13 ms·

Asking people to "do the research" on fake news makes it more believable

71 points by tysone 3y ago

ofslidingfeet 3y ago
[flagged]
- selcuka 3y ago
  A conspiracy theory doesn't have to be always incorrect, therefore we can't defend conspiracy theories based on anecdotal examples where they proved to be correct. In other words, if I say "every dice in the world is rigged such that it always rolls 5", this would be a conspiracy theory. The fact that there may be actually rigged ones doesn't change that.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
anon115 3y ago
[flagged]
ekimehtor 3y ago
[flagged]
skybrian 3y ago
They studied whether the average American can use Google to fact-check news articles and the answer seems to be no. And in particular, some people seem to be really bad at using a search engine: > So what do the low-google-fu people do to generate bad results? Often, they just literally plug the questionable article headline or URL into Google. If your search terms are “SHOCK REVELATION: SHILLARY CAUGHT DRINKING BABIES’ BLOOD AT MARTHA’S VINEYARD ESTATE,” Google’s probably going to give you results that go along with its assumptions. But it doesn’t mean you can’t learn how to fact-check news articles, or that it can’t be taught. It might be interesting to repeat the study for other groups. College graduates? Graduate students? Also, I wonder if it’s possible to build a better search engine with this task in mind?
- bb88 3y ago
  The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. I also feel "fact check via google" is also the wrong way to go about it, because google just spits out whatever the internet says. The reality is that a certain skeptical mindset is required when consuming news reports. And when the skepticism goes away, you end up with a cult. And that's not something that every school district teaches.
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
    Firstly, I think you're right—and their policies very much so reflect this. Re: the "skeptical mindset"—I think critical thought is essential. But that's a lot more complex than merely having a "skeptical mindset", which is effectively what these "Do your own research" type of people tend to have. They're skeptical of the "mainstream elites", and that's about the end of the thought process. They're very likely to buy most narratives that counters mainstream consensus.
  - sugarplant 3y ago
    > The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. yes just the single party that is the opposite of mine of course ;)
    - the_gastropod 3y ago
      Oh my! A both-sideser! Yep. Both U.S. political parties are equally problematic! No distinctions to be drawn, whatsoever!
      - mrangle 3y ago
        There are, in fact, at least two positions on most issues that the English speaking world cares about. But why move the goal post from voter education to a discussion on the subjective badness of the two main parties? That is, if your aim is to make a point under the discussion being had.
kgwxd 3y ago
"[Claim presented as absolute fact], prove me wrong". That's not how logic/argument/discussion works. If that's how the conversation is structured, that person is arguing in bad faith. It's a simple rule that should be taught at a very young age.
lucisferre 3y ago
My TL;DR: Some really interesting conclusions here, though nothing particularly surprising to anyone familiar with SEO practices. In particular the use of SEO techniques to target "data voids" to help own particular terms or phrases that are then used when searching up more information. > Low-quality publishers have been found to use search engine optimization techniques and encourage readers to use specific search queries when searching online by consistently using distinct phrases in their stories and in other media. These terms can guide users to data voids on search engines, where only one point of an unreliable view is represented. Low-quality news sources also often re-use stories from each other, polluting search engine results with other similar non-credible stories… Again, nothing most people here don't already know about the overlap between SEO and misinformation, but it is interesting to see some numbers behind the effect. > We found that, among those who first rated the false/misleading article correctly as false/misleading, 17.6% changed their evaluation to true after being prompted to search online (for comparison, among those who first incorrectly rated the article as true, only 5.8% changed their evaluation to false/misleading after being required to search online). One of the most interesting techniques exposed here is the use of unique terms that can then be easily owned by the misinformation outlets and likely to be used by those searching for more information. > Using the headline/lede as a search query probably produces unreliable results because they contain distinct phrases that only producers of unreliable information use. > The term ‘engineered famine’ in the article is a unique term that is unlikely to be used by reliable sources. An analysis of respondents’ search results found that adding the word ‘engineered’ in front of ‘famine’ changes the search results returned. 0% of search terms that contained the word ‘famine’ without ‘engineered’ in front of it returned unreliable results, whereas 63% of search queries that added ‘engineered’ in front of the word ‘famine’ were exposed to at least one unreliable result. In fact, 83% of all search terms that returned an unreliable result contained the term ‘engineered famine.’
jdewerd 3y ago
Nothing made me respect mainstream media more than a thousand "alternative" pundits crying foul while not only failing to do better but regressing on the basics: asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment, retracting articles when conflicting evidence arises, clearly delineating op/ed, etc. It's fair to argue that these things aren't sufficient, but it's absolutely wild how easy it wound up being to pass off regression for progression on this front. People really do just want to hear confirmation of their own opinions.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment, retracting articles when conflicting evidence arises, clearly delineating op/ed, etc Mainstream media doesn’t do that anymore. Completely random example that I just saw: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electoral-votes-2024/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electora.... The article says: “Trump is a seriously flawed candidate who has promised to govern in undemocratic ways.” That’s not in the opinion section.
  - shawndrost 3y ago
    (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this is an opinion/analysis article, not a news article. However, the fact that CNN doesn't clearly label opinion/analysis -- and the existence of analysis at all, which I don't remember being a thing a decade ago -- do[es] support your point.)
  - jdewerd 3y ago
    If I had nothing to compare CNN to, I'd be scandalized.
    - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
      What is the general cable news alternative with better journalism? I know of none. For individual news shows I think the best are 60 Minutes and Frontline.
  - 3y ago
mrangle 3y ago
Social media is "the place" with the propagandist bots and partisan screamers? As opposed to where? There are at least two significant red flags in this article: a. It cites five studies, which it does not critique, instead of being a more serious review of one. Without a critique of any of the studies, the author restating their conclusions as some sort of pseudo meta-study is ironically low information. Given the forceful conclusions, an examination of the methodologies is crucial for persuasion. b. The article is openly partisan. Given how the terms "fake news", "misninformation" and "debunk" have been politicized and abused into virtual meaninglessness over the past eight years, the utilization of only those unexamined terms as the article's pillars does not make for compelling reading.
- brokensegue 3y ago
  As opposed to... Reputable news sources?
  - mrangle 3y ago
    Which are they, assumably devoid of regularly appearing propaganda and of emotional partisans?
insickness 3y ago
So much "news" today is opinion masquerading as fact. While news media companies often do get the facts wrong, even when the facts are right, those facts are heavily colored by commentary and slant, often leaving out other facts that don't adhere to the narrative. I'm highly skeptical when the author's conclusion is that readers can't discern fake news on their own, when even educated people disagree on what is fake news, when the author thinks that people doing their own research is a problem, and virtue lies in believing the common narrative.
- rstuart4133 3y ago
  It's always been that way. My favourite example is the nightly financial report, where they will invariably say "the market did [something] today because of X". Very occasionally, like on 9/11, they will be right. But most of the time, it's near impossible to say why they market moved the way it did. They are just authoritatively babbling plausible sounding bullshit. The amazing thing for me is for decades I believed them. They don't just do it there of course. Another thing people describe is to read a mass media report on some event you attended, and not recognise it. I didn't realise how true that was until it happened to me. It was a report in by time.com of an event I attended in my local city. The report was all true, but it focused on a 10 person street protest. They were doing it because 1 million other people were attending the event, almost all of which were blithely unaware of the presence of those 10 people. It was a complete irrelevancy, yet it was probably the only words a fair chunk of the world's population got to read about the event. This was all decades ago. Today, surprise surprise, people write and say anything to get your attention, so they can display a ad and make money from you. Nothing has changed. Not even the motivations.
caseysoftware 3y ago
Circa 2008, I conducted an experiment. I watched an hour of CNN every night but it was never that night's coverage. It was from exactly two weeks ago. It was amazing how much "breaking news!" was irrelevant or just outright wrong, how many large trend predictions were wrong, and how many "[person] will do X" were wrong. While the predictions could have been portrayed as opinions, they were presented as facts and the obvious next steps or conclusions. I realized pretty quickly that avoiding CNN kept out the blatantly wrong information so even if I didn't replace it with anything, I was net ahead. And it wasn't unique to them. Choose whoever your out group channel is. Almost 10 years ago, I discovered this article and realized that some portion of it was probably on purpose: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...
- dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
  The article talks about how a search engine can invisibly alter search to affect the outcome of an election. It’s interesting you mentioned watching the news, but delayed…the article was written before the 2016 election and says Google favored Hillary Clinton. Not taking away the point, because it’s valid…but you should find a newer article without such obvious error…just saying…
  - caseysoftware 3y ago
    I have to admit: I don't know where the "obvious error" is. Which part is incorrect and why? Thanks.
    - dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
      Hillary lost, simple as that. So much for the manipulation being cut-and-dried… No, I didn’t support her opponent either…
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
commandlinefan 3y ago
Whenever I look at examples of something that the sort of people who use the term “misinformation” call misinformation it’s - almost always a direct quote, presented with no further elaboration, from somebody they dislike. Presenting an accurate Joe Biden quote (for example) isn’t misinformation, and “doing the research” means making sure it wasn’t taken out of context.
- DoodahMan 3y ago
  "#1 killer of kids" is a good example of common misinformation you'll hear when the gun debate pops up again. boy do folks like parroting that one - from randoms on the internet, to the politicians, to the media.
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
    How is this misinformation?
martinbaun 3y ago
Funnily enough the main-stream media keep making fake news, but somehow we're suppose to believe in them and not question things ourselves.
TibbityFlanders 3y ago
[dead]
xtiansimon 3y ago
This week I learned about the “do your own research movement” on the podcast Amicus Deja Coup: Donald Trump and the Slow Civil War https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2024/01/donald-trump-january-6-capitol-riot-ashli-babbitt https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2024/01/donald-trump-janua...
amadeuspagel 3y ago
> But what’s the most enraging thing your uncle can say at Thanksgiving, right after he tells you about how the Rothschilds are behind an army of Colombians set to invade Idaho next week? “I’ve done my own research on this.” In other words: This is an example of The Cowpox of Doubt: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/

71 points by tysone 3y ago

ofslidingfeet 3y ago

[flagged]

selcuka 3y ago
A conspiracy theory doesn't have to be always incorrect, therefore we can't defend conspiracy theories based on anecdotal examples where they proved to be correct. In other words, if I say "every dice in the world is rigged such that it always rolls 5", this would be a conspiracy theory. The fact that there may be actually rigged ones doesn't change that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

anon115 3y ago

[flagged]

ekimehtor 3y ago

[flagged]

skybrian 3y ago

They studied whether the average American can use Google to fact-check news articles and the answer seems to be no. And in particular, some people seem to be really bad at using a search engine: > So what do the low-google-fu people do to generate bad results? Often, they just literally plug the questionable article headline or URL into Google. If your search terms are “SHOCK REVELATION: SHILLARY CAUGHT DRINKING BABIES’ BLOOD AT MARTHA’S VINEYARD ESTATE,” Google’s probably going to give you results that go along with its assumptions. But it doesn’t mean you can’t learn how to fact-check news articles, or that it can’t be taught. It might be interesting to repeat the study for other groups. College graduates? Graduate students? Also, I wonder if it’s possible to build a better search engine with this task in mind?

bb88 3y ago
The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. I also feel "fact check via google" is also the wrong way to go about it, because google just spits out whatever the internet says. The reality is that a certain skeptical mindset is required when consuming news reports. And when the skepticism goes away, you end up with a cult. And that's not something that every school district teaches.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  Firstly, I think you're right—and their policies very much so reflect this. Re: the "skeptical mindset"—I think critical thought is essential. But that's a lot more complex than merely having a "skeptical mindset", which is effectively what these "Do your own research" type of people tend to have. They're skeptical of the "mainstream elites", and that's about the end of the thought process. They're very likely to buy most narratives that counters mainstream consensus.
- sugarplant 3y ago
  > The cynic in me suggests that one of the political parties in the US doesn't really want the population well educated. yes just the single party that is the opposite of mine of course ;)
  - the_gastropod 3y ago
    Oh my! A both-sideser! Yep. Both U.S. political parties are equally problematic! No distinctions to be drawn, whatsoever!
    - mrangle 3y ago
      There are, in fact, at least two positions on most issues that the English speaking world cares about. But why move the goal post from voter education to a discussion on the subjective badness of the two main parties? That is, if your aim is to make a point under the discussion being had.

kgwxd 3y ago

"[Claim presented as absolute fact], prove me wrong". That's not how logic/argument/discussion works. If that's how the conversation is structured, that person is arguing in bad faith. It's a simple rule that should be taught at a very young age.

lucisferre 3y ago

My TL;DR: Some really interesting conclusions here, though nothing particularly surprising to anyone familiar with SEO practices. In particular the use of SEO techniques to target "data voids" to help own particular terms or phrases that are then used when searching up more information. > Low-quality publishers have been found to use search engine optimization techniques and encourage readers to use specific search queries when searching online by consistently using distinct phrases in their stories and in other media. These terms can guide users to data voids on search engines, where only one point of an unreliable view is represented. Low-quality news sources also often re-use stories from each other, polluting search engine results with other similar non-credible stories… Again, nothing most people here don't already know about the overlap between SEO and misinformation, but it is interesting to see some numbers behind the effect. > We found that, among those who first rated the false/misleading article correctly as false/misleading, 17.6% changed their evaluation to true after being prompted to search online (for comparison, among those who first incorrectly rated the article as true, only 5.8% changed their evaluation to false/misleading after being required to search online). One of the most interesting techniques exposed here is the use of unique terms that can then be easily owned by the misinformation outlets and likely to be used by those searching for more information. > Using the headline/lede as a search query probably produces unreliable results because they contain distinct phrases that only producers of unreliable information use. > The term ‘engineered famine’ in the article is a unique term that is unlikely to be used by reliable sources. An analysis of respondents’ search results found that adding the word ‘engineered’ in front of ‘famine’ changes the search results returned. 0% of search terms that contained the word ‘famine’ without ‘engineered’ in front of it returned unreliable results, whereas 63% of search queries that added ‘engineered’ in front of the word ‘famine’ were exposed to at least one unreliable result. In fact, 83% of all search terms that returned an unreliable result contained the term ‘engineered famine.’

jdewerd 3y ago

Nothing made me respect mainstream media more than a thousand "alternative" pundits crying foul while not only failing to do better but regressing on the basics: asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment, retracting articles when conflicting evidence arises, clearly delineating op/ed, etc. It's fair to argue that these things aren't sufficient, but it's absolutely wild how easy it wound up being to pass off regression for progression on this front. People really do just want to hear confirmation of their own opinions.

rayiner 3y ago
> asking accused parties for comment, asking adjacent experts for comment, retracting articles when conflicting evidence arises, clearly delineating op/ed, etc Mainstream media doesn’t do that anymore. Completely random example that I just saw: https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electoral-votes-2024/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/05/politics/road-to-270-electora.... The article says: “Trump is a seriously flawed candidate who has promised to govern in undemocratic ways.” That’s not in the opinion section.
- shawndrost 3y ago
  (Incidentally, I'm pretty sure this is an opinion/analysis article, not a news article. However, the fact that CNN doesn't clearly label opinion/analysis -- and the existence of analysis at all, which I don't remember being a thing a decade ago -- do[es] support your point.)
- jdewerd 3y ago
  If I had nothing to compare CNN to, I'd be scandalized.
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    What is the general cable news alternative with better journalism? I know of none. For individual news shows I think the best are 60 Minutes and Frontline.
- 3y ago

mrangle 3y ago

Social media is "the place" with the propagandist bots and partisan screamers? As opposed to where? There are at least two significant red flags in this article: a. It cites five studies, which it does not critique, instead of being a more serious review of one. Without a critique of any of the studies, the author restating their conclusions as some sort of pseudo meta-study is ironically low information. Given the forceful conclusions, an examination of the methodologies is crucial for persuasion. b. The article is openly partisan. Given how the terms "fake news", "misninformation" and "debunk" have been politicized and abused into virtual meaninglessness over the past eight years, the utilization of only those unexamined terms as the article's pillars does not make for compelling reading.

brokensegue 3y ago
As opposed to... Reputable news sources?
- mrangle 3y ago
  Which are they, assumably devoid of regularly appearing propaganda and of emotional partisans?

insickness 3y ago

So much "news" today is opinion masquerading as fact. While news media companies often do get the facts wrong, even when the facts are right, those facts are heavily colored by commentary and slant, often leaving out other facts that don't adhere to the narrative. I'm highly skeptical when the author's conclusion is that readers can't discern fake news on their own, when even educated people disagree on what is fake news, when the author thinks that people doing their own research is a problem, and virtue lies in believing the common narrative.

rstuart4133 3y ago
It's always been that way. My favourite example is the nightly financial report, where they will invariably say "the market did [something] today because of X". Very occasionally, like on 9/11, they will be right. But most of the time, it's near impossible to say why they market moved the way it did. They are just authoritatively babbling plausible sounding bullshit. The amazing thing for me is for decades I believed them. They don't just do it there of course. Another thing people describe is to read a mass media report on some event you attended, and not recognise it. I didn't realise how true that was until it happened to me. It was a report in by time.com of an event I attended in my local city. The report was all true, but it focused on a 10 person street protest. They were doing it because 1 million other people were attending the event, almost all of which were blithely unaware of the presence of those 10 people. It was a complete irrelevancy, yet it was probably the only words a fair chunk of the world's population got to read about the event. This was all decades ago. Today, surprise surprise, people write and say anything to get your attention, so they can display a ad and make money from you. Nothing has changed. Not even the motivations.

caseysoftware 3y ago

Circa 2008, I conducted an experiment. I watched an hour of CNN every night but it was never that night's coverage. It was from exactly two weeks ago. It was amazing how much "breaking news!" was irrelevant or just outright wrong, how many large trend predictions were wrong, and how many "[person] will do X" were wrong. While the predictions could have been portrayed as opinions, they were presented as facts and the obvious next steps or conclusions. I realized pretty quickly that avoiding CNN kept out the blatantly wrong information so even if I didn't replace it with anything, I was net ahead. And it wasn't unique to them. Choose whoever your out group channel is. Almost 10 years ago, I discovered this article and realized that some portion of it was probably on purpose: https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...

dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
The article talks about how a search engine can invisibly alter search to affect the outcome of an election. It’s interesting you mentioned watching the news, but delayed…the article was written before the 2016 election and says Google favored Hillary Clinton. Not taking away the point, because it’s valid…but you should find a newer article without such obvious error…just saying…
- caseysoftware 3y ago
  I have to admit: I don't know where the "obvious error" is. Which part is incorrect and why? Thanks.
  - dirtyhippiefree 3y ago
    Hillary lost, simple as that. So much for the manipulation being cut-and-dried… No, I didn’t support her opponent either…
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

commandlinefan 3y ago

Whenever I look at examples of something that the sort of people who use the term “misinformation” call misinformation it’s - almost always a direct quote, presented with no further elaboration, from somebody they dislike. Presenting an accurate Joe Biden quote (for example) isn’t misinformation, and “doing the research” means making sure it wasn’t taken out of context.

DoodahMan 3y ago
"#1 killer of kids" is a good example of common misinformation you'll hear when the gun debate pops up again. boy do folks like parroting that one - from randoms on the internet, to the politicians, to the media.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  How is this misinformation?

martinbaun 3y ago

Funnily enough the main-stream media keep making fake news, but somehow we're suppose to believe in them and not question things ourselves.

TibbityFlanders 3y ago

[dead]

xtiansimon 3y ago

This week I learned about the “do your own research movement” on the podcast Amicus Deja Coup: Donald Trump and the Slow Civil War https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2024/01/donald-trump-january-6-capitol-riot-ashli-babbitt https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2024/01/donald-trump-janua...

amadeuspagel 3y ago

> But what’s the most enraging thing your uncle can say at Thanksgiving, right after he tells you about how the Rothschilds are behind an army of Colombians set to invade Idaho next week? “I’ve done my own research on this.” In other words: This is an example of The Cowpox of Doubt: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/15/the-cowpox-of-doubt/