+- Deny Ignorance (https://denyignorance.com)
+-- Forum: Main Forums (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Main-Forums)
+--- Forum: Propaganda Mill (https://denyignorance.com/Section-Propaganda-Mill)
+--- Thread: Misinformation "Superspreaders" (/Thread-Misinformation-Superspreaders)
Misinformation "Superspreaders" - Maxmars - 05-31-2024
Yup! Interesting research into misinformation propagation has led to a single culprit...
Reviewing posting activity on X (formerly Twitter) researchers found these villains' who while accounting for only 0.3% of users, were responsible for spreading 80% of the links to "fake news sites."
Who are these horrible people?... "Older women."
From ArsTechnica: Key misinformation “superspreaders” on Twitter: Older women
Misinformation is not a new problem, but there are plenty of indications that the advent of social media has made things worse. Academic researchers have responded by trying to understand the scope of the problem, identifying the most misinformation-filled social media networks, organized government efforts to spread false information, and even prominent individuals who are the sources of misinformation.
All of that's potentially valuable data. But it skips over another major contribution: average individuals who, for one reason or another, seem inspired to spread misinformation. A study released today looks at a large panel of Twitter accounts that are associated with US-based voters (the work was done back when X was still Twitter). It identifies a small group of misinformation superspreaders, which represent just 0.3 percent of the accounts but are responsible for sharing 80 percent of the links to fake news sites.
Needless to say, there are still many questions to be answered on how they determine what exactly is a "Fake News Site," because ever since COVID the designation has become the stereotypical trope of 'establishment support' journalism. But nevertheless, the assertion in the title of the article leaves little room for doubt. Furthermore, Twitter (X) does not represent the entire world of internet users.
I thought folks here might have some interest more mainstream characterization of the internet... and those who use it for sharing information of which they don't approve.
The work, done by Sahar Baribi-Bartov, Briony Swire-Thompson, and Nir Grinberg, relies on a panel of over 650,000 Twitter accounts that have been associated with voting registrations in the US, using full names and location information. Those voting records, in turn, provide information about the individuals, as well as location information that can be associated with the average demographics of that voting district. All of these users were active on the platform in the lead-up to the 2020 elections, although the study stopped before the post-election surge in misinformation.
Sigh - I have reservations about all this, their conclusions, and several things common to 'fake news site' they fail to address... but I'd expect you don't need me to point them out... except... a small hint... the "targeted marketing' experiences of undiscriminating users.
Well, enjoy the read.
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - guyfriday - 05-31-2024
I believe that the premise behind this story is true, I also doubt the validity of its facts. It seems like it might be misinformation on its own trying to distract from Chinese and Chinese-Bots as the real culprits here.
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - jaded - 05-31-2024
Can't even say I'm surprised.
Just my own experience has been well intentioned older women sharing, linking,tweeting absolute nonsense as if it was legitimate news. Everything from flat earth, Med-beds,images of weather radar bursts labeled "secret govt weapon!" Q, pizza-gate, the list never ends.
The part I find very troubling is once I fact check & make sure the person knows they were taken for a ride (so to speak) they're right back at it the next day! Despite the fact they KNOW how to fact check!! Even sadder these are personal friends of mine.
Keeping friendships has been difficult.
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - Karl12 - 05-31-2024
(05-31-2024, 01:48 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Needless to say, there are still many questions to be answered on how they determine what exactly is a "Fake News Site,"
Yes important thread mate and the definitions are very vague - even the title of the article is using quite insidious terminology.
If the designation/accusation is just 'lying' then fair enough.. but the corporate media (and those who own it) also then become extremely complicit.
Here's a good example - Bill Gates lying to everyone in a 2020 BBC interview.
Quote:Why is Gates denying Event 201?
Why? On April 12, 2020, Bill Gates said in an interview to the BBC, “Now here we are. We didn’t simulate this, we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies, we find ourselves in uncharted territory.”
This is the same person who, just six months before the outbreak of the pandemic, organised a series of four role-playing simulations of a corona pandemic with very high-ranking participants.
Link
Did he just happen to forget the insanely similar WEF/CIA pandemic simulation he attended (and funded) not six months earlier?
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - Maxmars - 05-31-2024
(05-31-2024, 02:54 PM)Karl12 Wrote: Yes important thread mate and the definitions are very vague - even the title of the article is using quite insidious terminology.
If the designation/accusation is just 'lying' then fair enough.. but the corporate media (and those who own it) also then become extremely complicit.
Here's a good example - Bill Gates lying to everyone in a 2020 BBC interview.
Did he just happen to forget the insanely similar WEF/CIA pandemic simulation he attended (and funded) not six months earlier?
Yeah that interview can serve as an example of what they believe is the "divine lie," where the 'planned' outcome outweighs the need for fact or truth. I would wager a dollar that he didn't "forget." He would characterize it as "being an innovator, and conscious of the possibilities... therefore proactively engaged in foresight." Confirmed globalist political doctrine. A "good cover," if somewhat Hegelian... but mostly just self-serving and corrupt.
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - Karl12 - 05-31-2024
Bravo lol - absolutely agree my friend.
Seems the corporate media landscape is positively drowning in bullsh•t these days.. and they are now starting to vilify those who try to swim.
Originaly posted this pic over on the Nuremberg thread but definitely thought it deserved a place here.
Pic
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - Karl12 - 05-31-2024
Read the full article mate.. and it's absolutely non contextual nonsense (probably funded by the Gates Foundation).
Don't know why but was truly reminded of this old Twilight Zone episode:
• "Logic is an enemy and truth is a menace."
Quote:In a futuristic totalitarian world, meek and mild-mannered librarian Romney Wordsworth finds himself on trial for being obsolete. This future society has decided on everything people need to know.
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - Maxmars - 06-02-2024
As could be explected, the news of this research has spawned more coverage of the "opinion-making" variety.
From The Register: Twitter 'supersharers' of fake news tend to be older Republican women
Subtitled: Tiny percentage of users make X miss the spot
(Sadly, the bias is here from the opening shot... This research uses data from before Musk bought and renamed Twitter "X." But some authors are very eager to trash "X" whenever, and wherever, they can.)
About 80 percent of the fake news shared on Twitter during the 2020 US presidential election came from just 0.3 percent of users, according to researchers from Israel and the US.
These "supersharers" were disproportionately likely to be older, Republican women from Texas, Florida, and Arizona, according to a study published in the journal Science by Sahar Baribi-Bartov, Briony Swire-Thompson, and Nir Grinberg.
And their output was not the result of automation, it's believed, but rather reflects "manual and persistent retweeting," the academics say. "These findings highlight a vulnerability of social media for democracy, where a small group of people distort the political reality for many."
Clearly, the data used in the research included voting registry information. But the article did include a comparison that surprised me...
These supersharers thus had more reach than Russia's foreign influence campaign on Twitter in 2016, based on estimates that 3.4 percent of Americans on Twitter at that time followed a Russia-controlled account.
Well, that little stat kind of belies the outrage chanting of security 'experts' and 'consultants' who deman huge increases in defense spending over the threat of Russia characterized as momentous and dangerous.
Here these folks ... not anything exceptional in the way of "organization..." beat them to the "political relevance" punch. Someone calcualted that it would have taken $20 million dollars worth of political ads to have the same reach as simply "sharing" links with "Fake News" origins. And the fact that they were "Republicans" can soon be expected to be used to disparage anyone of that political bent... just wait for it... it's "how they do."
And, in true think-tank method, they also offer this little point -
"Our research shows that platform interventions that target supersharers or impose retweet limits could be highly effective at reducing a large portion of exposure to fake news on social media," the researchers argue.
Once again... the answer is "controlling" the user, and what they should be "allowed" to share. Withour ever once focusing on exactly what defines "Fake News" (other than "they don't like it.")
It is clear that whoever is the think in this work feels entitled to determine what content "should be allowed."
"I personally think that what we're seeing right now is platforms with very loose limits on speech, and my personal opinion is that we are seeing mostly potential harms and abuse of this unlimited quantity of speech, while the benefits of letting it run without limitation are not that clear."
Unlimited 'free speech'... that can only be a 'bad' thing, right?
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - Karl12 - 06-02-2024
(06-02-2024, 12:13 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Once again... the answer is "controlling" the user, and what they should be "allowed" to share. Withour ever once focusing on exactly what defines "Fake News" (other than "they don't like it.")
Yes indeed and thought this article was well worth a read.
Guy Debord’s Warning of “The Role of the Expert”: A Philosophical Perspective on the Rise of Fact-Checking
RE: Misinformation "Superspreaders" - 727Sky - 06-02-2024
Government agencies Are Misinformation Superspreaders..
Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...Covid from a meat market located by the biolab in Wuhan... We do not fund gain of function..MRA vaccines are totally safe. just some of the latest examples IMO..
It would appear some conspiracies will last less than year before they are considered or proven to be the truth...
No one can come close to the propaganda put forth by well funded agencies with an agenda. Not just the state but global information dominance is the end goal.....
The outlawing of political opposition is a classic hallmark of totalitarian systems and is proof of where some societies are heading without some serious changes.
"We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, the 13th CIA director.... Not sure that is true but it sounds about right...
