8 ms·

Misinformation ‘Superspreaders’ Seed False Election Theories

23 points by CapitalistCartr 6y ago

raxxorrax 6y ago
"Russian election manipulation" - It has not been forgotten and that wasn't journalism.
- Apotheos 6y ago
  Can you expand upon this? I didn't see that mentioned in the article and am curious what you mean by this.
  - raxxorrax 6y ago
    It is just a slightly annoyed comment that they might be part of that problem. If it was meant as a self-reflection I am sorry that I have misunderstood the intent and message. It isn't just directed at the NYT to be fair and the harsh tone might stem from the fact that I have higher expectations. Personal problem of mine.
redflame7 6y ago
At least the NYT should credit Trump for making the election more secure than last time, no?
gwbas1c 6y ago
When I see this, I fear that the US value of Freedom of Speech is going to be permanently damaged. How can abuse like this be stopped when one of our most important values is the ability to say and publish whatever you want?
- pueblito 6y ago
  By not pretending it’s abuse and accepting other opinions
  - 1234letshaveatw 6y ago
    "Like the other false claims about voter fraud, Mr. Trump’s tweet included a label by Twitter that he was sharing information that was not accurate. Twitter, like Facebook, has said that those labels help prevent false claims from being shared and direct people toward more authoritative sources of information. Earlier this week, BuzzFeed News reported that Facebook employees questioned whether the labels were effective." super creepy- and another reminder that there are so many influential people that want to see anyone they don't agree with de-platformed
  - Loughla 6y ago
    How are lies just 'other opinions'?
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > How are lies just 'other opinions'? When you want to whitewash them.
  - gwbas1c 6y ago
    Do you understand the difference between fact an opinion? You can't call a lie an opinion. This is nothing new: People used to argue that the earth was flat, then they argued that the sun orbited the earth. You can't let people get away with contradicting established fact just because it's an "opinion."
- deepsun 6y ago
  I'm afraid the only way is to wait for people to get smarter and filter out lies themselves. Maybe we can help somehow? E.g. develop and popularize criteria of articles "truthfulness", basics of fact-checking etc.
pueblito 6y ago
This isn’t journalism, it’s blatant propaganda.
- arkitaip 6y ago
  For whom?
- Loughla 6y ago
  Who is this propaganda benefiting, and what is the purpose? Is your view that because the misinformation is right-wing, that this is propaganda for the left?
- Apotheos 6y ago
  What part of this piece of journalism is misleading?
  - dilap 6y ago
    I would say to state that vote fraud allegations are "baseless" and "false" is propaganda; the more precise terms would be "unproven" and "alleged". In general, if you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take seriously claims of fraud and investigate them openly. To flatly call them "misinformation" and advocate for further censorship of people making the claims does not give confidence, to put it mildly.
    - wtallis 6y ago
      There's nothing wrong with drawing a distinction between claims of fraud that result from nothing more than dissatisfaction with the outcome, and claims of fraud that arise from some actual evidence of possible malfeasance. Dismissing the former outright is necessary in order to give the latter the attention they deserve.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > In general, if you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take seriously claims of fraud If you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take serious claims of fraud seriously.
macspoofing 6y ago
After 4 years of Russia-gating, after denying election results in 2016, and 2018 (both Hillary Clinton and allies, as well as Stacy Abrams from Georgia continue to claim elections were stolen from them), after claiming EVERY election is crooked because of voter suppression (in a country that continues to have record turn out among minority populations), I can't quite see the difference between troll accounts and establishment media. And oh yeah, this is so effin self-serving by NYTimes and co. Attack competition by forcing tech companies to ban or downgrade them, all to re-assert their traditional status as social gatekeepers ... and profit! And every single mainstream 'news' outlet that is pushing this social media censorship is backed by a multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate. Thanks but no thanks.
- watwut 6y ago
  Hillary Clinton literally concealed elections. The transfer of power from Obama was smooth and cooperative. Hillary Clinton did not filed dozens of court cases with made up claims that ended up thrown away from those courts. Hillary Clinton did not tried to stop the vote counting either. Hillary Clinton camp pointing out that they won popular vote is completely within their free speech rights and is not an attack on election system itself. Comparing length of lines in various district and fighting with id mandates or so that students can vote in school and dont have to travel are completely valid too. What Trump and Republican party did this years is completely incomparable.
  - disgrunt 6y ago
    The Obama Administration spied on the Trump campaign in 2016. [0] [0]: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/509002-more-willful-blindness-by-the-media-on-spying-by-obama-administration https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/509002-more-willful-...
- shawabawa3 6y ago
  Hillary Clinton denied election results in 2016? You mean the election where she called Trump to concede at 2.50am the next morning?
throwaway6338 6y ago
I don't believe there was widespread fraud but I am very concerned about how easy it has been to spread misinformation. There's got to be ways to improve on the status quo so that it's much more clear that someone is lying if they make such claims. The other related problem is when one party tries to prevent vote counts from being completed such as by objecting to every ballot. There's got to be a better way. Silicon valley should be doing everything it can to help.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ralusek 6y ago
These people that are heavily contesting the election results are actually mad at mainstream conservative news outlets, because most conservative news outlets are actually being much more reasonable than I expected. From places like Fox, Sky News Australia, Ben Shapiro, the message has essentially been: evidence of voter fraud isn't sufficient to change the election, there needs to be evidence of voter fraud at sufficient scale to actually change the results, which is highly unlikely. Trump's team is well with their rights to pursue an investigation within the legal system, and it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible, but it is not okay for him to be declaring himself the winner in the absence of evidence. As others have said, after hearing about Russian collusion for 3 years, as long as Trump keeps his mouth shut about having won the election, I'm perfectly fine with them making their case within the legal system. As I said, I think it's good for democracy if people feel as though their claims were addressed. Especially with a judicial system theoretically predisposed towards favoring Trump, them shutting down the allegations of fraud so far can avoid having been done so we a bias for Biden. The odds of the election results changing are astronomically low, so even if you don't want Trump to win, by allowing this process to play out, you are simply bolstering the evidence of a Biden win.
- jfengel 6y ago
  it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible Under what circumstances do you believe that the doubts actually get settled? A court can direct the government to accept one outcome or another, but it can't direct that people stop expressing their doubts. And as long as the doubts are prominently expressed, I don't expect any investigation to settle it. Doubts are free, both libre and gratis, and you can expect them to be indulged in accordingly. We should, by all means, pursue the investigations, because it's legally required. But I don't expect it to provide anything except more evidence of a conspiracy, because that's how conspiracy theories work.
  - ralusek 6y ago
    So you're under the impression that, among the people who expressed concern at the widespread accusations of voter fraud, literally none of them will be satisfied by having had those allegations pursued and resolved under scrutiny?
admiralspoo 6y ago
The NYT is a superspreader of misinformation too
stevev 6y ago
Many mainstream outlets now run propaganda and sensational reporting. It’s biased, misleading, retractive, opinionated and incomplete. Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments from both sides of the aisle. Stop referencing crap like that here.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments from both sides of the aisle. For that model work, you need two sides with a commitment to the common goals and a good respect for truth and a common set of facts, which we don't have anymore. That stopped being the case at least by the time one side ran a president who is an obvious-to-most compulsive liar with tendencies for demagoguery.
- Balgair 6y ago
  > Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments... There really hasn't ever been that, in the US at least. Yellow Journalism [0] has been around for ~120 years now. The 1800 US Presidential campaign was very slanderous and personal [1]. His Girl Friday (1940)[2] starring Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant is a great comedy about journalism and the all the shady things that go on. Reading through all those events, the tricks are the same ones that we humans fall for time and again. Sure, FAANG and the like have made it faster, more up-tempo. But the lies have always gotten half-way around the globe before the truth put it's pants on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidential_election#Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidentia... [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032599/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032599/ (No really, it's great! Go watch it!)
samuelizdat 6y ago
A set of security bits, a spare compact flash card and a couple minutes alone. Don't tell me it's not impossible.
- tjpnz 6y ago
  Sure but there's nothing compelling out there suggesting it happened.
born_a_skeptic 6y ago
What about Hunter/Joe Biden? Was that not news worthy? Was anything about Joe Biden news worthy prior to the election? It's an embarrassment. I hope everyone realizes the powers that took on Trump, Big Tech, Deep State, China/Russia/EU, Democrats, etc. Quite the feat that it took that much power to barely beat Trump (which is debatable until we get a handle on what happened for voting. I don't know if the election was rigged, but I wouldn't put it past them and there are some weird anomalies in the voting data).
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  I, for one, was very interested in seeing the end of the Tucker Carlson story, and was disappointed when he dropped his chance to reveal his supposedly damaging information about the Bidens. Why do you think the story was dropped? Personally, I think it's likely that said information was not actually ever damning, but I guess the Deep State could have gotten to Tucker, if that's your conspiracy theory.
  - born_a_skeptic 6y ago
    The worst part about the Hunter/Joe Biden saga is that what they were doing isn't illegal (from what I can tell.). I'd call it corrupt and crony capitalism, among things, but doesn't look like it's illegal. And this get to one of things I really hate about US politics. They write the rules, but don't seem to have to abide by any of them. There is always a loop hole or connection to save them. Pathetic. Regarding Tucker, his show is the only show I watch every night. I think he does a great job at bringing light to the under belly of Washington. 'The sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.' Now, do I think he's perfect, no. Nobody is.
    - jaccarmac 6y ago
      So why didn't he provide any of the damning evidence that he shipped to his office? I'll give you a hint: It's far easier to get sued for defamation if you read lies on TV than if you say you have bad stuff to say about someone but won't say it because you're nice.
pmdulaney 6y ago
Get rid of flagging -- we're all big boys and girls.
hemloc_io 6y ago
This really seems quite silly. The 80-20 rule exists for social media posting so of course a small amount of people contribute to most of the "misinformation". [0] Calling them "superspreaders" is really close to propaganda. (Particularly when you could argue the media is/was the original "superspreader" of misinformation.) [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...

raxxorrax 6y ago

"Russian election manipulation" - It has not been forgotten and that wasn't journalism.

Apotheos 6y ago
Can you expand upon this? I didn't see that mentioned in the article and am curious what you mean by this.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  It is just a slightly annoyed comment that they might be part of that problem. If it was meant as a self-reflection I am sorry that I have misunderstood the intent and message. It isn't just directed at the NYT to be fair and the harsh tone might stem from the fact that I have higher expectations. Personal problem of mine.

redflame7 6y ago

At least the NYT should credit Trump for making the election more secure than last time, no?

gwbas1c 6y ago

When I see this, I fear that the US value of Freedom of Speech is going to be permanently damaged. How can abuse like this be stopped when one of our most important values is the ability to say and publish whatever you want?

pueblito 6y ago
By not pretending it’s abuse and accepting other opinions
- 1234letshaveatw 6y ago
  "Like the other false claims about voter fraud, Mr. Trump’s tweet included a label by Twitter that he was sharing information that was not accurate. Twitter, like Facebook, has said that those labels help prevent false claims from being shared and direct people toward more authoritative sources of information. Earlier this week, BuzzFeed News reported that Facebook employees questioned whether the labels were effective." super creepy- and another reminder that there are so many influential people that want to see anyone they don't agree with de-platformed
- Loughla 6y ago
  How are lies just 'other opinions'?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > How are lies just 'other opinions'? When you want to whitewash them.
- gwbas1c 6y ago
  Do you understand the difference between fact an opinion? You can't call a lie an opinion. This is nothing new: People used to argue that the earth was flat, then they argued that the sun orbited the earth. You can't let people get away with contradicting established fact just because it's an "opinion."
deepsun 6y ago
I'm afraid the only way is to wait for people to get smarter and filter out lies themselves. Maybe we can help somehow? E.g. develop and popularize criteria of articles "truthfulness", basics of fact-checking etc.

pueblito 6y ago

This isn’t journalism, it’s blatant propaganda.

arkitaip 6y ago
For whom?
Loughla 6y ago
Who is this propaganda benefiting, and what is the purpose? Is your view that because the misinformation is right-wing, that this is propaganda for the left?
Apotheos 6y ago
What part of this piece of journalism is misleading?
- dilap 6y ago
  I would say to state that vote fraud allegations are "baseless" and "false" is propaganda; the more precise terms would be "unproven" and "alleged". In general, if you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take seriously claims of fraud and investigate them openly. To flatly call them "misinformation" and advocate for further censorship of people making the claims does not give confidence, to put it mildly.
  - wtallis 6y ago
    There's nothing wrong with drawing a distinction between claims of fraud that result from nothing more than dissatisfaction with the outcome, and claims of fraud that arise from some actual evidence of possible malfeasance. Dismissing the former outright is necessary in order to give the latter the attention they deserve.
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > In general, if you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take seriously claims of fraud If you want people to have confidence in an election, you need to take serious claims of fraud seriously.

macspoofing 6y ago

After 4 years of Russia-gating, after denying election results in 2016, and 2018 (both Hillary Clinton and allies, as well as Stacy Abrams from Georgia continue to claim elections were stolen from them), after claiming EVERY election is crooked because of voter suppression (in a country that continues to have record turn out among minority populations), I can't quite see the difference between troll accounts and establishment media. And oh yeah, this is so effin self-serving by NYTimes and co. Attack competition by forcing tech companies to ban or downgrade them, all to re-assert their traditional status as social gatekeepers ... and profit! And every single mainstream 'news' outlet that is pushing this social media censorship is backed by a multi-billion dollar corporate conglomerate. Thanks but no thanks.

watwut 6y ago
Hillary Clinton literally concealed elections. The transfer of power from Obama was smooth and cooperative. Hillary Clinton did not filed dozens of court cases with made up claims that ended up thrown away from those courts. Hillary Clinton did not tried to stop the vote counting either. Hillary Clinton camp pointing out that they won popular vote is completely within their free speech rights and is not an attack on election system itself. Comparing length of lines in various district and fighting with id mandates or so that students can vote in school and dont have to travel are completely valid too. What Trump and Republican party did this years is completely incomparable.
- disgrunt 6y ago
  The Obama Administration spied on the Trump campaign in 2016. [0] [0]: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/509002-more-willful-blindness-by-the-media-on-spying-by-obama-administration https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/509002-more-willful-...
shawabawa3 6y ago
Hillary Clinton denied election results in 2016? You mean the election where she called Trump to concede at 2.50am the next morning?

throwaway6338 6y ago

I don't believe there was widespread fraud but I am very concerned about how easy it has been to spread misinformation. There's got to be ways to improve on the status quo so that it's much more clear that someone is lying if they make such claims. The other related problem is when one party tries to prevent vote counts from being completed such as by objecting to every ballot. There's got to be a better way. Silicon valley should be doing everything it can to help.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ralusek 6y ago

These people that are heavily contesting the election results are actually mad at mainstream conservative news outlets, because most conservative news outlets are actually being much more reasonable than I expected. From places like Fox, Sky News Australia, Ben Shapiro, the message has essentially been: evidence of voter fraud isn't sufficient to change the election, there needs to be evidence of voter fraud at sufficient scale to actually change the results, which is highly unlikely. Trump's team is well with their rights to pursue an investigation within the legal system, and it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible, but it is not okay for him to be declaring himself the winner in the absence of evidence. As others have said, after hearing about Russian collusion for 3 years, as long as Trump keeps his mouth shut about having won the election, I'm perfectly fine with them making their case within the legal system. As I said, I think it's good for democracy if people feel as though their claims were addressed. Especially with a judicial system theoretically predisposed towards favoring Trump, them shutting down the allegations of fraud so far can avoid having been done so we a bias for Biden. The odds of the election results changing are astronomically low, so even if you don't want Trump to win, by allowing this process to play out, you are simply bolstering the evidence of a Biden win.

jfengel 6y ago
it's actually a good thing for democracy that as many doubts are settled as possible Under what circumstances do you believe that the doubts actually get settled? A court can direct the government to accept one outcome or another, but it can't direct that people stop expressing their doubts. And as long as the doubts are prominently expressed, I don't expect any investigation to settle it. Doubts are free, both libre and gratis, and you can expect them to be indulged in accordingly. We should, by all means, pursue the investigations, because it's legally required. But I don't expect it to provide anything except more evidence of a conspiracy, because that's how conspiracy theories work.
- ralusek 6y ago
  So you're under the impression that, among the people who expressed concern at the widespread accusations of voter fraud, literally none of them will be satisfied by having had those allegations pursued and resolved under scrutiny?

admiralspoo 6y ago

The NYT is a superspreader of misinformation too

stevev 6y ago

Many mainstream outlets now run propaganda and sensational reporting. It’s biased, misleading, retractive, opinionated and incomplete. Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments from both sides of the aisle. Stop referencing crap like that here.

ardy42 6y ago
> Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments from both sides of the aisle. For that model work, you need two sides with a commitment to the common goals and a good respect for truth and a common set of facts, which we don't have anymore. That stopped being the case at least by the time one side ran a president who is an obvious-to-most compulsive liar with tendencies for demagoguery.
Balgair 6y ago
> Far from the days of just informing and listing main arguments... There really hasn't ever been that, in the US at least. Yellow Journalism [0] has been around for ~120 years now. The 1800 US Presidential campaign was very slanderous and personal [1]. His Girl Friday (1940)[2] starring Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant is a great comedy about journalism and the all the shady things that go on. Reading through all those events, the tricks are the same ones that we humans fall for time and again. Sure, FAANG and the like have made it faster, more up-tempo. But the lies have always gotten half-way around the globe before the truth put it's pants on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidential_election#Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1800_United_States_presidentia... [2] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032599/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032599/ (No really, it's great! Go watch it!)

samuelizdat 6y ago

A set of security bits, a spare compact flash card and a couple minutes alone. Don't tell me it's not impossible.

tjpnz 6y ago
Sure but there's nothing compelling out there suggesting it happened.

born_a_skeptic 6y ago

What about Hunter/Joe Biden? Was that not news worthy? Was anything about Joe Biden news worthy prior to the election? It's an embarrassment. I hope everyone realizes the powers that took on Trump, Big Tech, Deep State, China/Russia/EU, Democrats, etc. Quite the feat that it took that much power to barely beat Trump (which is debatable until we get a handle on what happened for voting. I don't know if the election was rigged, but I wouldn't put it past them and there are some weird anomalies in the voting data).

jaccarmac 6y ago
I, for one, was very interested in seeing the end of the Tucker Carlson story, and was disappointed when he dropped his chance to reveal his supposedly damaging information about the Bidens. Why do you think the story was dropped? Personally, I think it's likely that said information was not actually ever damning, but I guess the Deep State could have gotten to Tucker, if that's your conspiracy theory.
- born_a_skeptic 6y ago
  The worst part about the Hunter/Joe Biden saga is that what they were doing isn't illegal (from what I can tell.). I'd call it corrupt and crony capitalism, among things, but doesn't look like it's illegal. And this get to one of things I really hate about US politics. They write the rules, but don't seem to have to abide by any of them. There is always a loop hole or connection to save them. Pathetic. Regarding Tucker, his show is the only show I watch every night. I think he does a great job at bringing light to the under belly of Washington. 'The sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink.' Now, do I think he's perfect, no. Nobody is.
  - jaccarmac 6y ago
    So why didn't he provide any of the damning evidence that he shipped to his office? I'll give you a hint: It's far easier to get sued for defamation if you read lies on TV than if you say you have bad stuff to say about someone but won't say it because you're nice.

pmdulaney 6y ago

Get rid of flagging -- we're all big boys and girls.

hemloc_io 6y ago

This really seems quite silly. The 80-20 rule exists for social media posting so of course a small amount of people contribute to most of the "misinformation". [0] Calling them "superspreaders" is really close to propaganda. (Particularly when you could argue the media is/was the original "superspreader" of misinformation.) [0] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...