3 ms·

What about "correcting" fake news well after publishing? How does that impact the effects of fake news? Case in point, NYT effectively reframed The 1619 Projec

What about "correcting" fake news well after publishing? How does that impact the effects of fake news? Case in point, NYT effectively reframed The 1619 Project well after it was published, after they ignored a significant number of criticisms from some of the best historians, and after winning a Pulitzer Prize. I'm going to guess that most people are completely unaware that they eventually acknowledged that it was fake news. I ask because I don't see social media posts about the project labeled as "disinformation". Is that because it's self-acknowledged at this point, despite already establishing itself as "real"? Is that because the fact-checkers are unaware of the updates? I'm very curious how a more complicated scenario such as this affects people's understanding of the fitness of a piece of work. Any insights or studies that I've missed?

temp8964 6y ago
And the "senior White House official" "disinformation".
- covidthrow 6y ago
  I would like to affirm your criticism, because the NYT, WaPo, et al have used such tactics (and others) in misleading ways, which is dishonest and subsequently could be viewed as "fake news". Sometimes such sources turned out not to be anyone of significance. In other cases, they turned out to be instances of hearsay, or even outdated and irrelevant to the context. It is shocking that a community such as Hacker News can assert demand for all manner of sources in the scientific and technical fields, but when it comes to news, they are more than willing to accept articles in which anonymous, unverifiable sources dominate. One could argue that they defer their trust to the integrity of the news source. And to a point, this is reasonable. But it is also reasonable to draw attention to its potential for abuse, especially in "technically true" but "functionally dishonest" ways. I just think that's hard for some people to acknowledge this potential point of failure/abuse.
TeaDrunk 6y ago
This study said debunking afterwards is more effective right in the abstract. The question is whether or not people saw the debunk.
rriepe 6y ago
The standards are for the opposition only.
- covidthrow 6y ago
  I think you are being downvoted in part because your comment is not 100% factual and because it triggers offense by some. But as a centrist, I want to be one to affirm that your statement has been demonstrably true in many (but not all) instances over the last many months and years. (And as a general trend throughout history.) Those who have power in a given domain tend to—at least eventually—wield their power in an unbalanced way. This criticism does not legitimize actual fake news, but does acknowledge that such tools to limit fake news can—and often are—used to also limit undesirable opposition speech. Case in point: Facebook, which tends to favor right-leaning speech, recently banned (and then revoked said ban) of several socialist groups on their platform. While they cite technical reasons, it is feasible that it was a human decision among those in power who wished to limit "opposition" speech. Of course, it could have legitimately been a bug, but it's certainly not believed so by those affected.
  - rriepe 6y ago
    News is a business. All news is fake news, fueled by PR. You're a centrist with a throwaway account. I don't know what to say to that.

temp8964 6y ago

And the "senior White House official" "disinformation".

covidthrow 6y ago
I would like to affirm your criticism, because the NYT, WaPo, et al have used such tactics (and others) in misleading ways, which is dishonest and subsequently could be viewed as "fake news". Sometimes such sources turned out not to be anyone of significance. In other cases, they turned out to be instances of hearsay, or even outdated and irrelevant to the context. It is shocking that a community such as Hacker News can assert demand for all manner of sources in the scientific and technical fields, but when it comes to news, they are more than willing to accept articles in which anonymous, unverifiable sources dominate. One could argue that they defer their trust to the integrity of the news source. And to a point, this is reasonable. But it is also reasonable to draw attention to its potential for abuse, especially in "technically true" but "functionally dishonest" ways. I just think that's hard for some people to acknowledge this potential point of failure/abuse.

TeaDrunk 6y ago

This study said debunking afterwards is more effective right in the abstract. The question is whether or not people saw the debunk.

rriepe 6y ago

The standards are for the opposition only.

covidthrow 6y ago
I think you are being downvoted in part because your comment is not 100% factual and because it triggers offense by some. But as a centrist, I want to be one to affirm that your statement has been demonstrably true in many (but not all) instances over the last many months and years. (And as a general trend throughout history.) Those who have power in a given domain tend to—at least eventually—wield their power in an unbalanced way. This criticism does not legitimize actual fake news, but does acknowledge that such tools to limit fake news can—and often are—used to also limit undesirable opposition speech. Case in point: Facebook, which tends to favor right-leaning speech, recently banned (and then revoked said ban) of several socialist groups on their platform. While they cite technical reasons, it is feasible that it was a human decision among those in power who wished to limit "opposition" speech. Of course, it could have legitimately been a bug, but it's certainly not believed so by those affected.
- rriepe 6y ago
  News is a business. All news is fake news, fueled by PR. You're a centrist with a throwaway account. I don't know what to say to that.