What concrete steps can be taken to combat misinformation on social media? This problem is hardly an issue on this platform, but it certainly is elsewhere. Do you have any ideas or suggestions?
-
This post did not contain any content.
It honestly just depends on how many steps you want. You're going to have to figure out the logistics of taking them, first of all. Do you want to take a premade set of steps or would you rather mold/cast them onsite?
Obviously concrete is heavy af, so if you are going to precast them, you might consider using less steps. The more steps you add, the heavier its going to be. Of course, this isn't an issue if you have a heavy duty vehicle with a lift.
Also, do you want rails on them? That will take extra time to set them in place.
Some examples i would recommend would be something like these.
Or maybe this
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote last edited by [email protected]
This problem is hardly an issue on this platform.
And this is the problem.
I see objectively misleading, clickbait headlines and articles from bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia) sources float to the top of Lemmy all the time.
I call them out, but it seems mods are uninterested in enforcing more strict information hygiene.
Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school, or on social media… And, well, the US is kinda past that being possible :/.
There might be hope for the rest of the world.
-
Unfortunately, I believe that social media does influence people's decisions very much. If that weren't the case, criminals like Trump could never be elected president, and 20-25% of the people in my home country wouldn't vote for open Nazis.
Nevertheless, thank you for your valuable contribution: In addition to technical possibilities, I am also interested in how to deal with people who do not accept rational arguments - the Socratic method is probably the best way to make a point with them.
To be the devil's advocate, people elected nazis around the apparition of tv, so i don't think social medias truly are a necessity for fascism to proliferate. That being said, they can still have a major impact.
-
This problem is hardly an issue on this platform.
And this is the problem.
I see objectively misleading, clickbait headlines and articles from bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia) sources float to the top of Lemmy all the time.
I call them out, but it seems mods are uninterested in enforcing more strict information hygiene.
Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school, or on social media… And, well, the US is kinda past that being possible :/.
There might be hope for the rest of the world.
Most of the misinformation I regularly find on top are statements made by the US president or his administration – and these are news reports in an appropriate context with appropriate commentary by Lemmy users. Occasionally, very rarely, I have also seen misinformation about the US president, but I don't see that as much of a problem.
Rather, I see it as a very serious problem that the US president himself and his administration are massively spreading misinformation. That is what my question refers to.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Linking to sources, that is a big one. Even something as honest as "I read it off this Wikipedia page [link]" goes a long way in showing that the poster is not pulling an idea out of their ass.
I will always prefer having debates where both sides cite their information, even if there isn't a satisfying agreement at the end. Plus, faulty sources can be debunked when more eyes are able to scrutinize it.
-
This problem is hardly an issue on this platform.
And this is the problem.
I see objectively misleading, clickbait headlines and articles from bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia) sources float to the top of Lemmy all the time.
I call them out, but it seems mods are uninterested in enforcing more strict information hygiene.
Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school, or on social media… And, well, the US is kinda past that being possible :/.
There might be hope for the rest of the world.
In US English classes at any level above middle school, the importance of finding valid sources and providing citations is emphasized, although that's mainly for essays and the like.
I could imagine it would be possible to adapt that mindset towards social media as well. Provide your sources, so you can prove you understand what you are saying. The foundations are there, they just need to be applied.
-
To be the devil's advocate, people elected nazis around the apparition of tv, so i don't think social medias truly are a necessity for fascism to proliferate. That being said, they can still have a major impact.
In Hitler's time, there was only radio, but Goebbels, his PR man, knew how to use it to great effect. His books are sometimes still read today in PR training courses because PR is just another word for propaganda, and Goebbels is considered one of the fathers of this discipline.
-
This post did not contain any content.
This problem is hardly an issue on this platform.
LOLOL -- This platform is just as bad as Reddit for misinformation. It's usually silly shit, but it's almost always 90% truth laced with 10% lie. The fact that you believe it's somehow immune to this is just testament to how hard it is for people to see this kind of thing clearly when it's "on their side". Problem is, any time it's called out, people get massively downvoted for it, so people have stopped calling it out.
-
Most of the misinformation I regularly find on top are statements made by the US president or his administration – and these are news reports in an appropriate context with appropriate commentary by Lemmy users. Occasionally, very rarely, I have also seen misinformation about the US president, but I don't see that as much of a problem.
Rather, I see it as a very serious problem that the US president himself and his administration are massively spreading misinformation. That is what my question refers to.
wrote last edited by [email protected]With no offense/singling out intended, this is what I’m talking about.
You (and many others) are interested in misinformation from MAGA, but not from misreported news on MAGA. But it's these little nuggets that his media ecosystem pounces on and has gotten Trump to where is.
And it’s exactly the same on the “other side.” The MAGA audience is combing the greater news ecosystem for misinformation like a hawk while turning a blind eye to their own.
The answer is for everyone to have better information hygiene, and that includes shooting misleading down story headlines one might otherwise like. It means being critical of your own information stream as you read.
-
Most of the misinformation I regularly find on top are statements made by the US president or his administration – and these are news reports in an appropriate context with appropriate commentary by Lemmy users. Occasionally, very rarely, I have also seen misinformation about the US president, but I don't see that as much of a problem.
Rather, I see it as a very serious problem that the US president himself and his administration are massively spreading misinformation. That is what my question refers to.
There's buckets of wrong information on Lemmy mate, no question
-
This problem is hardly an issue on this platform.
LOLOL -- This platform is just as bad as Reddit for misinformation. It's usually silly shit, but it's almost always 90% truth laced with 10% lie. The fact that you believe it's somehow immune to this is just testament to how hard it is for people to see this kind of thing clearly when it's "on their side". Problem is, any time it's called out, people get massively downvoted for it, so people have stopped calling it out.
Do you have any examples?
-
In US English classes at any level above middle school, the importance of finding valid sources and providing citations is emphasized, although that's mainly for essays and the like.
I could imagine it would be possible to adapt that mindset towards social media as well. Provide your sources, so you can prove you understand what you are saying. The foundations are there, they just need to be applied.
You’re right, I remember this. It just needs to be updated.
-
With no offense/singling out intended, this is what I’m talking about.
You (and many others) are interested in misinformation from MAGA, but not from misreported news on MAGA. But it's these little nuggets that his media ecosystem pounces on and has gotten Trump to where is.
And it’s exactly the same on the “other side.” The MAGA audience is combing the greater news ecosystem for misinformation like a hawk while turning a blind eye to their own.
The answer is for everyone to have better information hygiene, and that includes shooting misleading down story headlines one might otherwise like. It means being critical of your own information stream as you read.
So you think it's okay for the US president to spread misinformation? You really don't see a problem with that, even though you yourself talk about "information hygiene"?
-
So you think it's okay for the US president to spread misinformation? You really don't see a problem with that, even though you yourself talk about "information hygiene"?
Of course not.
But Trump's going to do it and no one is going to stop him. And if we aren’t willing to look at, say, Lemmy and misleading upvoted posts, how can we possibly tell MAGA acolytes to do the same thing on a more extreme scale?
-
There's buckets of wrong information on Lemmy mate, no question
Any examples?
-
Linking to sources, that is a big one. Even something as honest as "I read it off this Wikipedia page [link]" goes a long way in showing that the poster is not pulling an idea out of their ass.
I will always prefer having debates where both sides cite their information, even if there isn't a satisfying agreement at the end. Plus, faulty sources can be debunked when more eyes are able to scrutinize it.
wrote last edited by [email protected]On the opposite end of the spectrum:
"I put it into chatGPT and it said George Soros is funding ISIS to raid Epstein Island."
-
On the opposite end of the spectrum:
"I put it into chatGPT and it said George Soros is funding ISIS to raid Epstein Island."
Still more credibility if you cite it rather than copy+paste XD
(And we can laugh at the poster who decided that was a valid source)
-
Of course not.
But Trump's going to do it and no one is going to stop him. And if we aren’t willing to look at, say, Lemmy and misleading upvoted posts, how can we possibly tell MAGA acolytes to do the same thing on a more extreme scale?
Well, my question was about how to counter the constant misinformation spread by influential people like Trump (there are people like him in pretty much every country) – that's why I mentioned other platforms, because Lemmy is completely irrelevant in this context due to its very limited reach.
-
Well, my question was about how to counter the constant misinformation spread by influential people like Trump (there are people like him in pretty much every country) – that's why I mentioned other platforms, because Lemmy is completely irrelevant in this context due to its very limited reach.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Ah.
Well IMO, we really can’t.
I think the old adage of the internet applies: don’t feed the trolls. Trying to counter Trump just feeds his media machine with engagement, which is what got us here.
In other words, there is no such thing as bad attention.
Hence, I think we should focus our ire on the systems propping that up (like Big Tech's engagement driven social media, profit above all news and such), not on Trump directly.
-
Do you have any examples?
wrote last edited by [email protected]As a mod for a couple of the biggest communities… gestures to everything
