Ask HN: Is misinformation a solvable problem?
the code and cost to generate misinformation is essentially free
29 comments
It is fundamentally unsolvable problem.
Many literature about it from fiction like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Grove
Through pop sci https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/789727.How_Real_Is_Real_
All the way to the deepest epistemological problems.
The main reason is similar to why AGI cannot be achieved — it is impossible to achieve something that you can’t or haven’t clearly defined first.
Many literature about it from fiction like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_a_Grove
Through pop sci https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/789727.How_Real_Is_Real_
All the way to the deepest epistemological problems.
The main reason is similar to why AGI cannot be achieved — it is impossible to achieve something that you can’t or haven’t clearly defined first.
I agree but I still (foolishly maybe) did try my hand at a type of solution. In fact, I called it Rashomon (https://www.rashomonnews.com/), related to the "In A Grove" link you shared. Misinformation, in addition to being effectively free/having no cost is also unfortunately very useful sometimes. I don't know if we can ever "solve" it, but maybe we can measure it.
I felt disappointment after sign up. It's a barren land. What were we supposed to see there?
Some people even define the whole comedy genre as misinformation and miscommunication.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheSevenBa...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/TheSevenBa...
I understand what you're getting at, but I think we're trying to attack the wrong issue here.
Humans have been lying or sharing incorrect information (whether the person had known it or not) for thousands of years. The only difference now is the volume of information being thrown at us has increased an exponential amount and our brains haven't evolved to handle that.
So my thinking is that we shouldn't be trying to reel in the "bad" information, we should just be trying to reel in the speed at which information is coming at us.
Humans have been lying or sharing incorrect information (whether the person had known it or not) for thousands of years. The only difference now is the volume of information being thrown at us has increased an exponential amount and our brains haven't evolved to handle that.
So my thinking is that we shouldn't be trying to reel in the "bad" information, we should just be trying to reel in the speed at which information is coming at us.
Besides the speed at which information is coming at us, there is an additional component - the fraction of that information that is lies.
When you lived in a small village, most people didn't lie most of the time. The ones who did, you knew who they were. You might not know what was going on at the royal court in the capital city, but you could have a pretty accurate idea of what was going on in your town.
What fraction of tweets are lies/misinformation? Things have changed.
When you lived in a small village, most people didn't lie most of the time. The ones who did, you knew who they were. You might not know what was going on at the royal court in the capital city, but you could have a pretty accurate idea of what was going on in your town.
What fraction of tweets are lies/misinformation? Things have changed.
You bring up another interesting point that I hadn't realized. The internet doesn't allow us to recognize the "liars" as easily. In the village example you gave, you have a person's face to go off of. On the internet, I could see 100 different "people", but it could be all the same face and I just don't know it.
There's a bunch of variations of that, but I think you get the point. Our natural abilities to filter things appropriately is drastically hindered and subverted in the current forms of delivery on the internet.
There's a bunch of variations of that, but I think you get the point. Our natural abilities to filter things appropriately is drastically hindered and subverted in the current forms of delivery on the internet.
It's a matter of curating quality sources of information. Society solved this with the concept of reputation as a fairly good heuristic.
People find groups they want to join in proportion to the ease of finding those groups (which is in proportion to the size of those groups) and the degree to which they agree with them. You could try to change those factors, but would it be very simple?
Freedom of the press should be protected, no labeled.
The problem is the spreading of it, and given human social dynamics, there is no permanent solution.
Absolutely.
People who spread misinformation aren't evil. They subscribe to a certain set of ideals, and feel comfortable within their social circles when those ideals get reinforced. The main desire is to be validated as a person, the issue is that internet has allowed those social circles to leak and attract other people looking for validation.
All you need to do is to provide a natural organization of those social circles with a technical solution, where people can get the validation while having their ideas reinforced, except those ideas would be factually correct.
And on a hierarchy of needs, things like money and food and shelter and health come way before ideology, so you just need financial incentives in that form to get people to organize. I.e something that looks like "If you post a true wikipedia article that is peer reviewed to be true, you get tax breaks or payouts, if you post things that are factually false, you get a fee".
Multiple ways to solve this technically. All the solutions however would require a government funded/ran public key registry associated with your unique username, with a corresponding private key that is password+biometric determined, and you would need to have every piece of social media signed with a private key.
People who spread misinformation aren't evil. They subscribe to a certain set of ideals, and feel comfortable within their social circles when those ideals get reinforced. The main desire is to be validated as a person, the issue is that internet has allowed those social circles to leak and attract other people looking for validation.
All you need to do is to provide a natural organization of those social circles with a technical solution, where people can get the validation while having their ideas reinforced, except those ideas would be factually correct.
And on a hierarchy of needs, things like money and food and shelter and health come way before ideology, so you just need financial incentives in that form to get people to organize. I.e something that looks like "If you post a true wikipedia article that is peer reviewed to be true, you get tax breaks or payouts, if you post things that are factually false, you get a fee".
Multiple ways to solve this technically. All the solutions however would require a government funded/ran public key registry associated with your unique username, with a corresponding private key that is password+biometric determined, and you would need to have every piece of social media signed with a private key.
WWhat is misinformation? What does "solve" mean? (Is that the same as "what should be done about misinformation?")
There are ways to help prevent it. For example, if social media had a built-in feature for citing scientific papers, that could help a little. There wouldn't really be an excuse not to include them. Also, if there was a better way to quantity the validity of papers (while somehow avoiding Goodharts law), that could give people a more efficient way to sort through information.
LLMs might help a little, if we could find a way to control for their bias.
Another strategy is comparing both extremes of an opinion. GroundNews has employed this strategy. Whether or not it's effective at preventing misinformation, I don't know. But it's an interesting idea.
The last and most important preventative technique is to teach people how to avoid confirmation bias. I think that is the source of most misinformation: the gullibility of the general population.
LLMs might help a little, if we could find a way to control for their bias.
Another strategy is comparing both extremes of an opinion. GroundNews has employed this strategy. Whether or not it's effective at preventing misinformation, I don't know. But it's an interesting idea.
The last and most important preventative technique is to teach people how to avoid confirmation bias. I think that is the source of most misinformation: the gullibility of the general population.
You may want to see the work of linguistics professor George Lakoff who recommends using certain patterns to disarm misinformation, like the “truth sandwich”.
https://soundcloud.com/future-hindsight/the-truth-sandwich-g...
One of the aspects of successful misinformation is that it establishes a desired framing of an issue. Merely repeating the framing, even to indicate its incorrectness, enforces it. The way around it is to never repeat the framing and use correct framing instead. Political speech nowadays is based on extremely weaponized framing. Once you hear this you can’t unhear it.
https://soundcloud.com/future-hindsight/the-truth-sandwich-g...
One of the aspects of successful misinformation is that it establishes a desired framing of an issue. Merely repeating the framing, even to indicate its incorrectness, enforces it. The way around it is to never repeat the framing and use correct framing instead. Political speech nowadays is based on extremely weaponized framing. Once you hear this you can’t unhear it.
The only thing that isn't potentially misinformation is that which you witness with your own eyes. Since everyone has their own eyes, calling what they witness misinformation is known as gaslighting.
The only way to prevent people sharing their experiences is called censorship.
What you're really asking is "can we stop people from lying?"
The answer is no.
The only way to prevent people sharing their experiences is called censorship.
What you're really asking is "can we stop people from lying?"
The answer is no.
I think you found the root, but let's go a step up - can we prevent lies from spreading?
It would seem like similar to stopping cancer or other bad things from spreading.
Fun story: I was involved in starting a fake newspaper just as a bit of hacker mischief. It spread fast on Facebook. FB eventually found a way to clamp down on fake news without needing downvotes, and later Google did. The only traces left of it are Snopes articles today.
It would seem like similar to stopping cancer or other bad things from spreading.
Fun story: I was involved in starting a fake newspaper just as a bit of hacker mischief. It spread fast on Facebook. FB eventually found a way to clamp down on fake news without needing downvotes, and later Google did. The only traces left of it are Snopes articles today.
It's just a terrible idea to even contemplate trying this. The solution to misinformation is an informed public, which doesn't come about by censoring information, but allowing unfettered access to it so that people can make an informed judgement.
Who even decides what is misinformation, and how do you prevent them from lying and spreading those lies themselves (or lying by omission)?
In 1615, authorities labeled Heliocentrism as misinformation.
The Chinese authorities label the Tiananmen sq. massacre as misinformation and "prevent lies from spreading."
Even many of today's "scientists" are dogmatic in what they consider misinformation because they have an all-knowing god called "peer review," and some of them promote censorship.
This is the kind of thing where the censors think they're doing the world good by "stopping the spread of misinformation," but they will be the historical villains in future because all they're doing is giving an authority the powers to misinform the public, because any information these authorities don't want spread can be labeled misinformation.
Who even decides what is misinformation, and how do you prevent them from lying and spreading those lies themselves (or lying by omission)?
In 1615, authorities labeled Heliocentrism as misinformation.
The Chinese authorities label the Tiananmen sq. massacre as misinformation and "prevent lies from spreading."
Even many of today's "scientists" are dogmatic in what they consider misinformation because they have an all-knowing god called "peer review," and some of them promote censorship.
This is the kind of thing where the censors think they're doing the world good by "stopping the spread of misinformation," but they will be the historical villains in future because all they're doing is giving an authority the powers to misinform the public, because any information these authorities don't want spread can be labeled misinformation.
There's the other form of censoring too - destroying the credibility of another with misinformation. It's a more difficult exploit than direct censorship, but one that can only work with uncontrolled speech.
That's why defamation has to be illegal. It's like corruption and crime - better to let criminal empires thrive than jail some innocents. But when someone is willfully and knowingly lying, that should be stopped.
That's why defamation has to be illegal. It's like corruption and crime - better to let criminal empires thrive than jail some innocents. But when someone is willfully and knowingly lying, that should be stopped.
TL;DR: "Solvable" sounds like you're mistaking a social and human issue for a technical challenge
> the code and cost to generate misinformation is essentially free
It's always been pretty low. People also want to believe things which feel good, especially when they're blatantly fake. That's not a technological problem, but a social one.
It's like the quote about people having trouble understanding ideas which threaten their income[1], but the payoff is emotional instead of financial.
[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-ge...
> the code and cost to generate misinformation is essentially free
It's always been pretty low. People also want to believe things which feel good, especially when they're blatantly fake. That's not a technological problem, but a social one.
It's like the quote about people having trouble understanding ideas which threaten their income[1], but the payoff is emotional instead of financial.
[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/21810-it-is-difficult-to-ge...
Almost every piece of academic fraud is misinformation.
Every shady AI marketing ad is misinformation.
It's absurd that Biden's administration went after individuals sharing bad takes on COVID, but not classic fraudulent advertising.
Very troubling to see such a huge mismatch between stated policy and government activity.
Every shady AI marketing ad is misinformation.
It's absurd that Biden's administration went after individuals sharing bad takes on COVID, but not classic fraudulent advertising.
Very troubling to see such a huge mismatch between stated policy and government activity.
> went after individuals sharing bad takes on COVID
"Went after" is misleadingly strong phrasing. They took no legal action against these people. There is also an established public health function of government that, in no small part, corrects misinformation about things like smoking, fad diets, and, yes, Covid.
> but not classic fraudulent advertising
This is already illegal and policed by various federal and state agencies. If the regulatory state fails to punish them, consumers can (and often do) file class-action lawsuits.
In short, this is a strange axe to grind and seems fairly off-topic anyway.
"Went after" is misleadingly strong phrasing. They took no legal action against these people. There is also an established public health function of government that, in no small part, corrects misinformation about things like smoking, fad diets, and, yes, Covid.
> but not classic fraudulent advertising
This is already illegal and policed by various federal and state agencies. If the regulatory state fails to punish them, consumers can (and often do) file class-action lawsuits.
In short, this is a strange axe to grind and seems fairly off-topic anyway.
> They took no legal action against these people.
There was legal action taken against some doctors.
In addition.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/fda-ivermectin-lawsuit...
And, it's pretty clear that the govt was behind https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-twitter-blacklisting-of-jay...
It would have been illegal for the govt to force the NYT to not print those stories but ...
There was legal action taken against some doctors.
In addition.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/27/health/fda-ivermectin-lawsuit...
And, it's pretty clear that the govt was behind https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-twitter-blacklisting-of-jay...
It would have been illegal for the govt to force the NYT to not print those stories but ...
To OP: The fact that there is an "argument" over who is spreading misinformation as part of responses to your very question should tell you this is a difficult problem to deal with.
There are many shades of gray to misinformation.
There are many shades of gray to misinformation.
There's also: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2022/07/25/should-we-...
Note that California passed (and then repealed) a law along these lines - https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issue...
That said, see also https://www.courthousenews.com/california-doctors-falter-in-...
Note that California passed (and then repealed) a law along these lines - https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/legal-regulatory-issue...
That said, see also https://www.courthousenews.com/california-doctors-falter-in-...
Again, for the millionth time: none of these were the Biden administration. California's legislature is not Joe Biden.
> There was legal action taken against some doctors.
Please give us an example of legal action taken by the Biden administration against doctors.
You're probably remembering that some doctors lost their licenses for spreading lies about Covid, which is entirely appropriate. That was action taken by boards of doctors against incompetent doctors who were a danger to their patients. Again, happy to see a counterexample if you have one, where a doctor suffered consequences from the Biden administration and/or unfairly.
> And, it's pretty clear that the govt was behind [Twitter blacklisting...]
The govt asking Twitter to do something and then Twitter voluntarily doing it is still not Biden "going after" someone. There were (and are) no consequences for social media companies refusing to take meetings with govt disinformation groups, as you can see from the fact that most of them don't do it and Twitter doesn't anymore.
> It would have been illegal for the govt to force the NYT to not print those stories but ...
A sure sign of a weak argument is the use of inuendo rather than saying what you actually mean.
Please give us an example of legal action taken by the Biden administration against doctors.
You're probably remembering that some doctors lost their licenses for spreading lies about Covid, which is entirely appropriate. That was action taken by boards of doctors against incompetent doctors who were a danger to their patients. Again, happy to see a counterexample if you have one, where a doctor suffered consequences from the Biden administration and/or unfairly.
> And, it's pretty clear that the govt was behind [Twitter blacklisting...]
The govt asking Twitter to do something and then Twitter voluntarily doing it is still not Biden "going after" someone. There were (and are) no consequences for social media companies refusing to take meetings with govt disinformation groups, as you can see from the fact that most of them don't do it and Twitter doesn't anymore.
> It would have been illegal for the govt to force the NYT to not print those stories but ...
A sure sign of a weak argument is the use of inuendo rather than saying what you actually mean.