SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
FiveThirtyEight is covering the efficacy of fact-checking and other methods to combat the spread of misinformation and disinformation. Fact-checking, after the fact, is better than nothing, it turns out. There are some common factors in the times when it has been done successfully:
Political scientists Ethan Porter and Thomas J. Wood conducted an exhaustive battery of surveys on fact-checking, across more than 10,000 participants and 13 studies that covered a range of political, economic and scientific topics. They found that 60 percent of respondents gave accurate answers when presented with a correction, while just 32 percent of respondents who were not given a correction expressed accurate beliefs. That’s pretty solid proof that fact-checking can work.
But Porter and Wood have found, alongside many other fact-checking researchers, some methods of fact-checking are more effective than others. Broadly speaking, the most effective fact checks have this in common:
- They are from highly credible sources (with extra credit for those that are also surprising, like Republicans contradicting other Republicans or Democrats contradicting other Democrats).
- They offer a new frame for thinking about the issue (that is, they don’t simply dismiss a claim as “wrong” or “unsubstantiated”).
- They don’t directly challenge one’s worldview and identity.
- They happen early, before a false narrative gains traction.
It is as much about psychology as actually rebutting the disinformation because factors like partisanship and worldview have strong effects, and it is hard to reach people inside their social control media echo chambers from an accurate source they will accept.
[Though often incorrectly attributed to Mark Twain, one is reminded of the adage: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”. --Ed.]
Previously:
(2020) Nearly Half of Twitter Accounts Pushing to Reopen America May be Bots
(2019) Russians Engaging in Ongoing 'Information Warfare,' FBI Director Says
(2019) How Fake News Spreads Like a Real Virus
(2019) More and More Countries are Mounting Disinformation Campaigns Online
(2019) At Defcon, Teaching Disinformation Campaigns Is Child's Play
(2018) Why You Stink at Fact-Checking
(2017) Americans Are “Under Siege” From Disinformation
(2015) Education Plus Ideology Exaggerates Rejection of Reality
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday June 06 2020, @10:12AM (7 children)
I'm still waiting for you to explain away Kathy Griffin holding Trump's bloody head as somehow not inciting violence. But it must be hard for you to get enough oxygen to the brain with Joe Biden's cock so firmly down your throat. I mean, hey, if a crass metaphor is the level you want to converse at, then surely you don't mind having it reflected back at you, amirite?
Reasonable people know that if there is general looting, and it is not stopped by law enforcement, then it rapidly escalates to arson, assault, and murder. And so it has. But, no, I get it, you are all about the feelz and not about facts or the evidence of your lying eyes.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday June 06 2020, @05:39PM (1 child)
She sort of was. But Kathy Griffin is a comedian, not the president of the most powerful country in the world, or even a two-bit politician. She has no authority except over a small cadre of fans who give it to her. Trump does. With great power comes great responsibility.
She was also not calling for violence against the downtrodden, but against one of the most powerful and best-defended people in the world. You might get a few nutters who decide to take a stab at it, but they'll almost certainly fail. Contrast that with riling up bullies to kick down at those least able to defend themselves.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 09 2020, @12:39PM
On the other hand, you have "looting leads to shooting" which is a vague, non-specific statement that can be interpreted to mean, "if you break the law, the cops will crack down."
That's versus a specific threat of violence.
The first the press hyperventilates about, the second, crickets. Funny how that works.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2020, @08:05PM (2 children)
I don't need to explain what she says or does. If you want an explanation about that ask her. Besides, who cares what some has-been comedian has to say? I certainly don't.
The metaphor, of course, implies strong support and mindless servility. Neither applies to me WRT Biden.
I don't believe I've ever tried to minimize the impact of *anything* Biden has said or done. Nor have I written anything here that endorses him. In fact, he was never in my top three D candidates for the Presidential nomination.
I have never in my life voted for Joe Biden. And when the primary comes up in a couple weeks, I will most likely vote for Bernie Sanders. If he's not still on the ballot, I'll vote for Amy Klobuchar. If *she's* not still on the ballot, I'll vote for Elizabeth Warren.
Come November, that will be a different story. But that has more to do with who he's running against. In fact, I'd vote for a syphilitic goat before I vote for your hero.
How, exactly, do you define "general looting"?
And based on *that* definition, where is this "general looting" *currently* happening?
Do tell.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 09 2020, @01:04PM (1 child)
And yet you feel perfectly qualified to interpret what is the mind of Trump, whom you have never met.
Ah, but you're certain your metaphor applies to me. You don't know me. You don't know what I think. You suppose. You're young, jejeune, foolish, or a blinkered partisan, based on how and what you are writing, but we would need to actually know you to establish that, in fact, you are all four.
So you're ABB (Anybody But Biden), but sadly in his latest crowd of challengers that is no recommendation, but rather a further indictment of your judgement. I voted for Bernie in the last, rigged, primary against Hillary, but today he is a sad creature. Once upon a time I would have bled for Elizabeth Warren, but she chose not to run last time against Bernie and Hillary; and this time she is also different, pitiful creature, a victim of Clintonian demonic possession. Amy Klobuchar is who? If she's got your vote then you are desperate.
He is not my hero, he is my molotov cocktail. That is, he is not an avatar, but a weapon. I threw him against the Establishment that has been rigging every game against all of us for decades, and he has not yet burned nearly long enough. He must be re-elected for no other purpose but to underscore a rejection of their hegemony. After him, another like him, too.
But this line, and this sentiment of yours, has rather settled the question of who you are, which is the spiritual successor of those who crowed that Walter Mondale would wipe Ronald Reagan out.
Sigh. There's a book called a "dictionary" that can avail you.
There has been looting across the country, most often in tandem with legitimate protests against George Floyd's death and police brutality. New York, LA, Chicago, Minneapolis, etc. The legacy media has glossed over much of it, but even they reported looting of Macy's and stores along Fifth Avenue in New York. You can look up the incidents, but you won't because you only care about the feelz.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 09 2020, @03:39PM
Where has any of that happened since *days* before I posted the comment you just replied to?
Exactly. It's you going with the feelz, not me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 07 2020, @05:10PM (1 child)
Whatabout?
Whatabout!
What a bout? You got knocked the fuck out!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday June 09 2020, @12:42PM
Well, you're welcome to try. No nebbish am I.
Washington DC delenda est.