UPI, Kyodo, Interfax etc all get their news from one source [Twitter] that's just laziness.
- baddox 6y ago
  “ A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” has been a cliche for a hundred years. I don’t think internet social networks are a difference in kind, but they probably are a difference in degree.
- phs318u 6y ago
  Agreed but I said "apart from scale and reach". The point I was trying to make was that people have always found it fairly easy to believe non-credible sources. In this sense, social media is not qualitatively different. Only quantitatively different.
  - ergl 6y ago
    A large quantitative change is indistinguishable from a qualitative change: what's the difference between light rain and a flood, between some small waves and a tsunami?
    - phs318u 6y ago
      What I meant, is that in the eyes/ears of those RECEIVING the information (and believing it uncritically), there's no difference. People have always had a predisposition to uncritically accepting information from those "in the tribe", whether that be extended family, or an internet echo chamber. Presumably this was a survival optimisation. Trust those "close", and distrust "others".

mansion7 6y ago

That's partially because the sources formally seen as primary, at least in the US, have started to be viewed as biased and unreliable. This is largely through their own actions. Examples are legion, but a recent one is debacle at NYT over an op-ed. The news-consuming public was able to view the shenanigans of NYT reporters and staffers, which would formerly been done being the scenes. Many eyes were opened, and I'm certain I wasn't the only one thinking "These are the people in supposed to be trusting for my news and analysis?"

blisseyGo 6y ago
I agree. I have been following the rule of not trusting any such significant news for 48 hours and sometimes even a week because often, news gets debunked or more info comes out.
ihsw 6y ago
> viewed as biased and unreliable That's because they are.
SyneRyder 6y ago
>That's partially because the sources formally seen as primary... Newspapers and news outlets aren't actually "primary source". If you read a quoted tweet from Obama in the New York Times, the NYT isn't the "primary source" - Obama is. The NYT is a secondary source that is quoting from primary source. In that sense, Twitter is actually primary source, because Obama wrote the tweet. Well, except when Twitter is hacked, which is what makes this such a significant event. (But I agree with your general comment, especially having been interviewed a few times and seen how most reporters work. There are a handful of good ones out there though.)
dividedbyzero 6y ago
I must have missed the example you mention, could you elaborate?
bosswipe 6y ago
> This is largely through their own actions. Or it could be the result of a decades long effort to attack credible authoritative institutions by forces that take a dim view of transparency and accountability.

blisseyGo 6y ago

I don't think this is new though. The same thing happens on the radio too - and radio can be hacked too.

ergl 6y ago

>is being used as primary source for current events Is it though? According to Pew, only 20% of US adults use Twitter: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-s-adults-using-social-media-including-facebook-is-mostly-unchanged-since-2018/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-... In comparison, Fox news is used as a source by 40% of the US population: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-about-fox-news/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/08/five-facts-... The share is bigger for Facebook, though (69%)

heresie-dabord 6y ago
This is a catastrophic failure in education and in US democracy.