Should social networks tell you if you’ve been following a fake account?(shkspr.mobi)
shkspr.mobi
Should social networks tell you if you’ve been following a fake account?
https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2020/09/should-twitter-tell-you-if-youve-been-following-a-fake-account/
116 comments
The response you imagine somebody having to that alert: “oh wow, I’ve been mislead. I should reevaluate some of my thinking”
The response somebody actually has: “Twitter is part of the pedophile ring and also they’re watching me.”
The response somebody actually has: “Twitter is part of the pedophile ring and also they’re watching me.”
Exactly; they don't trust fact checking, because to them the word "fact" has been co-opted by The Man. There's no reasoning with some people.
Actually there's no reasoning with most people; most people can't be convinced that e.g. the earth is flat even when presented with loads of evidence. Speaking for myself, I don't feel like I've changed my opinion on a lot of things for a long time.
Actually there's no reasoning with most people; most people can't be convinced that e.g. the earth is flat even when presented with loads of evidence. Speaking for myself, I don't feel like I've changed my opinion on a lot of things for a long time.
Most people are able to reason, but patching your operating system requires elevated permissions and people only hand that to those they trust.
Part of the problem with the shitty discourse today is that empathy for the ‘they’ everyone talks about is an act of treason. It’s very difficult to bulls trust without that.
Part of the problem with the shitty discourse today is that empathy for the ‘they’ everyone talks about is an act of treason. It’s very difficult to bulls trust without that.
Trust requires reciprocity, and reciprocity has broken down.
Some people understand that putting forward a position and calling it "fact checking" isn't something that only The Man is capable of. In fact, they know that certain "fact checking" sources have been spinning their take much longer than him.
You'd think that "Use your eyes. It looks flat!" Would be enough...
/s You forgot a "not". :)
/s You forgot a "not". :)
The reason people don't trust "fact checks" is because they are often created by people with an agenda. I myself have rarely ever seen a good and neutral "fact check".
Shirley you can't be serious?
That sort of claim demands some sort of evidence, multiple idealy given the extraordinary claim.
That sort of claim demands some sort of evidence, multiple idealy given the extraordinary claim.
I think it really matters. A lot of people are being misled in a much more subtitle way, and aren't full blown conspiracy theorists. I think it would make people more careful, if they where told that what they have read in the past have been proven false. I think there are more people like me, who thinks we have reasonably good idea of what to trust, but probably have read some fake news we haven't picked up on, and would like to know what was fake to help us avoid it in the future.
The reason that the rightwing falls prey to conspiracy theories is that there aren't enough rightwing intellectuals and institutions to lead their followers. And this in turn has happened because those intellectuals keep being persecuted and cancelled.
If your only source for a rightwing perspective is the streetcorner lunatic, then you might just listen in.
EDIT: I should add how this relates to your post. There needs to be rightwing-slant fact checkers that can call out the worst bullshit. People will only trust criticism perceived as coming from their own camp.
If your only source for a rightwing perspective is the streetcorner lunatic, then you might just listen in.
EDIT: I should add how this relates to your post. There needs to be rightwing-slant fact checkers that can call out the worst bullshit. People will only trust criticism perceived as coming from their own camp.
Thoes downvotes, I guess it really is bad to express an opinion counter to the mob on HN.
Do you feel that the people wearing blue coats also have the same set of issues?
And to anyone downvoting him, got a source for the counterpoint? I've been looking for a right leaning intellectual voice for years. I haven't been able to find any that don't use obviously fallicious arguments or ignore important contexts of reality.
Do you feel that the people wearing blue coats also have the same set of issues?
And to anyone downvoting him, got a source for the counterpoint? I've been looking for a right leaning intellectual voice for years. I haven't been able to find any that don't use obviously fallicious arguments or ignore important contexts of reality.
Pretty sure in that episode I linked it was put forth that everybody pretty much just swallows what they're fed by the people they've chosen to trust, both left and right, so yeah. The difference is the the left has largely chosen to trust science and academia and the right has chosen to demonize both of those institutions.
> everybody pretty much just swallows what they're fed by the people they've chosen to trust, both left and right
This.
This.
I guess I'll be downvoted with you but there was actually an episode of Why Is This Happening about exactly this -
> How did wearing a mask become a polarizing issue? If you’re paying close attention, the arguments against masks might sound familiar: denying the science, cherry-picking data, cries of infringing on personal freedoms. It’s a page out of the Republican establishment’s playbook for weaponizing climate change denial. Back in 2018, Chris spoke with Vox writer David Roberts about the crisis of information cultivated by the current conservative movement and it's a conversation that seems, if possible, more relevant than ever.
https://overcast.fm/+Vm1isKU1Y
> How did wearing a mask become a polarizing issue? If you’re paying close attention, the arguments against masks might sound familiar: denying the science, cherry-picking data, cries of infringing on personal freedoms. It’s a page out of the Republican establishment’s playbook for weaponizing climate change denial. Back in 2018, Chris spoke with Vox writer David Roberts about the crisis of information cultivated by the current conservative movement and it's a conversation that seems, if possible, more relevant than ever.
https://overcast.fm/+Vm1isKU1Y
If this results in them leaving twitter then is that not a positive?
We can't save the people who have already gone down the rabbit hole but we can prevent more jumping in after them.
We can't save the people who have already gone down the rabbit hole but we can prevent more jumping in after them.
sure the diehard conspiracy people can't be hlped even with that information, but there's a non-zero amount of people who will understand that they've read false information.
I don't really see the downside to correcting false information. If someone's too deep down the rabbit hole fine, but there are people who are not.
I don't really see the downside to correcting false information. If someone's too deep down the rabbit hole fine, but there are people who are not.
It's depressing how stupid we (Humans) are...
>It's depressing how stupid we (Humans) are...
While I have often repeated George Carlin's observation[0] that: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
And felt superior, the truth (as it is with most things) is much more nuanced and complex.
Firstly, what we term our (singular) "mind" is really the synthesis of multiple, sometimes competing[1] neural systems.
In part, our "view" of the world around us isn't the real-time "I sense it and it's so" process we experience. Rather, our brains' multiple systems take in and interpret stimuli (including memories and physical responses sparked by those stimuli) and arrive at a "story" our brain tells us, that we see as "reality."
In most cases, the story is close enough to the actual events/stimuli around us, that we do just fine.
In many surroundings/situations we often make decisions/judgements which don't engage the higher-level reasoning portions of our brains, but instead rely on systems driven by emotion and responses selected for over millions of years of evolution.
An interesting and accessible discussion of this can be found in the recent PBS series Hacking Your Mind[2].
The upshot is that while we aren't necessarily dumb, our neural systems are susceptible to being misled when specific responses (fear is an excellent example) are induced by stimuli (in this case, social media posts) that push us to rely on the emotional/quick response systems in our brains more so than the slower, more reasoned/balanced systems.
And that isn't a dumb vs. smart thing. It's taking advantage of responses/processes that have evolved in us and our ancestors over millions of years. Those processes were (and sometimes still are) critical in quickly assessing whether or not a specific situation or individual poses a threat, an opportunity or can safely be ignored.
So, no. We aren't stupid, we're just wired to respond in certain ways that marketers and propagandists use to their own advantage.
Obviously, this is over simplified (hey, it's a comment on HN, not an academic paper), but I believe it elucidates the nuance/complexity of human interpretation and experience of "reality."
I'd welcome those who have actual expertise in this area to chime in with better/more specific information.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/43852-think-of-how-stupid-t...
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/of-two-minds-when...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/show/hacking-your-mind/
While I have often repeated George Carlin's observation[0] that: "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
And felt superior, the truth (as it is with most things) is much more nuanced and complex.
Firstly, what we term our (singular) "mind" is really the synthesis of multiple, sometimes competing[1] neural systems.
In part, our "view" of the world around us isn't the real-time "I sense it and it's so" process we experience. Rather, our brains' multiple systems take in and interpret stimuli (including memories and physical responses sparked by those stimuli) and arrive at a "story" our brain tells us, that we see as "reality."
In most cases, the story is close enough to the actual events/stimuli around us, that we do just fine.
In many surroundings/situations we often make decisions/judgements which don't engage the higher-level reasoning portions of our brains, but instead rely on systems driven by emotion and responses selected for over millions of years of evolution.
An interesting and accessible discussion of this can be found in the recent PBS series Hacking Your Mind[2].
The upshot is that while we aren't necessarily dumb, our neural systems are susceptible to being misled when specific responses (fear is an excellent example) are induced by stimuli (in this case, social media posts) that push us to rely on the emotional/quick response systems in our brains more so than the slower, more reasoned/balanced systems.
And that isn't a dumb vs. smart thing. It's taking advantage of responses/processes that have evolved in us and our ancestors over millions of years. Those processes were (and sometimes still are) critical in quickly assessing whether or not a specific situation or individual poses a threat, an opportunity or can safely be ignored.
So, no. We aren't stupid, we're just wired to respond in certain ways that marketers and propagandists use to their own advantage.
Obviously, this is over simplified (hey, it's a comment on HN, not an academic paper), but I believe it elucidates the nuance/complexity of human interpretation and experience of "reality."
I'd welcome those who have actual expertise in this area to chime in with better/more specific information.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/43852-think-of-how-stupid-t...
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/of-two-minds-when...
[2] https://www.pbs.org/show/hacking-your-mind/
The human mind is really quite complex if you get into it, there are so many different phenomena going on yet the outcome, when rendered to (the consciousness of) the owner of the mind, it appears quite indistinguishable from reality itself. This might help explain why almost all people seem to have such high levels of confidence in their own beliefs being 100% accurate, but can so easily see cognitive errors in others (which they themselves cannot see).
All of this isn't incredibly well understood by scientists and philosophers, but there are all sorts of theories and studies that are chipping away at the mystery. Digging into the material while reflecting upon the nature and contents of one's own mind, a lot of interesting questions arise, like "just how is it that I seem to know the answer to so many things, and can often even articulate how I know things to be true, but then often discover I'm actually incorrect"? Or "I believe X, and I consciously attribute it to Y, but how would I know for certain that Y is the only thing upon which my belief rests"? It also makes reading social media a lot more interesting because you get to observe manifestations of the illusions up close.
Based on my layman knowledge of the underlying neurology & psychology, combined with the epistemic crisis (systemic racism/corruption, conspiracy theories, fake news, etc) that can be observed on a daily basis on any social media platform (and interfering with democracy), I have come to strongly "believe" that society should be having some serious conversations about whether this material should be included in some way with standard school curriculum, perhaps as a sibling to the anti-racism/stereotyping initiatives that seem to be showing some decent results.
Just a few of the many interesting theories about what's going on in our brains:
Heuristics in judgment and decision-making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_dec...
How the Brain Biases Beliefs: https://neurosciencenews.com/biases-beliefs-9701/
Belief formation – A driving force for brain evolution: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027826261...
State-dependent Memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory
Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The Noumenal World and the Phenomenal World: http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/WOKs/Reason/Useful%20Informatio...
Four theories of amodal perception: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3td65034/qt3td65034_noSpl...
The Importance of Amodal Completion in Everyday Perception: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6083800/
What Is Amodal Completion?
"Amodal completion is the representation of those parts of the perceived object that we get no sensory stimulation from. In the case of vision, it is the representation of occluded parts of objects we see: When we see a cat behind a picket fence, our perceptual system represents those parts of the cat that are occluded by the picket fence."
"If perception is sensitive to top-down influences because of the top-down sensitivity of amodal completion, then it is not an unbiased way of learning about the world, as our preexisting thoughts, beliefs and expectations could influence how and what we perceive (see Siegel, 2011 on a version of this worry). So we get a form of vicious circularity: Our beliefs, thoughts and expectations are supposed to be based on and justified by our perceptual states, but these perceptual states themselves are influenced by our beliefs, thoughts and expectations (because of the top-down influences on perception via amodal completion)."
All of this isn't incredibly well understood by scientists and philosophers, but there are all sorts of theories and studies that are chipping away at the mystery. Digging into the material while reflecting upon the nature and contents of one's own mind, a lot of interesting questions arise, like "just how is it that I seem to know the answer to so many things, and can often even articulate how I know things to be true, but then often discover I'm actually incorrect"? Or "I believe X, and I consciously attribute it to Y, but how would I know for certain that Y is the only thing upon which my belief rests"? It also makes reading social media a lot more interesting because you get to observe manifestations of the illusions up close.
Based on my layman knowledge of the underlying neurology & psychology, combined with the epistemic crisis (systemic racism/corruption, conspiracy theories, fake news, etc) that can be observed on a daily basis on any social media platform (and interfering with democracy), I have come to strongly "believe" that society should be having some serious conversations about whether this material should be included in some way with standard school curriculum, perhaps as a sibling to the anti-racism/stereotyping initiatives that seem to be showing some decent results.
Just a few of the many interesting theories about what's going on in our brains:
Heuristics in judgment and decision-making: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristics_in_judgment_and_dec...
How the Brain Biases Beliefs: https://neurosciencenews.com/biases-beliefs-9701/
Belief formation – A driving force for brain evolution: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027826261...
State-dependent Memory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory
Social Influence and the Collective Dynamics of Opinion Formation: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
The Noumenal World and the Phenomenal World: http://mrhoyestokwebsite.com/WOKs/Reason/Useful%20Informatio...
Four theories of amodal perception: https://escholarship.org/content/qt3td65034/qt3td65034_noSpl...
The Importance of Amodal Completion in Everyday Perception: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6083800/
What Is Amodal Completion?
"Amodal completion is the representation of those parts of the perceived object that we get no sensory stimulation from. In the case of vision, it is the representation of occluded parts of objects we see: When we see a cat behind a picket fence, our perceptual system represents those parts of the cat that are occluded by the picket fence."
"If perception is sensitive to top-down influences because of the top-down sensitivity of amodal completion, then it is not an unbiased way of learning about the world, as our preexisting thoughts, beliefs and expectations could influence how and what we perceive (see Siegel, 2011 on a version of this worry). So we get a form of vicious circularity: Our beliefs, thoughts and expectations are supposed to be based on and justified by our perceptual states, but these perceptual states themselves are influenced by our beliefs, thoughts and expectations (because of the top-down influences on perception via amodal completion)."
I agree. But there is a "creepy" factor that a social network knows what you click on. I suspect lots of people are unaware of that.
Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out? Would that make people more or less likely to use the library?
Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out? Would that make people more or less likely to use the library?
> Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out
No I wouldn't want anyone chastising me, nor any contact with a human (that can be awkward). But I'd be happy to get an email saying "Please be aware that the book X from the science section that you borrowed earlier has been found to contain inaccurate information and has been moved to our controversial science/science fiction section".
Retractoins occur all the time in newspapera but they build on the model that people actually read the newspaper. It doesn't work when people read one article from a social media link. Fact checking and retractions should be updated to work in the age of facebook 1) Respectable media would publish retractions to facebook, saying "Please notify anyone who followed the link to reuters.com/article/123 that the article has been corrected". 2) Fact checks would do the same thing (because this is most important with less respectable media).
For this to happen obviously facebook would want to agree to annoy a fraction of their users who don't want to find their favorite links unavailable, littered with warnigs, or followed by messages that they are eating an unhealthy news diet. Hopefully they realize that this is a goal worth pursuing.
No I wouldn't want anyone chastising me, nor any contact with a human (that can be awkward). But I'd be happy to get an email saying "Please be aware that the book X from the science section that you borrowed earlier has been found to contain inaccurate information and has been moved to our controversial science/science fiction section".
Retractoins occur all the time in newspapera but they build on the model that people actually read the newspaper. It doesn't work when people read one article from a social media link. Fact checking and retractions should be updated to work in the age of facebook 1) Respectable media would publish retractions to facebook, saying "Please notify anyone who followed the link to reuters.com/article/123 that the article has been corrected". 2) Fact checks would do the same thing (because this is most important with less respectable media).
For this to happen obviously facebook would want to agree to annoy a fraction of their users who don't want to find their favorite links unavailable, littered with warnigs, or followed by messages that they are eating an unhealthy news diet. Hopefully they realize that this is a goal worth pursuing.
This is something I would like my university to do. Yearly mail of 'Here are updates to course X you took, based on changes in our knowledge'.
We really don't have the best relationship with admitting change in our beliefs. Or with keeping records.
We really don't have the best relationship with admitting change in our beliefs. Or with keeping records.
You'd be receiving a lot of emails then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge
Is this a librarian chastising you or, on your next visit, telling you that the reference book you’d checked out had been shown to be a work of fiction and recataloged under conspiracy theories? Libraries have plenty of books with inaccuracies and they haven’t contributed to the downfall of popular discourse.
>Libraries have plenty of books with inaccuracies and they haven’t contributed to the downfall of popular discourse
because one has to actively seek out information in a library. Are you aware of any libraries that send out propaganda pamphlets to tens of millions of people? Because that actually has caused the downfall of societies
because one has to actively seek out information in a library. Are you aware of any libraries that send out propaganda pamphlets to tens of millions of people? Because that actually has caused the downfall of societies
To make the library analogy match how social media works, the book should be one you checked out because the library recommended it to you earlier based on books you had checked out earlier.
> Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out?
If what I checked out was fake? Yeah, personally I would like to be told.
If what I checked out was fake? Yeah, personally I would like to be told.
Your local library contains many non-fiction books that are filled with inaccurate statements. Librarians are happy to help you with fact checking research but it wouldn't be appropriate for them to label some books as fake. Make up your own mind.
I'm imagining a situation where a book was discovered to be an unequivocal lie, in its entirety. Something like the autobiography of Howard Hughes [1], where Hughes eventually said that he had no involvement, and did not know the writer. (This isn't actually the best example, because the book was pulled right before publication, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where it did get published. It came close.)
1: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/50-oh-howard-you-idio...
1: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/50-oh-howard-you-idio...
"This is a book full of things that I believe to be true. It therefore belongs in non-fiction" - random nutjob with a blog
In real libraries, they only stocked published books, and publishers decided what to publish. So the publishers acted as gatekeepers and fact-checkers (sometimes not so well, as the Howard Hughes example shows), and the library could accept their classification.
Now, anyone can write a book and add it to our hypothetical library. If the librarians aren't going to classify the books, then who does? Because someone has got to...
In real libraries, they only stocked published books, and publishers decided what to publish. So the publishers acted as gatekeepers and fact-checkers (sometimes not so well, as the Howard Hughes example shows), and the library could accept their classification.
Now, anyone can write a book and add it to our hypothetical library. If the librarians aren't going to classify the books, then who does? Because someone has got to...
The librarian analogy is a little stretched, but I do expect librarians to properly put fiction books in the fiction section and nonfiction books in the nonfiction section.
Yes, in order to stretch the surveillance analogy properly, the library itself is a living organism and you're inside of its digestive system, and it has eyes on the inside, and you're upset that it's watching you while digesting you.
In which of those sections do they put the Bible? There’s also plenty of content on social media that isn’t cleanly fiction or non-fiction.
Again we come back to the question "who gets to decide what is true?" - still the single most important political question of our age (imho).
Dewey Decimal category 220 "Religion".
If my elementary school training was correct, that makes the Bible "non-fiction".
"Non-fiction has numbers", we were told.
I'm not sure Dewey attempts to separate fact from fiction -- just to categorize the author's intent (or assertion).
In addition to the Christian Bible, the "non-fiction" section also contains religious texts that refute it. And New Age crystal vibration harmonic ecstasy stuff. And Dianetics.
The wide disagreement on "fiction" vs "non-fiction" is probably not a solvable problem. See also: a world map, at any time in recorded history.
"Non-fiction has numbers", we were told.
I'm not sure Dewey attempts to separate fact from fiction -- just to categorize the author's intent (or assertion).
In addition to the Christian Bible, the "non-fiction" section also contains religious texts that refute it. And New Age crystal vibration harmonic ecstasy stuff. And Dianetics.
The wide disagreement on "fiction" vs "non-fiction" is probably not a solvable problem. See also: a world map, at any time in recorded history.
[deleted]
As an atheist, putting the Bible in non-fiction makes sense to me because it's a true statement about the beliefs of a certain people. Whatever your religion, few people would consider reading the Bible to be "story time" in the same sense as Harry Potter, A Tale of Two Cities, or even something like The Odyssey. You're either studying the Bible to learn about God, or you're studying it to learn about other people.
That's not to say the line isn't murky, but that's true of any human classification system.
That's not to say the line isn't murky, but that's true of any human classification system.
> no one reading the Bible is settling down for story time
Speak for yourself. Several atheists including myself read some of the Bible for our book club. In particular the wisdom literature has value as a fiction removed from the religious context. Beyond that, the Bible is the earliest work we have which exhibits several tropes, and western art has been heavily influenced by it.
Speak for yourself. Several atheists including myself read some of the Bible for our book club. In particular the wisdom literature has value as a fiction removed from the religious context. Beyond that, the Bible is the earliest work we have which exhibits several tropes, and western art has been heavily influenced by it.
Interestingly, the Dewey Decimal system is used to organize nonfiction books.
Fictional works are organized alphabetically by the author's last name
Fictional works are organized alphabetically by the author's last name
>In which of those sections do they put the Bible? There’s also plenty of content on social media that isn’t cleanly fiction or non-fiction.
It's pretty clear that the anthology/compendium often termed "The Bible" is mostly myth and retellings of oral histories that date back many millenia, with some of those incorporating historical events (think docudrama[0]).
As such, I'd posit that in a vacuum, such works should be placed in the "Historical Fiction" section.
However, since there are quite a few of these works (the Hindu Vedas, the Tripitaka, the Quran, etc.), it seems that the current classification (Religion) is reasonable.
That said, not specifically calling it "fiction" doesn't make it non-fiction.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docudrama
It's pretty clear that the anthology/compendium often termed "The Bible" is mostly myth and retellings of oral histories that date back many millenia, with some of those incorporating historical events (think docudrama[0]).
As such, I'd posit that in a vacuum, such works should be placed in the "Historical Fiction" section.
However, since there are quite a few of these works (the Hindu Vedas, the Tripitaka, the Quran, etc.), it seems that the current classification (Religion) is reasonable.
That said, not specifically calling it "fiction" doesn't make it non-fiction.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docudrama
librarians are in no way like SM corporations. SM corporations are like digital drug dealers, doing anything possible to increase the eyeball time on the app. they achieve this by any means necessary. even at the cost of further radicalizing the thoughts/opinions of the masses. everything being discussed here threatens their very existence and they know it.
Chastising? No. But if there was a service available in which the librarian would tell me when a work I've borrowed has been criticized (or even thoroughly debunked) in some other publication, I'd definitely opt-in to that.
It’s just a matter of careful wording. Instead of “you clicked on <bad source>” just say “the source linked was bad”.
Better: we're sorry, we showed you <bad stuff> in your feed. We've determined it's untrue and removed it.
> Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out?
With cars that turn out to be defective, in Germany the authorities can issue mandatory recalls and notices to owners of cars of the recalled model.
If I borrowed a book at a library or read a scientific study that has been later proven to be wrong or outright misleading, yes I would like to be notified of that.
With cars that turn out to be defective, in Germany the authorities can issue mandatory recalls and notices to owners of cars of the recalled model.
If I borrowed a book at a library or read a scientific study that has been later proven to be wrong or outright misleading, yes I would like to be notified of that.
In the library case, I’d prefer that they couldn’t notify me because they didn’t keep a list of what I’d checked out (once I'd returned it).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the analogy here but I would expect the library to be fully aware of what books I have checked out. If I don't return a book, they would nag me about it. Why would that be strange or unusual for someone?
There's been too many instances of people with edgy opinions banned for being fake, so this could make things worse.
[deleted]
This is a great idea. I wouldn't go as far as requiring fact-checking of the fake accounts, but just an indication that what you read may have been inaccurate and point out all that you have read.
"Hillary Clinton runs child porn ring" — is not a fake data, it's a Russel's teapot, you can't fight it with reason. And marking as a fake is a bad move because it inflates notion of “fake”.
This is true in abstract but most of these claims have details which can be tested. You can’t disprove a perfect conspiracy but you can show that the named people don’t exist or weren’t in the place at that time, the “proof” image has incorrect details (e.g. remember the birthers alleging Obama had a birth certificate which mixed the name and seal of different countries and time periods?).
If it has enough detail to be tested, you can more justifiably mark it as fake. The vague unfalsifiable stuff is much less satisfying for people to spread.
If it has enough detail to be tested, you can more justifiably mark it as fake. The vague unfalsifiable stuff is much less satisfying for people to spread.
To some extent, yes. Some fact checks are obvious lies of course, falsified to disprove initial claim (talking from conspiracy theory supporter's side). It's really complicated topic.
Definitely. I just think there’s a tendency to let perfection be the enemy of the good here: there are thorny philosophical issues but the vast majority of this stuff is not that hard to recognize as fraudulent. Facebook and Twitter tried to ignore the problem to save money, not because it was hard.
Completely honest question, how is that not fake data? Or you think there is a dinstction about fake news and fake data? Would you mind sharing this dinstinction? Thank you!
Not the prior poster. The reason it is a Russell Teapot is that the claim is unfalsifiable - it cannot be tested.
Yes, they often refer to “facts” that cannot be proved or disproved. You cannot question conspiracy theory because every your claim will be opposed with just created new one. You reason (logically), they think up a new claim. It's pointless process.
I see that my explanation to 101008 of a Russell Teapot was downvoted. That's sad for a board that prides itself on people with intellect.
They will probably never expose their decisions to the wide world in that manner. That would incur liability for incorrect decisions by publicizing them.
Do it.
Don't expect anything significant.
Cigarettes have images selected to be revolting or upsetting to keep people away.
That is not the reason people stop smoking cigs, or the reason cig consumption is down.
Social reasons, huge taxes and a concerted effort to make this unviable for a majority of people, in combination has made the dent it has.
And yet, people smoke today.
Don't expect anything significant.
Cigarettes have images selected to be revolting or upsetting to keep people away.
That is not the reason people stop smoking cigs, or the reason cig consumption is down.
Social reasons, huge taxes and a concerted effort to make this unviable for a majority of people, in combination has made the dent it has.
And yet, people smoke today.
> this article has been fact checked as misleading and the account sharing this has been identified as a fake account operated from Russia
Something I've always wondered about stories of accounts being portrayed as "from" a certain country, my impression has always been that things like location and ip address data can be spoofed to make it appear that you are in a location other than where you actually are.
Does anyone happen to have technical depth in this area? Is it known with high certainty that it is impossible to spoof this information and then make posts from a social media account (Yes/No/Maybe)? (And, how is it known?)
Something I've always wondered about stories of accounts being portrayed as "from" a certain country, my impression has always been that things like location and ip address data can be spoofed to make it appear that you are in a location other than where you actually are.
Does anyone happen to have technical depth in this area? Is it known with high certainty that it is impossible to spoof this information and then make posts from a social media account (Yes/No/Maybe)? (And, how is it known?)
What would be the benefit for Social Networks?
Their metrics are active monthly users and ad revenue. The more buzz is going on, the better for them.
They will sometimes have to delete the most obvious fake accounts, yeah, but besides that they couldn't be more happy when fans of the People’s Front of Judea have virtual battles with the fans of Judeas Front of People (i know the joke, but I don't know it in English, just German, hope this translation is correct).
All of that generates just more buzz, drives people to the platform, generates clicks, pageviews, ad revenue.
Social Networks will always only do the bare minimum to fulfill (the rather low) requirements of the law and let the rest flow...
Their metrics are active monthly users and ad revenue. The more buzz is going on, the better for them.
They will sometimes have to delete the most obvious fake accounts, yeah, but besides that they couldn't be more happy when fans of the People’s Front of Judea have virtual battles with the fans of Judeas Front of People (i know the joke, but I don't know it in English, just German, hope this translation is correct).
All of that generates just more buzz, drives people to the platform, generates clicks, pageviews, ad revenue.
Social Networks will always only do the bare minimum to fulfill (the rather low) requirements of the law and let the rest flow...
Blessed are the cheesemakers!
You were almost spot on. I believe it's the Judean People's Front. The People's Front of Judea is correct.
Spare a coin for an old ex-leper?
You were almost spot on. I believe it's the Judean People's Front. The People's Front of Judea is correct.
Spare a coin for an old ex-leper?
I would be interested in buying either a pack of small stones or ocelot ears. Do you have any of those?
Serious question, to you and the many other people who make points like this on these stories: what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements?
> what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue?
Because the number of monthly active users/the number of pageviews gets higher. That's a talking point when doing ad sales. It's about potential reach of advertisements, which also defines the price of your campaigns.
> Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads?
They probably won't. You'll see lots of reach but no conversions. That's the point where ad-agencies or the social networks itself jump in and "help you" "optimize" your ads for conversions. Maybe some of it will even stick in the end, who knows. Anyway, some people along the chain made money.
> What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements?
Do advertisers really know? I think in most cases your targeting is kept fuzzy enough so you're not able to pinpoint it down to a post level or whatnot, at least you will reach your "target audience". (That also sounds great when your marketing presents the numbers: "Big hit in the target audience, but no conversions yet! We'll have to fine tune our ads even more...") Whether they are sharing cat pictures or are discussing genocide... You'll never really know in the end.
Of course there was some uproar when companies found their advertisments as pre-roll ads on the YouTube videos of ISIS, but that's a storm in a water glass. Nothing to really worry about after all.
Because the number of monthly active users/the number of pageviews gets higher. That's a talking point when doing ad sales. It's about potential reach of advertisements, which also defines the price of your campaigns.
> Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads?
They probably won't. You'll see lots of reach but no conversions. That's the point where ad-agencies or the social networks itself jump in and "help you" "optimize" your ads for conversions. Maybe some of it will even stick in the end, who knows. Anyway, some people along the chain made money.
> What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements?
Do advertisers really know? I think in most cases your targeting is kept fuzzy enough so you're not able to pinpoint it down to a post level or whatnot, at least you will reach your "target audience". (That also sounds great when your marketing presents the numbers: "Big hit in the target audience, but no conversions yet! We'll have to fine tune our ads even more...") Whether they are sharing cat pictures or are discussing genocide... You'll never really know in the end.
Of course there was some uproar when companies found their advertisments as pre-roll ads on the YouTube videos of ISIS, but that's a storm in a water glass. Nothing to really worry about after all.
I think this would probably be a good thing, but that it won't happen because it will reduce engagement and trust for the platform by drawing to attention how full of garbage it is - not in aggregate, lots of people know that, but in your immediate sphere, which I suspect most people like to believe is cleaner than the average.
So: good for the world, bad for the platform. Not gonna be implemented by the platform owners...
So: good for the world, bad for the platform. Not gonna be implemented by the platform owners...
I am not even sure if it is good for the world. When presented with evidence to the contrary, many people might simply dig in to their existing beliefs.
Unless you require a proof of ID, theres not gonna be a reliable way to identify fake accounts. You'll get the same sort of algo-driven mass mistakes we now see in Youtube.
They may not get identify all fake accounts, but there are still tons of accounts which can be clearly identified as fake.
This assumes they care. Even Facebook, the social network that used to kick you off for not using your real name, now informs you that low effort sex-bots (nothing but a pouting stock photo, a single post inviting you to join their 'adult dating' website at a dubious-looking link and a lot of random friend requests) don't breach their guidelines in any way if you report them, which presumably involves an actual human in the loop.
Other platforms are of course more favourably disposed towards multiple accounts, automation assisted high volume posts, shifting identities and parody accounts
Other platforms are of course more favourably disposed towards multiple accounts, automation assisted high volume posts, shifting identities and parody accounts
> This assumes they care.
They do slightly, but only to the degree that their actual users get annoyed by all the bots. And people are surprisingly willing to put up with the bots, so.... yeah, I agree.
They do slightly, but only to the degree that their actual users get annoyed by all the bots. And people are surprisingly willing to put up with the bots, so.... yeah, I agree.
My point is that proof of ID or ownership should be implemented, as that would get rid of the problem.
Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional. Anonymity should still be the default.
Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional. Anonymity should still be the default.
It would open yet another can of worms. The GDPR explicitly calls for the possibility of anonymous usage of services, for one.
The other thing is - imagine I were a gay man living in Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones"), or in Russia where "advocating" for LGBT is a crime, or in Saudi-Arabia where you might end up literally decapitated. I could go and discuss topics regarding my sexuality on Twitter anonymously - but with a forced tie to a government ID?! I would have to fear authorities using my free speech to get me imprisoned or worse all the time!
The other thing is - imagine I were a gay man living in Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones"), or in Russia where "advocating" for LGBT is a crime, or in Saudi-Arabia where you might end up literally decapitated. I could go and discuss topics regarding my sexuality on Twitter anonymously - but with a forced tie to a government ID?! I would have to fear authorities using my free speech to get me imprisoned or worse all the time!
I agree totally it is a privacy minefield but proofs of ID are already required by many institutions that have far less resources than tech giants. In Poland for example (where I'm from), the National ID is required in all sorts of situations, both online and otherwise.
Also, I never meant to suggest proof of ID would be mandatory to use the service! It would be an additional status you can get optionally, if you want to get extra credibility. If you desire anonymity instead, that should absolutely be your right.
At the moment, you can get a checkmark on your twitter but how you do it is a bit unclear. Technically you have to be somewhat noteworthy, but the bar seems to be really low. If this was an entirely user-initiated process, over time people would associate that status with higher credibility.
Also, I never meant to suggest proof of ID would be mandatory to use the service! It would be an additional status you can get optionally, if you want to get extra credibility. If you desire anonymity instead, that should absolutely be your right.
At the moment, you can get a checkmark on your twitter but how you do it is a bit unclear. Technically you have to be somewhat noteworthy, but the bar seems to be really low. If this was an entirely user-initiated process, over time people would associate that status with higher credibility.
Not really sure what any of this would accomplish -- conspiracy-minded folk would actively distrust check-marked accounts and "I'm not operating under my real name because The Man" is a signal of trustworthiness.
mamon(2)
Have you heard of the BrightID project? I think it could be a pretty cool way to determine real identity without leaking info to the network at large.
I haven't and admit I don't have the expertise required to understand it unfortunately. I can't really see how it could work to actually prove someone is not a bot in large scale social networks. Like, what's stopping three real people to get verified and then use that to verify any amount of bots?
[deleted]
Only because the platforms need to rid fake accounts to keep engagement high.
Makes you wonder, would the platforms ever be truly transparent with their product?
Example: Soylent Green.
Makes you wonder, would the platforms ever be truly transparent with their product?
Example: Soylent Green.
Those are real accounts, run by real people: people who are spammers or propagandists. The idea that there are “fake” or “bot” accounts is just pro-censorship nonsense. There is no AGI, these are just alt accounts for human beings (that potentially have an agenda).
I, for one, don’t want Twitter, or anyone else, arbitrarily deciding what (or from whom) I’m allowed to read.
Twitter’s shadowbanning a lot of terms from search lately, especially those related to conspiracies or organized, armed groups (even groups without histories of violence).
It’s becoming really terrifying to not be able to get a clear or complete picture of the relative size/penetration of these memes, or to know what these groups are saying or being told (regardless of whether I buy into their ideologies or not).
Keeping tabs on what’s going on in one of the most volatile and potentially dangerous times ever is now being actively hindered by the social platforms, and it’s terrible.
We do not need more of that, and we desperately need less.
Better scoring, grouping, tagging, and classification tools would be GREAT. More censorship would not.
I, for one, don’t want Twitter, or anyone else, arbitrarily deciding what (or from whom) I’m allowed to read.
Twitter’s shadowbanning a lot of terms from search lately, especially those related to conspiracies or organized, armed groups (even groups without histories of violence).
It’s becoming really terrifying to not be able to get a clear or complete picture of the relative size/penetration of these memes, or to know what these groups are saying or being told (regardless of whether I buy into their ideologies or not).
Keeping tabs on what’s going on in one of the most volatile and potentially dangerous times ever is now being actively hindered by the social platforms, and it’s terrible.
We do not need more of that, and we desperately need less.
Better scoring, grouping, tagging, and classification tools would be GREAT. More censorship would not.
I would go further - I want to be able to nominate people who I follow and Twitter should tell me if they have marked Tweets I have interacted with as untrue.
Why can't we peer review this stuff and let the "market" decide what is true. We know that this can work quite well and on average it should lead to better results than the social networks trying to do this themselves.
You can even gamify voting things as untrue - each person could have a page rank of things they have said are false and if they consistently downvote "the other side" for things that are true their voting ability will be proportionally reduced.
Why can't we peer review this stuff and let the "market" decide what is true. We know that this can work quite well and on average it should lead to better results than the social networks trying to do this themselves.
You can even gamify voting things as untrue - each person could have a page rank of things they have said are false and if they consistently downvote "the other side" for things that are true their voting ability will be proportionally reduced.
Poe’s law means I don’t know if I’m engaging in good or bad faith here but...
Your suggestion sounds like letting the ”crowd” decide; basically voting on the truth democratically. Religion is (kind of) an implementation, where people can “vote” for the denomination whose truth they prefer. They vote with their feet or with their guns, depending on surrounding historical context.
Letting the “market” decide would probably require some additional mechanisms, like financial reinforcement. Advertising is (kind of) an implementation: the more money you spend, the stronger your signal will be. Alas, it’s an incomplete implementation and pernicious ground truth often has an undue influence.
Your suggestion sounds like letting the ”crowd” decide; basically voting on the truth democratically. Religion is (kind of) an implementation, where people can “vote” for the denomination whose truth they prefer. They vote with their feet or with their guns, depending on surrounding historical context.
Letting the “market” decide would probably require some additional mechanisms, like financial reinforcement. Advertising is (kind of) an implementation: the more money you spend, the stronger your signal will be. Alas, it’s an incomplete implementation and pernicious ground truth often has an undue influence.
You could try peer reviewed fact checking, Wikipedia seems to have managed okay, so it’s possible even if the terminology and models above are not.
> Why can't we peer review this stuff and let the "market" decide what is true.
In a sense we already do. Right-leaning and left-leaning groups already believe mostly non-overlapping sets of “alternative facts”. Each side builds its own narrative not so much because of hate for the other side, but because in aggregate the total amount of misinformation has eroded the potential for credibility of any person or statement that doesn’t come from one’s own “in” group.
In today’s Internet you build your own picture of what’s true. Everything else is noise.
In a sense we already do. Right-leaning and left-leaning groups already believe mostly non-overlapping sets of “alternative facts”. Each side builds its own narrative not so much because of hate for the other side, but because in aggregate the total amount of misinformation has eroded the potential for credibility of any person or statement that doesn’t come from one’s own “in” group.
In today’s Internet you build your own picture of what’s true. Everything else is noise.
When I see “Hydroxychloroquine is not able to cure COVID-19” is it better that warning is flagged by the community or by Twitter. I prefer a community solution; saying it’s not possible is IMO a lack of inventiveness around how the tagging could work. This also scales much better.
Some of the great Twitter accounts (e.g. Titania McGrath) are utter frauds.
The ones that irritate are the Stolen Valor type, where people claim military service. The game tends to fall apart quickly, though.
The reason is that these experiences are binary. Think sysadmins: you've either done it, and can sustain a conversation about Linux or you haven't.
Fakery has a short half-life.
The ones that irritate are the Stolen Valor type, where people claim military service. The game tends to fall apart quickly, though.
The reason is that these experiences are binary. Think sysadmins: you've either done it, and can sustain a conversation about Linux or you haven't.
Fakery has a short half-life.
Caveat emptor. It says a lot about people on social networks that they can't see through a fake account. Either they don't have the intelligence to discriminate between fake and real or they are so easily led about that anyone -- even fake people -- can sway them one way or the other. The latter is what scares me the most, especially when they vote. The naive and easily swayed are the very people who elect and empower persuasive dictators and tyrants. Social media isn't "the problem" but it's accelerating an existing problem.
> https://spotthetroll.org/
Fake accounts, especially for swaying public opinion are not that easy to spot.
I failed at spotting several, and I used to spend more time than average dealing with user content.
It's hard to look at an account and simply say "this isn't a person.", perhaps more so if you have a broad view on the range of possible human behavior.
Maliciously formed content works hard to be indistinguishable from normal behavior, Its essentially a pseudo turing test. Can we mass produce social media accounts that pass for human to both humans and automated systems.
I'm really not sure how someone can identify this unless they are trained.
Fake accounts, especially for swaying public opinion are not that easy to spot.
I failed at spotting several, and I used to spend more time than average dealing with user content.
It's hard to look at an account and simply say "this isn't a person.", perhaps more so if you have a broad view on the range of possible human behavior.
Maliciously formed content works hard to be indistinguishable from normal behavior, Its essentially a pseudo turing test. Can we mass produce social media accounts that pass for human to both humans and automated systems.
I'm really not sure how someone can identify this unless they are trained.
> Fake accounts, especially for swaying public opinion are not that easy to spot.
If you don't know the account holder in person, or through word of mouth in a social context, don't follow them.
If you don't know the account holder in person, or through word of mouth in a social context, don't follow them.
My larger point is that people who cannot distinguish between reality and not-reality are an extreme drag on a society as they require others to think for them. Such people shouldn't be on social media and shouldn't be voting... it's how we end up with the politicians in office that we have now. People who have a solid grasp on reality and their own convictions won’t be swayed by online activists whether they are flesh and blood or bits and bytes.
lame. the real problem is the algorithm generated feeds that apps like instagram, FB and twitter use. their main goal is to occupy the eyeballs for as long as possible. this manifests in people being sucked deeper down into their own echo chamber. yes, that echo chamber is filled with garbage, but the garbage lined, endless pit of media streaming and it’s impact on our society squarely originates at the core and maniacal focus of SM platforms to to increase app use time. period. everything else is window dressing.
I assume the fake account will be deleted, which means I will stop following it.
However, I do think they should notify every follower of said fake account, letting them know that what they've read might be false.
However, I do think they should notify every follower of said fake account, letting them know that what they've read might be false.
All your facebook friends are fake friends.
Delete it and go outside.
Delete it and go outside.
My answer would be yes, or rather not a binary yes/no but the probability from their models that an account is fake.
should ebay tell you if you purchased something from a fraud account and it's never going to arrive?
Why not simply delete the fake account?
[deleted]
Yes.
If they do look for fake accounts and misinformation, its not enough to remove the misinformation they have to inform people they have been misinformed.