Misinformation "Superspreaders"

[Raptured]

I see the same patterns as many mentioned.  I'm friends with all sorts of folks on Facebook of all ages and all walks of life.  The ones I've had to correct or simply shake my head when I see some of the "news" being shared tend to be 40+ conservative females.   (no inuendo- simply stating my observations).  

My funniest part to me however, and it's not just Facebook where this is observed, is when a post is prefaced something like "hey all you [insert political persuasion stereotype here]s!   You support this guy so let me see you explain this!", fully knowing that 1 - they probably don't actually have any of said target audience in their social circles and 2, if they did, they're probably not as passionate about having a spitting contest on social media about it.

Is there even a name for this behaviour?   Where you portray yourself as talking to an audience that simply doesn't exist in order to come across like you're preaching gospel?   If not, I'm sure we can come up with one  :-)

[VulcanWerks]

I want Musk to validate the findings of any “Twitter” research.

[Maxmars]

I just can't accept that people should "be restricted" in "sharing" whatever the hell they want.

Communication on the internet is not some "defineable thing."   Some people feel a dopamine hit when they find something that peaks there interest and then eagerly share it will all their friends.  It's a fundamental aspect of human interaction. It is not up to some "third party," be they government, social control ideology, or marketting gimmickry, to tell us what and how we can communicate with one another.  Ever.  It's called "free speech."  Add ANY proviso to the concept and you remove the actual meaning of the concept.

The problem isn't that people talk to each other.  The problem as the "would-be definers" describe it, is that they have no control of it.  It always boils down to "somebody ought to do something about people talking to each other."  And the somebody you can infer from the statement, is meant to say "It won't be you."

Free speech is the fundamental quintessence of personal sovereingty.  Every attack on that is an attack on the value of human connection.

Of course this doesn't mean that there are no dangers.  But place the problem where it belongs... stop finding excuses to lie to the public, accept responsiblity for the many problems your errant policies have caused, and imagine the outrage of most politicians at this innane suggestion: Fix the problems by actually eliminating the causes.  (Suffice to say most politicians know exactly where the problems are.)

The political class has allowed themselves to develop a cultural approach to governance which does not conform to the public benefit.  Party first. By party, I mean the 'social shield' that keeps their dealings shrouded in uncertainty.  All while "working for us," as they would say.

Calling for, or justifying any rationale to legitimize the stifling of human to human interaction (regardless of the medium) is the "camel's nose" as the proverb goes.  The problem is the idea of telling people what they can share, illogically, I might add... as it belies the "acceptability" of it being there in the first place.  If it is illegal, remove it or don't allow it to be disseminated, why punish the audience for offering what is there to others for their same entertainment?

The authors are conveying a tale of someone pissed-off about "what it is you're reading, and daring to share with anyone else you choose?"  The truth is this efforts springs from their determination that they MUST know what it is your sharing so they CAN control it.  So they can create a "one narrative world" for us to 'settle down' in it... and wait to be "told" what comes next (and how glorious it will be.)

Of course there is a lot of mis/dis-information out there. We get dosed daily by the media. Everyone who thinks can see it for themselves, they don't need you to "rescue" them from it.  

People lie.  The solution - Tell the truth.  End of story. 

The angst is really about how you "use," or plan to use, what you claim is "information."  But somehow it's never the whole story, is it?  It always leads to you getting more "control" and us less "say."

(Apologies - that should have been posted in the Rant Forum.)

[ArMaP]

I just can't accept that people should "be restricted" in "sharing" whatever the hell they want.

I agree, people should not be restricted in what they share.
 

People lie.  The solution - Tell the truth.  End of story. 

I also agree, but what should be done about those sites that spread the initial lies? Many (or most) of the times it's not the politicians that spread the lies but the media, both the mainstream and the "alternative" media, as they both look for the same result: hits/shares.

One of the problems with today's mainstream media is that because of the speed of the Internet news they stopped checking if things are true or not, if someone reports it then they republish it.

One good example was a person that, on the 2022/2023 winter floods in Portugal posted on social media a video of a car, seen from above, with water reaching to the side windows, with the driver door opened. Then the camera shows a wider view and we see that it's just a toy car inside of a puddle.

Someone took that video and removed the end, and shared it as being from the floods in the Lisbon area.

Someone else at the highest selling newspaper decided to share those "amazing images" without fact checking. They were flooded with comments telling them the images were fake, so they took down the video from their site and announced they were make a formal complaint against the person that shared the shorter video with them (or the person that posted in on social media, I don't remember which).

Everybody should be responsible for what they publish and pay for the consequences of their acts.

For some reason do sites like this have provisions regarding the publishing of fake information on their rules.

[LogicalGraffiti]

I don't use Twitter/x, Facebook nor tik-tok and I despise watching TV news channels (although sometimes I still do).  Does that make me immune to misinformation?  I like to think so.  In fact, I get most of my news right here on DI and (less and less) on the "other" site. 

I should also credit my wife for letting me know what goes on in politics, especially locally, and we have interesting discussions about  that.  We're like minded and both believe in grass-roots involvement.  But, I refuse to tow the party line which does cause tense moments occasionally.

[Maxmars]

I agree, people should not be restricted in what they share.
 
I also agree, but what should be done about those sites that spread the initial lies? Many (or most) of the times it's not the politicians that spread the lies but the media, both the mainstream and the "alternative" media, as they both look for the same result: hits/shares.

One of the problems with today's mainstream media is that because of the speed of the Internet news they stopped checking if things are true or not, if someone reports it then they republish it.

One good example was a person that, on the 2022/2023 winter floods in Portugal posted on social media a video of a car, seen from above, with water reaching to the side windows, with the driver door opened. Then the camera shows a wider view and we see that it's just a toy car inside of a puddle.

Someone took that video and removed the end, and shared it as being from the floods in the Lisbon area.

Someone else at the highest selling newspaper decided to share those "amazing images" without fact checking. They were flooded with comments telling them the images were fake, so they took down the video from their site and announced they were make a formal complaint against the person that shared the shorter video with them (or the person that posted in on social media, I don't remember which).

Everybody should be responsible for what they publish and pay for the consequences of their acts.

For some reason do sites like this have provisions regarding the publishing of fake information on their rules.

I just think we can't allow the people who care about "what others are sharing" define the 'terms' at their pleasure. 

If something is "misinformation" or "disinformation" than it is, essentially, a lie.  Now we dare not make it illegal to lie.  If we made it illegal to tell anything but the factual truth for "public distribution" we would kill the media.  We would reduce the size and volume of "news" by more than half.  By rights, as it stands today, almost everything we see as 'news' is actually 'entertainment.'  They simply could not function (profitably) if all they could do is tell you what they know. 

When grandpa sends me a link for an article talking about how "effective and safe" the COVID "vaccine" is... how is that not spreading misinformation?  Suppose he sent me a article about how the key words applicable to the "COVID vaccine" were "sudden and unexpected?"  Which is disinformation?  Who gets to decide for everyone, and why them?

If the information represents a damaging deception... the question becomes is that not an "assault" of the audience?  Is that not criminal?  Who would allow that? 

Should the audience, who generally can't help but witness the information, in their ignorance (of someone else's determination of it's malicious nature,) share it - why should anyone be attributing the actionable flaw to them?

If it's legal to say, it's legal to share.

---

I don't use Twitter/x, Facebook nor tik-tok and I despise watching TV news channels (although sometimes I still do).  Does that make me immune to misinformation?  I like to think so.  In fact, I get most of my news right here on DI and (less and less) on the "other" site. 

I should also credit my wife for letting me know what goes on in politics, especially locally, and we have interesting discussions about  that.  We're like minded and both believe in grass-roots involvement.  But, I refuse to tow the party line which does cause tense moments occasionally.

Well, I defintely line up with your disdain for what passes as "News" reporting and general consumer media.  I don't blame you for enduring occasionally, I do it for the sake of social-relevance... and to remind myself how much I hate what they have made of journalism and mind-melting activism.

I hope we can eventually synthesize some news format and function to overcome the garbage they insist on spewing at us.  "Party line's" are for followers and those beholden to someone else's words... enjoy the freedom.  I do.

[Waterglass]

Wow!  Why didn't you just simply post that you hate ATS?

ATS was "loaded" with all sorts of people; men, women, young, old, many different 'categories.'
You do know that people can disagree with your UFO stories, or reject what you consider evidence, and NOT be "spinsters" or thought police, right?  

While I have no particular love for "ATS ownership" the whole "hiring ****s" and agenda comment comes off as if you've got a personal "hurt" manifesting here.  

I was a moderator on ATS too... are you accusing me of an "agenda" as well?  Do you imagine I "went to meetings" to discuss "plans" or get direction on how to squelch the speech of the members? (PS... no one "hired" me.)

Or are you thinking it was all about you?

---

Thank you for teasing that out of the source material. 

They have a "manually labelled list" ... the fact that a source is on that list means "it's fake."  Doesn't that sound familiar?  

The fact that "NewsGuard" is being cited as authority makes it less reliable, not more.  Even marginally informed people like myself have read articles and or made threads about the "Newsguard" private enterprise and who uses it - and for what.

I offer an idea: 

Profiteering, monetized, and unscroupulous operators can algortihmically assess the 'frame of mind' of any user by mathematically analyzing what they read online, what they post, and who they are linked to.  The readily available "personal' information like voter roles, DMV data, "third-party data' all can be used to identify those 'users' most inclined and prone to react and share a certain kind of "editorialization."

We've all seen the "way" (particularly in monetized content) "media titles" and "content characterizations" of videos and articles are expressed to snag a user into clicking, or sharing.  Article which flatly state things like "Scientists are hiding this,..." or "They are destroying our country!," or "Don't let them get away with this!," "They don't want us to know...!," and even "Share this before they remove it!"

Who is most likely to respond to that?  Perhaps someone who is alarmed, who's opinion has been 'cultivated' by repeated and focused targetting via "algorithm."  

Just a foolishly outlandish idea, I guess.

"Wow!  Why didn't you just simply post that you hate ATS??

I dont hate ATS I loved ATS  It explained much to me and was an invaluable resource. Especially SLED735 in the Paranormal Forum which was the shut down because it was too close to the truth. Then the Black Hats got control of all of ATS.

---

If you blindly support Israel then everything else that deviates from this blind support is seen as Hamas propaganda. So I understand perfectly your position if you are an Israeli supporter.

---

Also what Waterglass said would be true. It has a good chance.

---

There is plenty of misinformation online and in all platforms, not just ATS. There are many paid shills and you can easily spot them after sometime engaging with them. There are also people with strong personal convictions who cannot deviate from their dogma and argue until the end of times no matter the evidence presented.

For the rest of your post I say you.made me laugh.as what you said has been discussed extensively outside the ATS realm. It's coming from all directions as far as I know.

All I can write is that I dont ride with Satan nor am attemting to destroy the United States of America. Nor are you. God bless.

[Chiefsmom]

I have to agree with the findings.  I only have to look at my mother, and older female relatives and what they post.   They mean well, but tend to believe a lot, without doing much investigating of what they are repeating.

I'm just the crazy "conspiracy theorist" in the family, but at least mom listens when I give her more information.
The problem then is, she doesn't change or take down whatever she has posted.
She just moves on to something else.

I'm betting there are a lot just like her.
Older men as well.

[ArMaP]

I don't use Twitter/x, Facebook nor tik-tok and I despise watching TV news channels (although sometimes I still do).  Does that make me immune to misinformation?

No, misinformation can be anywhere, and if we do not look for confirmation of what we read/are told we are likely to be affected by it.

[BeTheGoddess]

You know how people write "clean me" on other peoples dirty cars?. Well if you use your thumb in write it a bit wonky, and write "I wrote this with my penis"... bonus points if you use your elbows on the trunk to make it look like you actually...


My point is that all communications between people/groups/drunk people et al, is sent via one lens, and recived by another. On a reddit post recently someone asked if the entities (in this case humans he was pparanoid about) were demonic--so I mention hermetic philosophy and it would be disinfo to you, but the rest of the world doesnt always view from your lens.

Now lets get back to writing shit where people dont appreciate.