you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]thoughtcriminal 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

I don't think people realize how incredibly dangerous "fact checks" can be. They're easily one of the most potent propaganda tools. For starters not all issues can be condensed to true or false, or even true/false on a scale. You can fact check something with context selectively stripped or added. You can fact check a statement in full or in part. You can add or remove qualifications. You can fact check an opinion, or state an opinion as fact. You can misrepresent a claim. You can lie with statistics or draw conclusions. You can use grammatical cues to set a tone. "Fact check" inherently has an air of authority that implies an objective truth.

All of this gets condensed to a headline "Fact check: true" or "Fact check: false" and people don't read further. And even if they do they don't have the critical thinking to evaluate these issues.

[–]insta 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think people realize how incredibly dangerous "fact checks" can be.

I don't think people realize how ludicrous it is. The media are supposed to be our fact checkers. In theory there should be no snopes of politifact. But so much trust has been lost with media that nobody trusts them anymore so they have to make tertiary institutions to prop up their bullshit.

All of this gets condensed to a headline "Fact check: true" or "Fact check: false" and people don't read further.

Which is the goal. Bite sized talking points is all anybody cares about.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

But fact check sites include their source material at the bottom. They are absolutely essential for dealing with heavily funded disinformation and misinformation campaigns that influence Saidit, social media and other places. Moreover, hardly anyone at Saidit cares about the fact checkers, which is a sign that they also have no impact on most of the people influenced by disinformation and misinformation websites. This is one reason why I keep a reference list at /s/ShitpostNews, to keep track of the number of developing disinformation campaigns and their sites. They pay very well, and there is one in Canada with 3 employees that reports a 6 digit income, merely for reposting alt-right disinformation. Nothing original at that website. Disinformation is big business and one can learn about some of that here at Saidit. If there are no fact checking sites, how will curious readers who come across disinformation websites for the first time understand the contexts of what those websites traditionally post? For example - a new reader of Breitbart might want to know more about the website, and might want to check on the accuracy of their posts. Snopes also helps with this. Those in the alt-right who don't care about honesty, integrity, or facts will avoid the fact checking sites. In most cases, the disinformation campaigns are for one purpose: to brainwash many in the 99% into voting for Republicans. I've listed two extreme left wing sites at /s/ShitpostNews, but I doub't anyone on Saidit will have a clue what they are.

[–]thoughtcriminal 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Your first two arguments are self defeating. We need fact checks to deal with misinformation, but no one who reads misinformation cares about fact checks? Then we don't need them, right?

Including sources doesn't negate anything I've said. Let me give you an example: https://apnews.com/article/ap-fact-check-final-debate-trump-biden-4d304cf7ce7dee9c228f48bd9b76e8f7

The very first paragraph implies Trump is responsible for all the lies in the entire debate ("set the tone").

Next paragraph Trump "misrepresented the reality of the pandemic" and "insisting against obvious reality" whereas in the paragraph after Biden "was selective on the coronavirus and other matters." The former being a subjective opinion on Trump's part presented as obviously flawed, while the latter is an objective lie on Biden's part presented as "selective."

Coronavirus section: First statement by Trump the fact check starts "No, the coronavirus isn’t going away. It’s coming back." (condescending tone asserting No immediately). Then it says the numbers are rising and cites statistics. But the numbers rising in the short term doesn't mean the overall trend isn't down. The numbers were still below the peak and the stats cited only look at a specific arbitrarily chosen time interval. You can pick any two points on a covid chart and paint a different picture based on the interval you choose. This is an example of lying with statistics.

The next fact check in this section Trump criticizes the response of blue states and Biden says the red states are the ones having spikes in cases. The fact check states: "Neither of them is right. Coronavirus isn’t a red-state problem or a blue-state problem. It’s a public health problem that affects people no matter where they live or what their politics are." That's not a fact, it's an opinion being presented as a fact. And blue states do factually have higher death rates overall (although citing any statistic in a vacuum is misleading).

Next one, Trump states that 2.2 million were projected to die. Fact check says false because that projection was only if nothing were done. That's adding a qualification. But beyond that it's also false. There were epidemiologists who predicted 2.2 million as the "worst" case and 1.1 million as the "best" case.

You're not wrong that the people susceptible to misinformation don't trust fact checks. But people paying attention don't either, because the fact checks are often just as biased and incorrect as the blatant misinformation. They're just disguised better.

So do you really think the solution to this mistrust is to further attempt to gate keep and control information? You stated correctly that people already don't trust the fact checks. So that solution seems antithetical. Instead, there needs to be a move in the other direction. Allow the free and unadulterated exchange of ideas in the public, presented as they are and without qualification. There will still be misinformation and people who fall for it, but at least you're working to regain trust by allowing people to come to their own conclusions.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I appreciate the analysis. Perhaps another way of explaining the fact-checkers is that they offer a service that helps people who want the information. Though most people do indeed make up their own minds about what they read, some of these people will want more information on the background of a subject or its meaning. The other problem is critical thinking, which is what disinformation and misinformation website try to challenge, especially by politicizing everything, and thereby creating emotional engagement, rather than factual engagement. I think the lack of fact-checking websites are not dangerous to people who don't like them, and especially not to people who find them useful, even if - as you note - there are problems with some of their approaches.

So I plan to study at least one of the disinformation websites each day, and leave the log at /s/ShitpostsNews . I am not sure if it will return to /s/all, because it was spammed by 88 on its first day (with lots of votes for 4 MSM sites), and that seemed to annoy M7. Some of my favorites are: Breitbart, newsbusters, racewar.news, zerohedge, WSJ, bitchute, jpost, thegloriousamerican, OANN, brighteon, trunews, newspunch, newswars, notthebee, dailymail.co.uk, reclaimthenet.org, legalinsurrection, bigleaguepolitics, pjmedia, theintercept, satanslibrary.org, countere, planet-today, and fff.org.

[–]StillLessons 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Some of my favorites are: Breitbart, newsbusters, racewar.news, zerohedge, WSJ, bitchute, jpost, thegloriousamerican, OANN, brighteon, trunews, newspunch, newswars, notthebee, dailymail.co.uk, reclaimthenet.org, legalinsurrection, bigleaguepolitics, pjmedia, theintercept, satanslibrary.org, countere, planet-today, and fff.org.

This is why when I read comments, I very rarely read yours anymore. What you have just listed is basically "sites who present the opposite view to your own". Meanwhile, when you craft your responses, the sources you use to support your points are always equally predictable. You have defined "sources" as "information", which is to say that if it comes from the wrong source, it is by definition "disinformation", and vice versa. There is no value in telling people who disagree with you to read sources that will simply repeat what you are saying.

What would be more interesting and productive - and I cannot think of an example where you do this - would be if you found examples from the sources with which you disagree saying things you agree with. The way you are going about it is not going to change minds; it is simply wasting the time of any who choose to engage. Perhaps, of course, that is precisely the point, in which case I confess you have just wasted precisely the amount of my time I have spent writing this response. Congratulations.

[–]Airbus320 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I just have him blocked, he too retarded.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not that simple. It's not about what I like or don't like. I study propaganda. At /s/ShitpostNews there are two far left propaganda sites, and a number of others. This is not about me or you. There is no need to personalize it as if we are all narcissists and want to seek only what we like. If you want to address that, then you can focus on a social psychology study. My interest is political influence, especially by the 1% against the 99%, particularly with regard to propaganda websites that spread disinformation and misinformation. Ths websites listed above are part of the study.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Perhaps, of course, that is precisely the point, in which case I confess you have just wasted precisely the amount of my time I have spent writing this response.

He's a forum sliding shill.

He mostly does it in the comments though.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

But fact check sites include their source material at the bottom. They are absolutely essential for dealing with heavily funded disinformation and misinformation campaigns that influence Saidit, social media and other places.

This is beyond farcical.