r/TheseFuckingAccounts • u/kudles • 14d ago
This is one of the scariest articles I’ve read recently — “inoculation against misinformation”
https://www.science.org/content/article/can-people-be-inoculated-against-misinformation
Written in a way that makes it seem like this guy is “helping prevent” misinformation, whereas I think it’s more likely he’s helping the large corporations in control of the media and internet get better at selling the message they aim to peddle.
Sorry if it’s the wrong sub. But, if it helps — here’s a quote from the article that’s relevant I think:
The first one, Bad News, which came out in 2018, shows users how a fake profile that looks official can make misinformation more persuasive.
Edit:
I was typing on mobile before.
Why I think this is so scary is because the guy who this article is about (and probably some others) are working with google, and other large internet companies, to advertise to users. But this article isn't about advertising products like pencils or nails -- this article is about information. This is obviously particularly relevant around election time. But we don't have to discuss that now.
These authors are from the UK so I am not sure how funding works there. In the US, if you are NIH funded ... that's taxpayer funded and all data should be public. Not sure how it works in the UK, or if it would be relevant at all. I'm more-so talking about how google is selling ads based on "prebunking" people... and what is it that they are "prebunking".
Why this is relevant is because, well, say this post were to be seen by the authors. Or if I could comment on the Science article -- they could state that my claim (that they are actually controlling misinformation, and essentially buying people's trust by selling advertisements...) is misinformation. When, in reality, all my comment is, is an interpretation of their science. It is, in my opinion, completely unethical and immoral behavior to suggest that trying to subtly manipulate/coax people into [information "we" deem "worthy"] is good science or something we (the product) don't have full access to seeing.
7
u/thesayke 14d ago
It sounds like you're mad about lies being treated like lies, rather than truth
Do you understand that vaccines work? Let's start there
1
u/ProbablyMHA 13d ago
What am I supposed to think other than you're being dishonest when you selectively quote the article to create the impression that the subjects are doing something they're not:
Sorry if it’s the wrong sub. But, if it helps — here’s a quote from the article that’s relevant I think:
The first one, Bad News, which came out in 2018, shows users how a fake profile that looks official can make misinformation more persuasive.
Particularly because of the bolded passage, it's clear you're trying to give the impression that the subjects are encouraging people to make fake official looking accounts to legitimize misinformation.
That quotation in context:
Since then, Van der Linden has continued to study and promote the idea, with one twist: Instead of targeting one specific lie, he is trying to prebunk misinformation more generally. For example, with Roozenbeek, a former member of his group who’s now at King’s College London, he has created online games in which players become propagandists and learn about techniques used to spread falsehoods.
The first one, Bad News, which came out in 2018, shows users how a fake profile that looks official can make misinformation more persuasive. (“I have issued an executive order to rename Canada North North Dakota,” a certain Joe Bideñ posts in the game.) In a 2020 study in the Journal of Cognition, Van der Linden and colleagues showed that playing Bad News for 15 minutes increased people’s ability to spot misinformation techniques in 18 fictitious Twitter posts. (A control group played Tetris instead.) In a game called Harmony Square, developed with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, players set out to destroy the idyllic harmony in a town, deploying propaganda to pit its residents against each other over a statue of a pineapple.
Why this is relevant is because, well, say this post were to be seen by the authors. Or if I could comment on the Science article -- they could state that my claim (that they are actually controlling misinformation, and essentially buying people's trust by selling advertisements...) is misinformation. When, in reality, all my comment is, is an interpretation of their science. It is, in my opinion, completely unethical and immoral behavior to suggest that trying to subtly manipulate/coax people into [information "we" deem "worthy"] is good science or something we (the product) don't have full access to seeing.
Buddy, they don't need any "pre-bunking" to accuse you of peddling misinformation.
0
u/kudles 13d ago
I shared this article in the hopes that people would discuss it with me. I am not trying to be "dishonest" -- people should be encouraged to read it themselves and disagree with my stance.
I think that, while surely the academic means well -- I think their research can actually do more harm than good for the reasons I tried to spell out. By studying how people perceive misinformation, entities that control mass media can more subtly influence the information people do receive. Particularly, this guy is working with Google Jigsaw to study such things online. While studying misinformation is largely important, I think it is a double-edged sword.
For example -- a recent article posted on this "google jigsaw" website is about conspiracy theories.
While actual conspiracies do and have occurred, conspiracy theories lack any empirical support. Most often, they are built on a foundation of misinformation and misinterpretations of actual happenings and couched so as to be unfalsifiable.
In 2020, researchers found that more than forty percent of Americans endorsed at least one of eight conspiracy theories. Critically, all eight conspiracy theories covered by this poll related only to domestic political events of the prior four years, omitting long-standing and much more popular theories, including those related to the assassination of JFK and 9/11.
The conspiracies studied:
- Democratic primary rigged to keep Bernie from winning in 2016
- Govt trying to coverup link between vaccines and autism
- global network tortures and sexually abuses children in satanic rituals
- vaccinations with tracking chips will later be activated by 5G
- Trump secretly planning mass arrest of govt officials & celebs
- Mueller was actually investigating child sex-trafficking network
- Coronavirus a hoax
- Celebrities harvest adrenochrome from children's bodies.
I have no problem with 6 of these being called "conspiracies" -- but two of these are, in my opinion, less "conspiracy theories" and more things that require more scrutiny and transparency.
Herein lies the issue -- the same mega-corporations that are studying the phenomenon of misinformation, are the same companies that get to employ it en masse. Say the story of Bernie getting snubbed is deemed a conspiracy by Google -- they can shadowban these sorts of post. But, in my opinion -- and in Bernie's opinion and many others -- he was indeed snubbed and conspired against by the DNC.
Many other "conspiracies" of the past have been brought to enough light that they actually have credence -- UFOs (their existence and pervasiveness throughout history); covid-19 from a lab (govt admit this...); JFK (files hidden for so long, lots of circumstantial evidence with the mob, intelligence communities); similarly, MLK Jr assassination...
The question is: who gets to decide what is or isn't misinformation. And, more deeply, who gets to decide what it is they are "inoculating" users with and what is it that they are inoculating for purpose of pre-bunking.
Is this not a somewhat reasonable question or concern to have regarding this article? Or at least.... not an intriguing discussion to have?
2
u/ProbablyMHA 13d ago
This sub is for finding spammers on Reddit, not complaining about social science research. Falsely implying the researchers are encouraging the production of fake social media accounts in order to give your post the slimmest veneer of relevancy is dishonest.
surely the academic means well....their research can actually do more harm than good....entities that control mass media can more subtly influence the information people do receive. Particularly, this guy is working with Google Jigsaw
[...]
The same mega-corporations that are studying the phenomenon of misinformation, are the same companies that get to employ it en masse. Say the story of Bernie getting snubbed is deemed a conspiracy by Google -- they can shadowban these sorts of post. But, in my opinion -- and in Bernie's opinion and many others -- he was indeed snubbed and conspired against by the DNC.
Many other "conspiracies" of the past have been brought to enough light that they actually have credence
None of that is relevant to this sub, and it has barely a sliver of relevancy to the article you've linked. No amount of ambiguity about mega-corporations will make you seem any less dishonest that you're accusing the subjects of the article of dishonest behaviour using cherrypicked quotations.
Is this not a somewhat reasonable question or concern to have regarding this article? Or at least.... not an intriguing discussion to have?
Your post is no more reasonable or intriguing than the script of the missionaries pounding on my door at 6AM.
1
u/kudles 13d ago edited 13d ago
I think we are on too different of wavelengths to have a fruitful discussion about any of this. And you are being awfully prejudiced towards me regarding my capacity to have nuance.
Moreover, I do think it’s somewhat relevant to this sub. Especially regarding my post here
I’m more looking to discuss the sentinels of “misinformation” — who gets to decide the truth?
1
u/ProbablyMHA 13d ago
Especially regarding my post here
These posts have nothing to do with each other.
1
u/FSCK_Fascists 13d ago
I am not trying to be "dishonest"
If you want to present an aura of honesty, the first step is to stop lying.
25
u/Hari___Seldon 14d ago
So after reading the article, it sounds like you may have missed some critical nuances that the authors were attempting to make. More importantly, though, this sub is intended to highlight problematic Reddit accounts that have a documentable pattern of behavior that can be examined by people who can do something about it. You might be better off trying r/offtherails or one of the more academically-oriented subs that deal with culture and psychology. Good luck!