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?
-
Do me! I'd honestly be interested in a report. I'm obviously not a bot, but what can you glean from my posts?
I generally tag people when they say things I either really enjoy or very strongly disagree with. You've said a lot of things I very strongly disagree with including things I have found to be right-wing and gun-minded according to the tag I picked for you.
It's not a complete and probably not an accurate judge of your character, I just choose to do this so that I don't have to engage in conversations with people where I feel it will be a waste of my energy.
-
Do you seriously think someone is getting paid to come shill for a cause on Lemmy?
I have 100% seen blatant ads on here. Maybe not any big companies but people doing barely relevant self promotion and other weird site promotions.
-
I'm only on Lemmy, but I don't think my individual decision will make a difference—and unfortunately, I don't think anyone should realistically expect it to.
I think anyone who is already here has recognized the problem.
You can't change the whole world but if you choose to point out misinformation among your real life group or in smaller communities, you can still make a difference.
-
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.
bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia)
If you want to know why misinformation is so prominent, the fact that you think this is a good standard is a big part of it.
Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school
And will those classes be teaching "Wikipedia is the indisputable rock of factuality, the holy Scripture from which truth flows"?
-
Hey, just wanted to say I’m always grateful when someone calls out posts not linking to proper sources. Your doing good work, thanks!
Note that Wikipedia is not a proper source.
-
If we want to go the route of the Responsibility of the Individual:
Resolve to not get your political etc. news from social media. Draw a line for yourself: cool to get gaming news from random influencers online? Probably. News about global events? At this point might be better for most people's mental health to ignore them and focus more locally. However, read how to read a book, make your best effort at finding a reputable news organization and check those for news if you must have them. On same vein, if you don't read at least some article about an event being discussed on social media, DON'T COMMENT. Don't engage with that post. If it really grabs at you, go find an article about it from a trusted source, and depending on how much it animates you, try to get a bigger picture of the event. Assume that vast majority of ALL CONTENT online is currently incentivized to engage you - to capture your attention, which is actually the most valuable asset you have. Where you put your attention will define how you feel about your life. It's highly advicable to put it where you feel love.Responsibility of the Collective:
Moving in hierarchies, we can start demanding that social media moderators (or whatever passes for those in any given site) prevent misinformation as much as possible. Try to only join communities that have mods that do this. Failing that, demand social media platforms prevent misinformation. Failing that, we can demand the government does more to prevent misinformation. All of those solutions have significant issues, one of them being they are all very incentivized to capture the attenttion of as many people as possible. Doesn't matter what the exact motivation is - it could be a geneinly good one. A news organization uses social media tactics to get the views so that their actually very factual and dilligently compiled articles get the spread. Or, they could be looking to drive their political agenda - which they necessarily do anyway because desire to be factual and as neutral as possible is a stance as well. One that may run afoul of the interests of some government that doesn't value freedom of press - which is very dangerous and you need to think hard for yourself how you feel about the idea of the government limiting what kind of information you can access. For the purposes of making this shorter, you can regard massive social media platforms as virtual governments too. In fact, it would be a good idea in general.The thing with misinformation is that many people who talk about it subtly think that they are above it themselves. They're thinking that they know they're not subject to propaganda and manipulation but it's the other poor fools that need to be protected from it. It's the Qanon and Antivaxxers. But you know better, you know how to dig deeper into massively complicated global topics and find out what the true and right opinion about them is. You can't. Not even if we weren't in the middle of multiple fucking information wars. You'd do well to focus on what you can know for sure, in your own experience. If you don't like the idea of individual responsibility though, because "most people aren't going to do it" - your best bet at getting a collective response is a group of individuals coming together under the same ideal. It'll happen sooner or later anyway and there's going to be plenty of suffering before either way.
we can start demanding that social media moderators (or whatever passes for those in any given site) prevent misinformation as much as possible.
Yeah, but how are you expecting moderators to determine what is and isn't misinformation?
-
I look at any individual's history when they post anything sketchy and contextualize. Anything politically motivated is likely a shill unless they have a long broadly engaged post history across many subjects with depth. I block a lot of people too.
Anything politically motivated is likely a shill
Do you apply this to any political content? Or just politics you disagree with?
-
Simply leaves social media, or believe nothing on it.
Academic books by experrs, peer-reviewed papers etc. are better.
Wikipedia and podcast/interviews with real experts (not pundits, I mean experts) are good too.
Wikipedia and podcast/interviews
If you're want to know how misinformation got so prominent, look at this as a good start.
-
That's certainly a good point, but I'm less concerned with how to verify information than with how to counteract the constant flow of misinformation — especially on other platforms where misinformation is deliberately pushed, which is causing major problems in my home country alone.
How are you going to counter misinformation if you can't determine what is and isn't misinformation?
-
we can start demanding that social media moderators (or whatever passes for those in any given site) prevent misinformation as much as possible.
Yeah, but how are you expecting moderators to determine what is and isn't misinformation?
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's one of the many issues with expecting a collective resolution. Question is: why do people feel they need to be able to discuss issues way beyond their understanding and personal experience online with others who also don't know much about it? If actually done well, moderation is a full time job but nobody is interested in paying a bunch of online jannies to clean their space.
That's why I favor individual responsibility, and opting out of the possibility of being exposed to (or perpetuating) misinformation. Maybe in the future we can have forums for verified experts of a field, where regular people can have discussions with them and ask questions etc. But these would be moderated places where you do need to bring proof and sound arguments, not emotionally charged headlines.
The stories and information posted on social media are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted as fact.
-
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.
yeah, lemmy could stop pushing extreme leftist misinformation from mysterious online "news" sources and rewriting history
that would be a great start -
yeah, lemmy could stop pushing extreme leftist misinformation from mysterious online "news" sources and rewriting history
that would be a great startYeah, western right wing neoliberal misinformation only.
-
bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia)
If you want to know why misinformation is so prominent, the fact that you think this is a good standard is a big part of it.
Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school
And will those classes be teaching "Wikipedia is the indisputable rock of factuality, the holy Scripture from which truth flows"?
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s not of course, but it’s a good start. Certainly good enough to use as a quick but fallible reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
As I heard someone else here quote, perfect is the enemy of good.
-
How are you going to counter misinformation if you can't determine what is and isn't misinformation?
What makes you think I couldn't tell the difference?
-
yeah, lemmy could stop pushing extreme leftist misinformation from mysterious online "news" sources and rewriting history
that would be a great startThat’s not what I meant. It’s true that too many left leaning tabloids get upvoted to the front page, but the direction of the slant isn’t the point, and there’s nothing “mysterious” about them. They’re clickbait/ragebait.
-
What makes you think I couldn't tell the difference?
The fact that you said you're concerned with verifying information
-
It’s not of course, but it’s a good start. Certainly good enough to use as a quick but fallible reference:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
As I heard someone else here quote, perfect is the enemy of good.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It’s not of course, but it’s a good start. Certainly good enough to use as a quick but fallible reference:
No, it really isn't. The fact that Wikipedia has been arbitrarily vested with such supreme authority to be the default source of truth by so many people is a big part of why misinformation is so common. Back in my day, even high schoolers were taught not to do that.
-
The fact that you said you're concerned with verifying information
What I meant was that my question wasn't about how to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources – I think most Lemmy users are capable of doing that.
I was more interested in how we can effectively and meaningfully contribute to countering the flood of misinformation on social media (such as Twitter or meta apps).
The background to my question is the fact that this misinformation influences users' opinions. I think, the US is the best example of where that can lead. Unfortunately, there are similar trends in my home country. Since I don't want to be ruled by fascists, I thought I'd ask the community here what can be done.
But apparently I didn't phrase the question very well.
-
It’s not of course, but it’s a good start. Certainly good enough to use as a quick but fallible reference:
No, it really isn't. The fact that Wikipedia has been arbitrarily vested with such supreme authority to be the default source of truth by so many people is a big part of why misinformation is so common. Back in my day, even high schoolers were taught not to do that.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Yes, I remember too. We were specifically told not to use Wikipedia.
Then information hygiene went to shit. Now it's a rare oasis in the current landscape.
Look, I'm not saying to start referencing Wikipedia in scholarly journals or papers. But it's more accessible than some JSTOR database and way above average, and more of the population using it would be a wonderful thing. The vast majority of the time, Wikipedia is not the source of misinformation/disinformation in this world.
-
What I meant was that my question wasn't about how to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources – I think most Lemmy users are capable of doing that.
I was more interested in how we can effectively and meaningfully contribute to countering the flood of misinformation on social media (such as Twitter or meta apps).
The background to my question is the fact that this misinformation influences users' opinions. I think, the US is the best example of where that can lead. Unfortunately, there are similar trends in my home country. Since I don't want to be ruled by fascists, I thought I'd ask the community here what can be done.
But apparently I didn't phrase the question very well.
What I meant was that my question wasn’t about how to distinguish between reputable and unreliable sources – I think most Lemmy users are capable of doing that.
Well that makes one of us. My experience is that most Lemmy users think Wikipedia was written by God himself.
