9 ms·

The spread of true and false news online

66 points by jaybaxter 9y ago

wufufufu 9y ago
tl;dr False news is usually more interesting because it doesn't have to be true and so it spreads faster
sjbase 9y ago
> It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1500 people and 20 times as long as falsehood to reach a cascade depth of 10. As the truth never diffused beyond a depth of 10, we saw that falsehood reached a depth of 19 nearly 10 times faster than the truth reached a depth of 10 The study attributes most of that force multiplier to novelty and surprise, where falsehood will always have an advantage; important things that actually happen are often not surprising. Maybe people who wrap truth in clickbaity headlines are actually heroes, trying to even out the playing field... I never really thought of it that way before.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Here's an antidote: https://www.theknifemedia.com/ https://www.theknifemedia.com/
  - dgut 9y ago
    Thanks for the link.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Here's another, with fairly good voluntary moderation: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/
      - kbenson 9y ago
        Wow, that's an interesting sub. They've formalized a lot of the HN community standards into hard rules, and brutally enforce them. For example, this[1] post has 36 comments, and 10 of them were removed for either not being substantive, not backing up statements of fact with a source, or some other reason, and another is reminder of a top level comment to include sources. I'm not sure they haven't gone too far to some degree here, especially since the offending comments were deleted, not just hidden, so it's hard to see whether the mods are justified or not in all cases. I subbed in any case, so I guess I'll get a chance to see more to make a more informed decision. 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/81f8wf/are_there_significant_amounts_of_nonreciprocal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/81f8wf/are...
  - anigbrowl 9y ago
    Pseudo-objectivity with pretty analytics that just happens to have a glaring selection bias and where everything is neatly explained by self-appointed analytical experts. In other words, just like existing media but with catchier design.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Pseudo-objectivity They are at least directly addressing the mechanism of emotive language discussed in Manufacturing Consent. It looks to me, like they're doing a much better than average job at that. glaring selection bias Pretty much a part of the human condition. At least they're trying.
  - bmpafa 9y ago
    nice site, but i'll never understand the thinking behind "let's ask if they want to receive notifications immediately upon first page-hit" does anyone actually click 'yes' to that prompt?
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Notifications on websites are just the pop-ups of 2018.
      - smichel17 9y ago
        There are some sites on which I appreciate them, but exclusively those are sites where I have accounts and would otherwise revive them over email or something. Anything that asks to show notifications on first load gets "never show".
      - bmpafa 9y ago
        ...which are just the spam mail of 2008, which were just the extra-volume used car ads of 1999, which were just the pushy salesman of the 19-aughts. Everything new is old and notification prompts on first visit are still a terrible idea.
  - 13years 9y ago
    Looks good, but in the end, this is what I tell people. "The media you trust is the most dangerous media of all." In other words, don't ever turn off your brain and just accept what you are being told. Inevitably the only solution is to question it all and get input from multiple sources.
- nemild 9y ago
  Absolutely, I know several journalists who think about how to pitch the "health food" of boring, but important articles with clickbait titles. Another question to ask: In old print media, is it ok to have crazily sensationalistic headlines on the front page, with the hope that it gets people read the thoughtful journalism underneath? Just to give you a sense, I took 1.5 years of death coverage in the NY Times and compared to actual deaths. My gut is that the reason for the coverage gap is primarily a function of reader interest, which presumably gets people to read more: https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html As the old aphorism goes, "if it bleed, it leads"
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  No, clickbaity headlines just make everything worse. On the other hand, knowing that fake news has much longer resharing chains is a valuable filtering tool.
r00fus 9y ago
At some point will the online populace be inoculated from "new surprising info" that isn't verified? ie, distrust all news until there's corroboration?
- krapp 9y ago
  No. Humans tend to be emotional beings who rationalize whatever preserves their ego and confirms preexisting biases, and the opinions of friends and peers matters more to most people than fact checking by independent, objective sources.
3princip 9y ago
While not surprising that hyperbole and bombastic claims would fare better than run of the mill news stories or opinions, seems strange to consider all tweets as news stories. Also, their cited sources of truth are overtly biased with respect to politics.
- ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
  "We classified news as true or false using information from six independent fact-checking organizations that exhibited 95 to 98% agreement on the classifications." >> What cited sources of truth are overtly biased?
  - mattkevan 9y ago
    Bias = ‘I disagree’
- devindotcom 9y ago
  The definition of tweets as news is explained in the paper. The bias allegation doesn't really hold up, and anyway the researchers independently verified and tested 13,000 more stories and found the same patterns.
ilaksh 9y ago
This study is suspect because it does not reference propaganda history or research. It does not even use the word. Also the mechanism of defining truth is suspect: it is always possible to find several sources that agree on something and several others that disagree. There seems not much emphasis on primary sources. Please research the history of propaganda in the United States for yourself. See articles on Edward Bernays and documentaries like The Century of the Self. Research terms like "the fourth estate".
barell 9y ago
It’s so easy to put anything on the internet and anyone could do that. I think most of the times is that people responsible for posting for bigger audience just don’t bother to check the source and publish news based on Joe Blogs tweet or post. The truth is there are not many good journalists who cares and it’s more about making clicks rather than produce rich content. Don’t think there is anything we can do about false news. Just learn how to live with it.
- bostik 9y ago
  Media literacy is incredibly difficult. It is difficult because independent thought is too demanding. Marketers, propagandists, and yes, even hard-core journalists all rely on this. The fake news phenomenon has always existed, but it is amplified by the ease of manufactured outrage. Instant and global spread of (mis)information makes containment practically impossible. If you can spot good satire, you are probably more likely to be able to spot bogus news items too. But spotting satire is damn hard - and a really good satire is nearly indistinguishable from well done legitimate reporting and/or story telling.
fortythirteen 9y ago
Nothing has changed over the centuries but the mechanisms by which propaganda is spread. The term "fake news" is itself propaganda, playing to people's innate sense that they are not, in fact, irrational and emotional beings, and are somehow better than the "morons" who fall for false stories. The sad truth is that even the smartest of us are, in some degree, intellectually lazy and hold at least one false belief. The only thing that has increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens.
- 9889095r3jh 9y ago
  "Nothing has changed over the centuries but the mechanisms by which propaganda is spread." This is true. We now have digital platforms which reward propaganda by spreading it faster. The speed and spread of false information has exponentially increased because social media distorts media coverage, rewarding sensational, emotionally charged content with greater reach in people's timelines and feeds. Rumors used to spread from person to person, but the algorithms are giving them an edge. The algorithms are not neutral. They are designed to favor clickbait.
  - fortythirteen 9y ago
    Did any smaller percentage of Americans go along with McCarthyism? The mechanisms of delivery are the excuse used to keep people blind to the faults that lay within. Propaganda and its delivery methods only have the power you give them. We all have the ability to seek out truth.
- ahartman00 9y ago
  "increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens" What makes you think this? Galileo was hung for what he said. "Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force." http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
jconley 9y ago
Based on this study's conclusions it seems that the ability to easily retweet (or re-share on facebook) combined with social networks surfacing our engagement (e.g. JD liked this post) to our first degree network is really at the root of all of this. I wonder how/if rumors used to spread on Twitter before retweet was a first party feature.
mattkevan 9y ago
“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it” - Jonathan Swift, 1710 “...a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on” - Terry Pratchett, 2000
- devindotcom 9y ago
  the pratchett quote actually dates to much earlier. it's been attributed to churchill and twain. I used the Swift quote in my writeup of this study, though! https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
  - mattkevan 9y ago
    Yeah I know - I read the same quoteinvestigator article. I just liked the comparison between Swift and Pratchett.
fareesh 9y ago
Great discussion on the subject of fake news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw

66 points by jaybaxter 9y ago

tl;dr False news is usually more interesting because it doesn't have to be true and so it spreads faster

> It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1500 people and 20 times as long as falsehood to reach a cascade depth of 10. As the truth never diffused beyond a depth of 10, we saw that falsehood reached a depth of 19 nearly 10 times faster than the truth reached a depth of 10 The study attributes most of that force multiplier to novelty and surprise, where falsehood will always have an advantage; important things that actually happen are often not surprising. Maybe people who wrap truth in clickbaity headlines are actually heroes, trying to even out the playing field... I never really thought of it that way before.

stcredzero 9y ago
Here's an antidote: https://www.theknifemedia.com/ https://www.theknifemedia.com/
- dgut 9y ago
  Thanks for the link.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Here's another, with fairly good voluntary moderation: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Wow, that's an interesting sub. They've formalized a lot of the HN community standards into hard rules, and brutally enforce them. For example, this[1] post has 36 comments, and 10 of them were removed for either not being substantive, not backing up statements of fact with a source, or some other reason, and another is reminder of a top level comment to include sources. I'm not sure they haven't gone too far to some degree here, especially since the offending comments were deleted, not just hidden, so it's hard to see whether the mods are justified or not in all cases. I subbed in any case, so I guess I'll get a chance to see more to make a more informed decision. 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/81f8wf/are_there_significant_amounts_of_nonreciprocal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/81f8wf/are...
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  Pseudo-objectivity with pretty analytics that just happens to have a glaring selection bias and where everything is neatly explained by self-appointed analytical experts. In other words, just like existing media but with catchier design.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Pseudo-objectivity They are at least directly addressing the mechanism of emotive language discussed in Manufacturing Consent. It looks to me, like they're doing a much better than average job at that. glaring selection bias Pretty much a part of the human condition. At least they're trying.
- bmpafa 9y ago
  nice site, but i'll never understand the thinking behind "let's ask if they want to receive notifications immediately upon first page-hit" does anyone actually click 'yes' to that prompt?
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Notifications on websites are just the pop-ups of 2018.
    - smichel17 9y ago
      There are some sites on which I appreciate them, but exclusively those are sites where I have accounts and would otherwise revive them over email or something. Anything that asks to show notifications on first load gets "never show".
    - bmpafa 9y ago
      ...which are just the spam mail of 2008, which were just the extra-volume used car ads of 1999, which were just the pushy salesman of the 19-aughts. Everything new is old and notification prompts on first visit are still a terrible idea.
- 13years 9y ago
  Looks good, but in the end, this is what I tell people. "The media you trust is the most dangerous media of all." In other words, don't ever turn off your brain and just accept what you are being told. Inevitably the only solution is to question it all and get input from multiple sources.
nemild 9y ago
Absolutely, I know several journalists who think about how to pitch the "health food" of boring, but important articles with clickbait titles. Another question to ask: In old print media, is it ok to have crazily sensationalistic headlines on the front page, with the hope that it gets people read the thoughtful journalism underneath? Just to give you a sense, I took 1.5 years of death coverage in the NY Times and compared to actual deaths. My gut is that the reason for the coverage gap is primarily a function of reader interest, which presumably gets people to read more: https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html https://www.nemil.com/s/part3-horror-films.html As the old aphorism goes, "if it bleed, it leads"
anigbrowl 9y ago
No, clickbaity headlines just make everything worse. On the other hand, knowing that fake news has much longer resharing chains is a valuable filtering tool.

r00fus 9y ago

At some point will the online populace be inoculated from "new surprising info" that isn't verified? ie, distrust all news until there's corroboration?

krapp 9y ago
No. Humans tend to be emotional beings who rationalize whatever preserves their ego and confirms preexisting biases, and the opinions of friends and peers matters more to most people than fact checking by independent, objective sources.

3princip 9y ago

While not surprising that hyperbole and bombastic claims would fare better than run of the mill news stories or opinions, seems strange to consider all tweets as news stories. Also, their cited sources of truth are overtly biased with respect to politics.

ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
"We classified news as true or false using information from six independent fact-checking organizations that exhibited 95 to 98% agreement on the classifications." >> What cited sources of truth are overtly biased?
- mattkevan 9y ago
  Bias = ‘I disagree’
devindotcom 9y ago
The definition of tweets as news is explained in the paper. The bias allegation doesn't really hold up, and anyway the researchers independently verified and tested 13,000 more stories and found the same patterns.

ilaksh 9y ago

This study is suspect because it does not reference propaganda history or research. It does not even use the word. Also the mechanism of defining truth is suspect: it is always possible to find several sources that agree on something and several others that disagree. There seems not much emphasis on primary sources. Please research the history of propaganda in the United States for yourself. See articles on Edward Bernays and documentaries like The Century of the Self. Research terms like "the fourth estate".

barell 9y ago

It’s so easy to put anything on the internet and anyone could do that. I think most of the times is that people responsible for posting for bigger audience just don’t bother to check the source and publish news based on Joe Blogs tweet or post. The truth is there are not many good journalists who cares and it’s more about making clicks rather than produce rich content. Don’t think there is anything we can do about false news. Just learn how to live with it.

bostik 9y ago
Media literacy is incredibly difficult. It is difficult because independent thought is too demanding. Marketers, propagandists, and yes, even hard-core journalists all rely on this. The fake news phenomenon has always existed, but it is amplified by the ease of manufactured outrage. Instant and global spread of (mis)information makes containment practically impossible. If you can spot good satire, you are probably more likely to be able to spot bogus news items too. But spotting satire is damn hard - and a really good satire is nearly indistinguishable from well done legitimate reporting and/or story telling.

fortythirteen 9y ago

Nothing has changed over the centuries but the mechanisms by which propaganda is spread. The term "fake news" is itself propaganda, playing to people's innate sense that they are not, in fact, irrational and emotional beings, and are somehow better than the "morons" who fall for false stories. The sad truth is that even the smartest of us are, in some degree, intellectually lazy and hold at least one false belief. The only thing that has increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens.

9889095r3jh 9y ago
"Nothing has changed over the centuries but the mechanisms by which propaganda is spread." This is true. We now have digital platforms which reward propaganda by spreading it faster. The speed and spread of false information has exponentially increased because social media distorts media coverage, rewarding sensational, emotionally charged content with greater reach in people's timelines and feeds. Rumors used to spread from person to person, but the algorithms are giving them an edge. The algorithms are not neutral. They are designed to favor clickbait.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  Did any smaller percentage of Americans go along with McCarthyism? The mechanisms of delivery are the excuse used to keep people blind to the faults that lay within. Propaganda and its delivery methods only have the power you give them. We all have the ability to seek out truth.
ahartman00 9y ago
"increased over the last decades is the average westerner's desire to force those beliefs upon their fellow citizens" What makes you think this? Galileo was hung for what he said. "Another approach is to follow that word, heresy. In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not. "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been. By now these labels have lost their sting. They always do. By now they're mostly used ironically. But in their time, they had real force." http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

jconley 9y ago

Based on this study's conclusions it seems that the ability to easily retweet (or re-share on facebook) combined with social networks surfacing our engagement (e.g. JD liked this post) to our first degree network is really at the root of all of this. I wonder how/if rumors used to spread on Twitter before retweet was a first party feature.

mattkevan 9y ago

“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it” - Jonathan Swift, 1710 “...a lie can run around the world before the truth has got its boots on” - Terry Pratchett, 2000

devindotcom 9y ago
the pratchett quote actually dates to much earlier. it's been attributed to churchill and twain. I used the Swift quote in my writeup of this study, though! https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/
- mattkevan 9y ago
  Yeah I know - I read the same quoteinvestigator article. I just liked the comparison between Swift and Pratchett.

fareesh 9y ago

Great discussion on the subject of fake news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOxmIjiRqTw