7 ms·

I'm coming to the realization that misinformation has to be combatted at the ear and not the mouth. I feel the world needs to go through a learning period where

by hliyan 6y ago

I'm coming to the realization that misinformation has to be combatted at the ear and not the mouth. I feel the world needs to go through a learning period where everyone realizes that whatever they read on the Internet is default false and they need to verify before they believe anything. In the least they need to verify credibility of sources, if not individual articles or tweets. I suppose what we're experiencing now is the pain of that learning period.

old-gregg 6y ago
> I feel the world needs to go through a learning period where everyone realizes that whatever they read on the Internet is default false The world had 50+ years to learn this about the TV, but didn't. Don't hold your breath.
- toolz 6y ago
  It might be counter productive to think it'll get better if people can just assume social media sites will ban/flag misinformation correctly. Maybe only lower profile stuff will slip through, but the volume of misinformation will barely change I suspect and users that haven't learned how to train their own filter might be more likely to believe "unflagged" content.
- frankbreetz 6y ago
  There is more gate keeping for TV, therefore less false information. Anyone can post on Twitter or Facebook.
  - nso95 6y ago
    Have you ever seen Fox news? Any infomercial? Reality tv?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - hliyan 6y ago
      I have to agree. The illusion of gatekeeping is far worse than a complete absence of it.
- wizardforhire 6y ago
  Not only this and the parent comment is also correct but this is the lesson that civilization will continually have to deal with every generation ad nauseam. This is our time and our struggle and how we handle this and all the issues afoot will set the course for humanity. We as a species and our societies by proxy are self actualizing kicking and screaming.
- bori5 6y ago
  The Parade https://archive.org/details/OTRR_X_Minus_One_Singles/XMinusOne55-05-01002TheParade.mp3# https://archive.org/details/OTRR_X_Minus_One_Singles/XMinusO...
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    I don't really see how this is very similar.
taneq 6y ago
Trusting sources and verifying information is actually an incredibly hard game. Being too credulous leaves you open to misinformation, but on the other hand, being uncritically skeptical leads to the current "fake news" environment where (to those involved) no source is credible and we might as well all just believe whatever meets our preconceptions and dismiss the rest.
- colordrops 6y ago
  Do you have a suggestion or thesis? It's not so hard that it couldn't be taught to average humans. Even if it was extremely hard, it should still be taught, considering its importance.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    The problem is that, for many topics, there just isn't a reliable source to go to. Sure, if you want information on scientific topics, you have very good options - go to one of the celebrated journals and read some papers, or at least the press releases from those same journals. When it comes to current domestic affairs (has there been massive election fraud in the US? is ANTIFA terrorizing the US?) then the mainstream media is a trustworthy source. However, if you want to know about the effects of NAFTA, or US policy on Venezuela and how useful it is, or Russian involvement in the US elections, or trickle-down economics, or the benefits of a stimulus package etc, then the NYT, the Economist, and Breitbart are about as likely to give you a trust-worthy picture. So where can you look to, as an average citizen without time to conduct your own research on each topic you potentially care about? I don't think there is any good answer. Society absolutely needs a new independent, small-scale, un-elitist media. "Factory journals" and such - small organizations that are not owned by any powers that be, where a few people can spend the time to digest other sources and try to come up with a more accurate picture. Not multi-million dollar ad-based industrial media (NYT), and not activist propagandist media (Breitbart) - that is always going to be far too heavily biased to have any hope of being a trust-worthy source of information on most topics that they can feasibly ignore. And in case you don't believe me that most US media is a horrible source of information on the outside world, please find one single article on the biggest worker's strike in world history, that happened in January of this year in India. Edit: to be clear: I'm not in any way claiming that Breitbart is a credible news organization to any extent similar to the NYT or Economist. Breitbart are a disgusting organization whose aim is misinformation, and lying comes naturally to them; the NYT and Economist and others like them do have journalistic practices and actually care about the truth, and are excellent sources for some kinds of news - they just have massive biases in certain other areas, especially on foreign and economic policy, where they are not trustworthy, but even then I wouldn't expect outright lies.
chroem- 6y ago
How should we handle misinformation from official sources? It wasn't that long ago the New York Times told the world they had evidence of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction, setting off a chain of events that literally killed hundreds of thousands of people. In today's political climate, the misinformation that led to the Iraq War could never have been exposed. Edit: surely I'm not the only one who remembers how the NYT almost singlehandedly started a war based on false reporting?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Is there even a way to vet information from official sources?
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    Yes, requesting evidence. If they say it is secret, you should conclude the info is false because it very likely is. If there is strategic need to hold it secret, which would probably be < 1% of cases, the public needs a trustable delegate witness. How much trust the witness has is decided by the public.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      playing devil's advocate here: If they need evidence, they can just manufacture some, and you're not going to be the one who inspects it. a chosen expert is going to inspect it and go on television assuring everyone "yes this is genuine evidence." all they really need is the video of the expert and maybe a .pdf that 1% of us will read (and be unable to vet its claims). The various members of the public may have different opinions on the trustworthiness of the witness which means that the government can just make sure that whatever action they are taking is to the benefit of one of these groups and surf on their approval.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  This is not well-understood by most people, even at the time. Saddam Hussein did have a "weapon of mass destruction", poison gas, and used it on Kurds. You can find photos of bodies with white foam from their mouths from that time. He did not have much, if any, nuclear technology, despite the "aluminum tubes" news clips which led to the concern over weapons of mass destruction. (There are specialized alloys used in nuclear processing, but not aluminum.) Aside from that, the main information source was an exiled Iraqi politician that the administration said was credible to construct their narrative. So Saddam Hussein went from a US ally, to a war criminal. One major US newspaper tried to push back, but the rest, including the NYT, just repeated everything the White House said.
nullsense 6y ago
If I apply that logic to your comment then everything on the internet should be assumed to be true.
didibus 6y ago
I'd like to distinguish what this article is talking about, which is the government blocking actual websites, against moderation on private social media websites and platforms. I don't mean that the latter is not necessarily a problem or not, but we definitely should not be mixing up our thoughts and impression of one with the other, they are very very different in nature.
mxcrossb 6y ago
I think the problem is that humans by default assume what they’re reading is true for social cohesion. Especially if you think of social media (or comment sections), I mean why would I ever bother interacting with others if I assume everything I’m being told is false?
raxxorrax 6y ago
We had that around 2010 basically before the threat of fake news was conjured up. Still angry at those panicking...
electrondood 6y ago
I think a two-pronged approach is needed, though it's hard to educate the "ear" when it only wants to hear information confirming it's existing position.
grillvogel 6y ago
probably things are different now, but in the "old days" school assignments didnt consider internet sources to be "real" sources and you had to use books etc for your reports
IanSanders 6y ago
We just need to put more value in human integrity. It's too easy to do "the wrong thing" with 0 consequences

by hliyan 6y ago

old-gregg 6y ago

> I feel the world needs to go through a learning period where everyone realizes that whatever they read on the Internet is default false The world had 50+ years to learn this about the TV, but didn't. Don't hold your breath.

toolz 6y ago
It might be counter productive to think it'll get better if people can just assume social media sites will ban/flag misinformation correctly. Maybe only lower profile stuff will slip through, but the volume of misinformation will barely change I suspect and users that haven't learned how to train their own filter might be more likely to believe "unflagged" content.
frankbreetz 6y ago
There is more gate keeping for TV, therefore less false information. Anyone can post on Twitter or Facebook.
- nso95 6y ago
  Have you ever seen Fox news? Any infomercial? Reality tv?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hliyan 6y ago
    I have to agree. The illusion of gatekeeping is far worse than a complete absence of it.
wizardforhire 6y ago
Not only this and the parent comment is also correct but this is the lesson that civilization will continually have to deal with every generation ad nauseam. This is our time and our struggle and how we handle this and all the issues afoot will set the course for humanity. We as a species and our societies by proxy are self actualizing kicking and screaming.
bori5 6y ago
The Parade https://archive.org/details/OTRR_X_Minus_One_Singles/XMinusOne55-05-01002TheParade.mp3# https://archive.org/details/OTRR_X_Minus_One_Singles/XMinusO...
- Thorrez 6y ago
  I don't really see how this is very similar.

taneq 6y ago

Trusting sources and verifying information is actually an incredibly hard game. Being too credulous leaves you open to misinformation, but on the other hand, being uncritically skeptical leads to the current "fake news" environment where (to those involved) no source is credible and we might as well all just believe whatever meets our preconceptions and dismiss the rest.

colordrops 6y ago
Do you have a suggestion or thesis? It's not so hard that it couldn't be taught to average humans. Even if it was extremely hard, it should still be taught, considering its importance.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  The problem is that, for many topics, there just isn't a reliable source to go to. Sure, if you want information on scientific topics, you have very good options - go to one of the celebrated journals and read some papers, or at least the press releases from those same journals. When it comes to current domestic affairs (has there been massive election fraud in the US? is ANTIFA terrorizing the US?) then the mainstream media is a trustworthy source. However, if you want to know about the effects of NAFTA, or US policy on Venezuela and how useful it is, or Russian involvement in the US elections, or trickle-down economics, or the benefits of a stimulus package etc, then the NYT, the Economist, and Breitbart are about as likely to give you a trust-worthy picture. So where can you look to, as an average citizen without time to conduct your own research on each topic you potentially care about? I don't think there is any good answer. Society absolutely needs a new independent, small-scale, un-elitist media. "Factory journals" and such - small organizations that are not owned by any powers that be, where a few people can spend the time to digest other sources and try to come up with a more accurate picture. Not multi-million dollar ad-based industrial media (NYT), and not activist propagandist media (Breitbart) - that is always going to be far too heavily biased to have any hope of being a trust-worthy source of information on most topics that they can feasibly ignore. And in case you don't believe me that most US media is a horrible source of information on the outside world, please find one single article on the biggest worker's strike in world history, that happened in January of this year in India. Edit: to be clear: I'm not in any way claiming that Breitbart is a credible news organization to any extent similar to the NYT or Economist. Breitbart are a disgusting organization whose aim is misinformation, and lying comes naturally to them; the NYT and Economist and others like them do have journalistic practices and actually care about the truth, and are excellent sources for some kinds of news - they just have massive biases in certain other areas, especially on foreign and economic policy, where they are not trustworthy, but even then I wouldn't expect outright lies.

chroem- 6y ago

How should we handle misinformation from official sources? It wasn't that long ago the New York Times told the world they had evidence of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction, setting off a chain of events that literally killed hundreds of thousands of people. In today's political climate, the misinformation that led to the Iraq War could never have been exposed. Edit: surely I'm not the only one who remembers how the NYT almost singlehandedly started a war based on false reporting?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Is there even a way to vet information from official sources?
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Yes, requesting evidence. If they say it is secret, you should conclude the info is false because it very likely is. If there is strategic need to hold it secret, which would probably be < 1% of cases, the public needs a trustable delegate witness. How much trust the witness has is decided by the public.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    playing devil's advocate here: If they need evidence, they can just manufacture some, and you're not going to be the one who inspects it. a chosen expert is going to inspect it and go on television assuring everyone "yes this is genuine evidence." all they really need is the video of the expert and maybe a .pdf that 1% of us will read (and be unable to vet its claims). The various members of the public may have different opinions on the trustworthiness of the witness which means that the government can just make sure that whatever action they are taking is to the benefit of one of these groups and surf on their approval.
redis_mlc 6y ago
This is not well-understood by most people, even at the time. Saddam Hussein did have a "weapon of mass destruction", poison gas, and used it on Kurds. You can find photos of bodies with white foam from their mouths from that time. He did not have much, if any, nuclear technology, despite the "aluminum tubes" news clips which led to the concern over weapons of mass destruction. (There are specialized alloys used in nuclear processing, but not aluminum.) Aside from that, the main information source was an exiled Iraqi politician that the administration said was credible to construct their narrative. So Saddam Hussein went from a US ally, to a war criminal. One major US newspaper tried to push back, but the rest, including the NYT, just repeated everything the White House said.

nullsense 6y ago

If I apply that logic to your comment then everything on the internet should be assumed to be true.

didibus 6y ago

I'd like to distinguish what this article is talking about, which is the government blocking actual websites, against moderation on private social media websites and platforms. I don't mean that the latter is not necessarily a problem or not, but we definitely should not be mixing up our thoughts and impression of one with the other, they are very very different in nature.

mxcrossb 6y ago

I think the problem is that humans by default assume what they’re reading is true for social cohesion. Especially if you think of social media (or comment sections), I mean why would I ever bother interacting with others if I assume everything I’m being told is false?

raxxorrax 6y ago

We had that around 2010 basically before the threat of fake news was conjured up. Still angry at those panicking...

electrondood 6y ago

I think a two-pronged approach is needed, though it's hard to educate the "ear" when it only wants to hear information confirming it's existing position.

grillvogel 6y ago

probably things are different now, but in the "old days" school assignments didnt consider internet sources to be "real" sources and you had to use books etc for your reports

IanSanders 6y ago

We just need to put more value in human integrity. It's too easy to do "the wrong thing" with 0 consequences