6 ms·

Sorry but unless you provide actual links to so-called misinformation, I’m going to assume that this is either overexaggerated or labeling anything against West

Sorry but unless you provide actual links to so-called misinformation, I’m going to assume that this is either overexaggerated or labeling anything against Western values as disinformation. Especially when it is described as ”This industry’s main goal is to sway public opinion during elections and protests” which is different than every other media organization how, exactly?

uniqueuid 5y ago
The whole disinformation question is very complicated, but this particular question is very easy. Media are legitimate influences on public opinion with accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence on public opinion by hidden actors without accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. [edit] Perhaps I should say what I mean by legitimate. Legitimate here means: Society agreed to allow media to exist in the form that they do, by creating laws in support and by refraining from creating laws that would prevent them. As long as there is no political consensus and/or riots which would fundamentally undermine the media's standing, they benefit from a special role (and are held to that standard).
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices Are you seeing much of this lately? Lately as in the last 40 years? I certainly am not.
  - uniqueuid 5y ago
    Disclaimer: I study this stuff as a scientist. Yes accountability especially in the US is lacking. But there is some, there are formal ethical codices (i.e. see NPR's https://www.npr.org/ethics https://www.npr.org/ethics), there is proper journalism training (see e.g. the Annenberg schools). If you compare the US media to other nations, and especially if you look at them historically, they have been pretty good at this. I'd argue that your standards are probably too high. Accountability is a shitshow and virtually nonexistent across the globe. It's a darn lucky situation if you even have some. [edit due to reply limit]: Of course NPR is biased, what do you expect? There is no neutrality in things that human believe. The difference is having public guidelines, committing to them and listening to criticism That's accountability.
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      NPR is just as biased and deliberately misleading as any other organization. The fact that they have a link on their website is not much proof of anything. Replying to your edit: well, that is my point. They are all biased. This idea that having a public code of conduct means anything is nonsense. When’s the last time a mainstream media organization was held accountable for anything? Even the people that helped sell the WMD lie are still in positions of power. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq-war-media-fail-matt-taibbi-812230/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq... The reality of the situation is that there are no meaningful standards of conduct and everyone is biased. Legacy brands with elite clout are no different.
      - uniqueuid 5y ago
        I'm sorry that you are downvoted, because your perception is pretty common and not completely wrong. There are many well-documented cases where accountability failed, and brilliant people have written about it (Chomsky, Lippmann etc.). But - and this is really important - it's not helpful to cynically assume that either everything is OK or that there is no accountability/meaning/use at all. All of the important things in society (discussions, getting along, identification of problems, negotiating solutions) are not a state, but a process. There is accountability, but only as much as citizens and institutions manage to produce. Go ahead and help (constructively)! The alternative to politics is (civil) war, the alternative to free media is basically the middle ages.
        ceilingcorner 5y ago
        I wouldn’t say I am cynical, merely realistic. In my opinion, it is a fool’s errand to think that accountability or unbiased news is even a possibility. It goes against the nature of the thing. An unbiased media has never been the case and never will be. Full stop. Thus it is better to recognize that no single entity will ever be truly honest and to instead read a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.
    - jwond 5y ago
  - busterarm 5y ago
    Aye. Journalism is activism now.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  > Media are legitimate influences > Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex? > Society agreed to allow media to exist "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it. > (and are held to that standard) Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.
  - uniqueuid 5y ago
    > So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex? Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc. > "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it. Right, let me be more precise: Society, through its existing mechanisms of decision-making, decided to draft and ratify laws that ... > Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard. Well, the US model is that of the "marketplace of opinions", so the assumption is that there is mutual holding accountable. But you can also count the times that citizens and politicians critique "the media", and I'd say there is pretty much holding accountable going on! :)
    - denton-scratch 5y ago
      In the "marketplace of opinions", everyone is automatically accountable. So accountability should be deleted from your list of features that distinguish disinformation.
      - uniqueuid 5y ago
        Only if they are communicating with some identifier! If someone poses as other people (which these campaigns do), accountability becomes impossible because normal users cannot tell who said what.
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  Fascinating to see this framed as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" vs true and false. I wonder how much disagreement on the topic comes from the distinctions in these meanings.
  - uniqueuid 5y ago
    Well, true and false are practically unusable concepts outside of (and sometimes even in) courts. My use of (il-)legitimate ties to the legal framework, which means I don't need to take a normative (=subjective) position - I'm only describing the state of the rules and the mechanisms at play. You can also use economic terms if you want: Illegitimate manipulation of public opinion doesn't pay (the platforms), advertisements as legitimate manipulation of public opinion pays (the platforms).
    - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
      As a corollary, I wonder just how much disagreement is actually "objective truth exists" vs "objective truth does not exist", repackaged.
didibus 5y ago
I think you're missing the point, as a Twitter user, do you expect other users to be paid money to post and retweet things that they were told to post and retweet by some patron? Do you expect to be baited by some fake account that is sold to the best bidder for amplification? And do you expect the recommendations and trending to be full of manipulated content that actually all come from a single source of coordinated promotion? It doesn't really matter what the messages in those are, it could be wishing everyone a good day, it is still disinformation, because it is trying to masquerade itself as a popular opinion on Twitter, and as being a real representation of real people's personal opinion that they hold so strongly they are willing to be actively expressing it publicly on Twitter. To me, this amounts to fraud, and Twitter has a huge problem with this stuff. It's similar in nature to fraud on Amazon with fake reviews, and with selling aftermarket goods and fake brands.
- ceilingcorner 5y ago
  to be paid money to post and retweet things that they were told to post and retweet by some patron? What do you think the network of “real media” is?
  - didibus 5y ago
    Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, what is happening on Twitter is fraud and disinformation for-hire. That seems factually true. We can talk about traditional media on an article that discuss traditional media maybe?
    - ceilingcorner 5y ago
      The entire premise of “misinformation” is that a true media exists which gives accurate information, as opposed to the army of people out to nefariously influence the public. I’m simply suggesting that there is fundamentally no difference.
      - didibus 5y ago
curryst 5y ago
Some media organizations focus on spreading information. I would say NPR focuses on that. They're not infallible, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they miss an angle, but I get the sense that they're truly more interested in spreading information than spreading opinion. Wikipedia as well. Other people try to use Wikipedia to sway public opinion, but Wikipedia itself seems rather opposed to articles designed for that. Reuters seems to do some solid work as well. I don't usually get a heavy spin vibe from them, but maybe it's an international spin that I'm not in on.

uniqueuid 5y ago

The whole disinformation question is very complicated, but this particular question is very easy. Media are legitimate influences on public opinion with accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence on public opinion by hidden actors without accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices. [edit] Perhaps I should say what I mean by legitimate. Legitimate here means: Society agreed to allow media to exist in the form that they do, by creating laws in support and by refraining from creating laws that would prevent them. As long as there is no political consensus and/or riots which would fundamentally undermine the media's standing, they benefit from a special role (and are held to that standard).

ceilingcorner 5y ago
accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices Are you seeing much of this lately? Lately as in the last 40 years? I certainly am not.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Disclaimer: I study this stuff as a scientist. Yes accountability especially in the US is lacking. But there is some, there are formal ethical codices (i.e. see NPR's https://www.npr.org/ethics https://www.npr.org/ethics), there is proper journalism training (see e.g. the Annenberg schools). If you compare the US media to other nations, and especially if you look at them historically, they have been pretty good at this. I'd argue that your standards are probably too high. Accountability is a shitshow and virtually nonexistent across the globe. It's a darn lucky situation if you even have some. [edit due to reply limit]: Of course NPR is biased, what do you expect? There is no neutrality in things that human believe. The difference is having public guidelines, committing to them and listening to criticism That's accountability.
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    NPR is just as biased and deliberately misleading as any other organization. The fact that they have a link on their website is not much proof of anything. Replying to your edit: well, that is my point. They are all biased. This idea that having a public code of conduct means anything is nonsense. When’s the last time a mainstream media organization was held accountable for anything? Even the people that helped sell the WMD lie are still in positions of power. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq-war-media-fail-matt-taibbi-812230/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq... The reality of the situation is that there are no meaningful standards of conduct and everyone is biased. Legacy brands with elite clout are no different.
    - uniqueuid 5y ago
      I'm sorry that you are downvoted, because your perception is pretty common and not completely wrong. There are many well-documented cases where accountability failed, and brilliant people have written about it (Chomsky, Lippmann etc.). But - and this is really important - it's not helpful to cynically assume that either everything is OK or that there is no accountability/meaning/use at all. All of the important things in society (discussions, getting along, identification of problems, negotiating solutions) are not a state, but a process. There is accountability, but only as much as citizens and institutions manage to produce. Go ahead and help (constructively)! The alternative to politics is (civil) war, the alternative to free media is basically the middle ages.
      - ceilingcorner 5y ago
        I wouldn’t say I am cynical, merely realistic. In my opinion, it is a fool’s errand to think that accountability or unbiased news is even a possibility. It goes against the nature of the thing. An unbiased media has never been the case and never will be. Full stop. Thus it is better to recognize that no single entity will ever be truly honest and to instead read a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.
  - jwond 5y ago
- busterarm 5y ago
  Aye. Journalism is activism now.
denton-scratch 5y ago
> Media are legitimate influences > Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex? > Society agreed to allow media to exist "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it. > (and are held to that standard) Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  > So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex? Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc. > "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it. Right, let me be more precise: Society, through its existing mechanisms of decision-making, decided to draft and ratify laws that ... > Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard. Well, the US model is that of the "marketplace of opinions", so the assumption is that there is mutual holding accountable. But you can also count the times that citizens and politicians critique "the media", and I'd say there is pretty much holding accountable going on! :)
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    In the "marketplace of opinions", everyone is automatically accountable. So accountability should be deleted from your list of features that distinguish disinformation.
    - uniqueuid 5y ago
      Only if they are communicating with some identifier! If someone poses as other people (which these campaigns do), accountability becomes impossible because normal users cannot tell who said what.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Fascinating to see this framed as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" vs true and false. I wonder how much disagreement on the topic comes from the distinctions in these meanings.
- uniqueuid 5y ago
  Well, true and false are practically unusable concepts outside of (and sometimes even in) courts. My use of (il-)legitimate ties to the legal framework, which means I don't need to take a normative (=subjective) position - I'm only describing the state of the rules and the mechanisms at play. You can also use economic terms if you want: Illegitimate manipulation of public opinion doesn't pay (the platforms), advertisements as legitimate manipulation of public opinion pays (the platforms).
  - AbrahamParangi 5y ago
    As a corollary, I wonder just how much disagreement is actually "objective truth exists" vs "objective truth does not exist", repackaged.

didibus 5y ago

I think you're missing the point, as a Twitter user, do you expect other users to be paid money to post and retweet things that they were told to post and retweet by some patron? Do you expect to be baited by some fake account that is sold to the best bidder for amplification? And do you expect the recommendations and trending to be full of manipulated content that actually all come from a single source of coordinated promotion? It doesn't really matter what the messages in those are, it could be wishing everyone a good day, it is still disinformation, because it is trying to masquerade itself as a popular opinion on Twitter, and as being a real representation of real people's personal opinion that they hold so strongly they are willing to be actively expressing it publicly on Twitter. To me, this amounts to fraud, and Twitter has a huge problem with this stuff. It's similar in nature to fraud on Amazon with fake reviews, and with selling aftermarket goods and fake brands.

ceilingcorner 5y ago
to be paid money to post and retweet things that they were told to post and retweet by some patron? What do you think the network of “real media” is?
- didibus 5y ago
  Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, what is happening on Twitter is fraud and disinformation for-hire. That seems factually true. We can talk about traditional media on an article that discuss traditional media maybe?
  - ceilingcorner 5y ago
    The entire premise of “misinformation” is that a true media exists which gives accurate information, as opposed to the army of people out to nefariously influence the public. I’m simply suggesting that there is fundamentally no difference.
    - didibus 5y ago

curryst 5y ago

Some media organizations focus on spreading information. I would say NPR focuses on that. They're not infallible, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they miss an angle, but I get the sense that they're truly more interested in spreading information than spreading opinion. Wikipedia as well. Other people try to use Wikipedia to sway public opinion, but Wikipedia itself seems rather opposed to articles designed for that. Reuters seems to do some solid work as well. I don't usually get a heavy spin vibe from them, but maybe it's an international spin that I'm not in on.