Slashdot Mirror
UW Professor: The Information War Is Real, and We're Losing It (seattletimes.com)
An anonymous reader writes: It started with the Boston marathon bombing, four years ago. University of Washington professor Kate Starbird was sifting through thousands of tweets sent in the aftermath and noticed something strange. Too strange for a university professor to take seriously. "There was a significant volume of social-media traffic that blamed the Navy SEALs for the bombing," Starbird told me the other day in her office. "It was real tinfoil-hat stuff. So we ignored it." Same thing after the mass shooting that killed nine at Umpqua Community College in Oregon: a burst of social-media activity calling the massacre a fake, a stage play by "crisis actors" for political purposes. "After every mass shooting, dozens of them, there would be these strange clusters of activity," Starbird says. "It was so fringe we kind of laughed at it. "That was a terrible mistake. We should have been studying it." Starbird argues in a new paper, set to be presented at a computational social-science conference in May, that these "strange clusters" of wild conspiracy talk, when mapped, point to an emerging alternative media ecosystem on the web of surprising power and reach. There are dozens of conspiracy-propagating websites such as beforeitsnews.com, nodisinfo.com and veteranstoday.com. Starbird cataloged 81 of them, linked through a huge community of interest connected by shared followers on Twitter, with many of the tweets replicated by automated bots. Starbird is in the UW's Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering -- the study of the ways people and technology interact. Her team analyzed 58 million tweets sent after mass shootings during a 10-month period. They searched for terms such as "false flag" and "crisis actor," web slang meaning a shooting is not what the government or the traditional media is reporting it to be. Then she analyzed the content of each site to try to answer the question: Just what is this alternative media ecosystem saying? Starbird is publishing her paper as a sort of warning. The information networks we've built are almost perfectly designed to exploit psychological vulnerabilities to rumor. "Your brain tells you 'Hey, I got this from three different sources,'" Starbird says. "But you don't realize it all traces back to the same place, and might have even reached you via bots posing as real people. If we think of this as a virus, I wouldn't know how to vaccinate for it." The report goes on to say that "Starbird says she's concluded, provocatively, that we may be headed toward 'the menace of unreality -- which is that nobody believes anything anymore.'"
Really? We are there.
"Give someone a program, frustrate them for a day... Teach someone to program, frustrate them for a lifetime."
He didn't make a political statement but you completely verified his point. Must of picked on one of your truther sites I guess.
Your brain tells you 'Hey, I got this from three different sources,'" Starbird says. "But you don't realize it all traces back to the same place, and might have even reached you via bots posing as real people. If we think of this as a virus, I wouldn't know how to vaccinate for it." The report goes on to say that "Starbird says she's concluded, provocatively, that we may be headed toward 'the menace of unreality -- which is that nobody believes anything anymore.
Over the past 20 years I've felt this as well. It's scary, because for those of us used to seeking out signal in the noise, it just encourages apathy. We look around and feel like we're surrounded by idiots, when it may only in fact be just a bunch of bots propagating a single crazy person's mindless steam of consciousness.
Rational, fact/observation-based debate becomes just exhausting, and we say "whatever." That's not good.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
I think that those conspiracy theories that are propagated by more than the usual crackpots may be a result of people realizing just how much fake news, biased news and "opinion pieces" there are in the mainstream media.
They overshoot the goal and now see fake news everywhere even when in some cases there are none.
Without critical thought people will accept many things that are just shoveled at them. Admittedly critical thought requires practice and is hard.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
This guy is 1) A professor, and 2) in Boston - ergo, he's probably extremely liberal (how'd I know???)
Not everyone is losing the information war. Just your side.
It's kind of a shame that you would really think that. Confirmation bias and gullibility are not monopolized by one side of a political divide. Anyone who thinks they are always correct and clear-eyed, is simply wrong.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Yes, the example stories provided are crazy and no one should believe them. So what should we believe? Not the government, which lies about really, really big important things like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, etc. Not the news media (owned by the same conglomerates that own the politicians) which thinks "unnamed sources believe Trump may or may not have had contact with someone who might have bought one of those silly Russian fur hats once" is worth a 10 minute segment with 5 panelists yapping. And who also repeatedly told us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
So, yes, there are bad people lying or crazy people hallucinating all kinds of nutty things. But they'd have no purchase if the "trustworthy" people in media and government weren't already doing the same thing.
This reminds of the joke "don't steal! The government hates the competition." Don't lie! The government hates the competition.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
The worrying part is that what has so often been labeled as "bullshit" ends up being true.
Ten or twenty years ago, anyone claiming that mass monitoring/recording of communications was taking place was labeled as a "kook", a "crazy", and "conspiracy theorist", or what have you.
Then we have the Snowden and Assange revelations which verify what was claimed by these supposed "kooks", and in some ways go beyond what was originally believed.
I'm sure you can fall back on the "a broken clock is right twice a day" idea, or even claim that they were accidentally right.
But the focus shouldn't be on the alleged "kooks" and their claims; it should be on how the truth was wrongly labeled as "bullshit".
Of course people will start to distrust official sources when the "truth" so often ends up being shown to be "bullshit", and the alleged "bullshit" ends up being true.
Part of the issue here is that people have become aware of the manipulation of public opinion by intelligence agencies. We have things like Operation Gladio, in which the CIA teamed up with people on post-war Europe to clandestinely fight the Soviets, which included bombings and assassinations which were blamed on the communists. We have the revelation of Operation Northwoods, approved by the then Joint Chiefs of Staff, that would have blown up dummy airplanes and blamed it on Cuba. The plan was squashed by Kennedy and McNamara, but the fact that it existed and was approved is concerning. We have the revelations of the Church Committee, which among other things revealed that the CIA had operatives working at all major news networks. They claim to have ceased that type of thing. But does anyone really believe we have effective and complete oversight of the CIA?
None of this justifies thinking that any given event, like the Boston Marathon bombing, or the Sandy Hook shootings are false flag operations, or anything other than what they seem. But once you realize that it is possible that there is a plan in place to manipulate public opinion, it can be hard to know what to believe anymore. And once you don't really trust the mainstream news sources, you start to look for alternatives. Many of those alternatives are not very good! But where do you go when you suspect that ABC (for example) might just be telling you what those in power want you to believe? Couple that with that fact that most news organizations rely solely on "official sources" and don't do much actual investigating, and you realize that such manipulation is quite possible. It can be very disconcerting and confusing.
I think there are a number of factors in play with this issue. Part of it is gullibility and paranoia. But it also stems from the fact that covert actors have used trusted news sources for propaganda and manipulation, and in doing so have damaged the reputation and trustworthiness of those outlets.
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
Properly functioning bullshit detectors are a matter of training in an environment conducive to developing one. If you do not have an environment where you can check facts, you cannot develop an instinct for who's shoveling turd and you cannot develop research skills. If you are surrounded by people in a similar situation, you're prone to develop your own dissembling skills as a survival mechanism, rather than an appreciation of honesty. You have to have something to get your footing on. In other words it is down to proper education, environment, and mentoring, not laziness.
If the neighborhood next door has a long-term infestation of head lice that just won't subside, do you do something to help them out of it, or just sit on your porch saying "look at all those dirty people."?
The answer should be the latter, if not for moral reasons, then for the fact that the consequences may occasionally spill out onto you.
Someone had to do it.
yeah, what about PizzaGate ? So fake news are only wrong when the libs are doing it, is this what's you're saying ?
Typical discusting trumpist filth.
This is the liberal media that thought it would be a good idea to run with a story about how President Trump is into watersports and hires Russian prostitutes to piss on beds once slept in by the Obamas, despite the fact that it was completely unverified and unverifiable.
No, this is the liberal media that thought it would be a good idea to run with a story that a British intelligence agency had leaked a document with several derogatory statements about President Trump, and that several intelligence agencies had suggested that it was trustworthy.
Those were actual, facts, you know, things that could be verified. Every single article about this that I'm aware of stated that the dossier may not be accurate, but that intelligence agencies suggested it might be true.
It turns out after a while that at least a significant portion of the document is true, so they seem to have had a good basis there.
The NYT is famous for its WMD in Iraq, Saddam is going to attack the US fake news. Fox is packed with fake news. Face it, ever since the the news media turned to click bait journalism (infotainment), the news from the left, right and center is likely to have many fake components, salted with a dash of truth to make it more palatable. The Russians did it (meaning everything bad that ever happens) is the latest in click-bait journalism. Time to boycott the mainstream (fake) press.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Our society rewards clicks no matter what information is behind it. Go fucking figure people starting perpetuating hype and bullshit when that kind of capitalistic model is presented.
This is the same reason you find mainstream news outlets perpetuating fake news. This is the same reason banking institutions purposely break laws and perpetuate unethical activity for monetary gain. The crime of manipulation is worth it.
STOP fucking rewarding the behavior that perpetuates this shit. Otherwise the proverbial global database of information will become worthless, tainted with lies and doubt.
If the neighborhood next door has a long-term infestation of head lice that just won't subside, do you do something to help them out of it, or just sit on your porch saying "look at all those dirty people."?
They're religiously objecting to washing their hair. I've tried explaining to them over and over again that the reason we don't have head lice is because we wash our hair on a daily basis. I've also tried pointing out to them that their holy book says that they shouldn't eat bacon either, but that they have no problem eating bacon.
I just can't get through to them. They think they'll go to hell if their wash their hair. This one guy even started screaming and gesticulating at me the other day while I was buying shampoo, going off about how I'm some ivory tower liberal elitist devil worshipper. He was adamant that his god infested him with lice because of how angry I make his god every time I buy shampoo.
Do you have any suggestions for how to get through to these people and help them see that washing one's hair is just as acceptable as eating bacon? I even tried quoting from the second half of their holy book about their prophet Eli and the parable of the good barber! I'm at my wits' end!
All I can do is sit on my porch, crack open a b33r, and laugh at them. Otherwise I would weep.
At least they're not as bad as those heathens that use Emacs!
So why can't this concept apply to academia as much as it applies to AOL chat groups?
Just look at the so-called social "sciences". Your idea that "people when encountering like-minded people seem to see the fringe behaviour as socially acceptable" would very much apply there, too. Some of the ideas coming out of academia, especially the social "sciences", are well beyond the fringe.
It may even be worse within academia. Academic systems tend to have a system of self-declared "authority" built in. It's assumed that because somebody has a degree that they must know what they're talking about, and that they couldn't possibly be wrong. The "peer review" system only serves to solidify the promulgation of the subset of ideas deemed "correct" by the established and self-declared academic "authorities", which of course don't necessarily have any actual ties to reality and truth.
In many ways I'd trust the discussion at an AOL-style chat group more than that of academics. Those in a chat room likely aren't driven to promote their ideas for financial reasons, unlike academics who often need to study the "right" topics in order to obtain funding or who need to say the "right" things in order to keep their funding. Likewise, there typically isn't this myth of "authority" and "credentials" hanging over everyone, causing some people to be deemed "correct" all of the time, instead of having to actually prove what they're claiming.
(Before anyone asks, yes, I do have extensive experience within academia, and I do have degrees. I also used AOL way back, too.)
I think the "we" that the author is referring to is people who make decisions based on reality. That doesn't necessarily exclude conservatives. That only means you have some intelligence and maybe even a little common sense.
The forces of disinformation are neither liberal nor conservative. They are anarchists. No one with any intelligence and anything to lose wants anarchy.
MSM is horrible, and possibly worse than what we used to make fun of in the USSR called Pravda. Let me give a couple examples.
Subject 1: "No proof that A"
Subject 2: "Suspicion that B"
There is no logical difference between those two statements, both indicate that A and B both lack enough facts to result in a conclusion. Yet MSM constantly uses this format to denounce A and promote B to suite their agenda (or visa-versa). This type of rhetoric is extremely powerful and hard for most to understand.
They similarly cherry pick content to distort messages, and completely omit facts and stories that would harm their agenda. Monopolization of media means that this is done at massive scale with collusion among nearly all of MSM.
Since people can see through the clouds, at least on occasions where it's obvious, we have come to a point of information deficit in MSM. There is little to no unbiased news. If you are truly unbiased your only option is to go find original sources, which is a daunting and time consuming task. I find it less time consuming to find sources than sift through hours of opinions, but that is something I had to force myself to do (which makes it easier).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
This guy is 1) A professor, and 2) in Boston - ergo, he's probably extremely liberal (how'd I know???)
Not everyone is losing the information war. Just your side.
It's sad that it has come so far that being educated and informed automatically labels you a liberal. I think it really reflects the low point that conservatism in the US has reached, peaking with Donald Trump being elected as president.
Because by saying that you of course suggest the other side of the coin, being that conservatism in the US has shifted towards ignorance, populism and a science-denying base of people with simple solutions to complex problems.
Such as building walls.
The Age of Enlightenment is what separated the West from other parts of the planet, such as the Middle East, Africa and Asia. This is what enabled our amazing progress in the last few centuries. Critical thinking, intellectualism, freedom of thought and religion, all of these great and amazing things. It seems some parts of the US want to turn back the wheels of time and return to the age of monarchs, priests and superstition.
Because by saying that you of course suggest the other side of the coin, being that conservatism in the US has shifted towards ignorance, populism and a science-denying base of people with simple solutions to complex problems.
Reminds me of a similar flaw I've loved to point out in some so-called feminist claims that putting emphasis on things like "logic" or "justice" is emphasizing the masculine over the feminine: "really? do you realize you are thereby claiming that logic/justice/etc are unfeminine; that women are illogical/unjust/etc? and you call yourself a feminist?"
Nice catch that conservatives are basically doing the same thing with their attacks on intellectualism: unwittingly claiming willful ignorance as a trait of their side in contrast.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."