Ask HN: Is it possible to distinguish alt opinions from actual misinformation? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Is it possible to distinguish alt opinions from actual misinformation?

10 pointsbelltaco10 comments

There is something that stands out in the discussions around misinformation.

Lets take the recent debate on Reddit about banning subs that promote misinformation.

This was the original post from part of the community https://old.reddit.com//r/vaxxhappened/comments/pbe8nj/we_call_upon_reddit_to_take_action_against_the/

This was Reddit's initial response https://old.reddit.com//r/announcements/comments/pbmy5y/debate_dissent_and_protest_on_reddit/

Notice the title of "debate, dissent and protest". Can someone explain how fake news comes under debate dissent and protest?

Let me give examples:

1) "Lockdowns are not worth the costs" is an alternative opinion

2) "India charges WHO Scientist Soumya Swaminathan for Mass Murder" is fake news

https://hannenabintuherland.com/asia/india-charges-who-scientist-soumya-swaminathan-for-mass-murder-the-beginning-of-accountability/

The Indian bar association, a private entity filed a complaint about the WHO scientist, but that story has been changed by a lot of politically partisan outlets to mean the govt has charged/prosecuted the WHO scientist for it.

The fake story has been extremely popular on social media.

It's not an alternative opinion, a debate or discussion. It's just plain wrong but went very viral. Why are there objections to not have these kinds of stories spread on social media?

No one defends(with claims of free speech) about phishers scamming older people with lies about being a Nigerian prince etc. but why is there so much push back against actions on fake news?

Is it possible to cut down the worst examples of #2 without affecting actual alternative opinions like #1 ?

Your baseline assumption should be that everything is misinformation, if we define misinformation as “not telling the entire truth precisely in order to push a certain agenda or worldview.” This is simply the nature of communication technology.

The default legacy media is especially guilty here, as they pretend to be neutral but never are. Whereas much of the “alternate media” wears its bias on its sleeve.

The only solution is to read a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.

"No one defends(with claims of free speech) about phishers scamming older people with lies about being a Nigerian prince etc. but why is there so much push back against actions on fake news?"

Because it's easy to prove intent when they don't return the money (fraud/theft). It's harder to prove intent when it's just information without any sort of first order gains.

That said, suppression of information can lead to a dangerous situation. It would be better to provide substantial proof to refute it. Of course some people won't listen to reason.

Is it necessary to remove #2?

Where is the mandate for spoon feeding consumers of information?

Is the risk posed by fact check, "My truth is bigger than yours", not greater than the benefit?

I guess if misinformation is primarily benefiting one side of the political spectrum, one is less inclined to think it's harmful to society.

> Where is the mandate for spoon feeding consumers of information?

The mandate is born out of a culture that does not teach users how to consume information or to verify it, while making a ton of convincing-looking information readily available to them. If we all knew fact-checking and tracking primary sources, the world would be a better place. But these are skills that are not taught, and they should be.

Because it will be used for political means and ignored for helpful misinformation. Russian election manipulation <-> LGBT propaganda. Just bullshit for self-serving political gains, not difficult to see the mirror-images of stupidity here. So let it fly and let people judge themselves.

That misinformation is a problem on the internet is misinformation. The reality is that there is political dissent. That dissent has a right to be heard and the accusation of misinformation has done enough damage, it was quite stupid. Of course established media supported such a perspective because they have difficulties justifying their place in the difficult economy of today.

Everything is misinformation until you have a significantly trustworthy source. There will be difference between individuals. Even if people believe misinformation at first, it will only solve itself if you let people do their own research. "Fact-checkers" are no such trustworthy sources, frankly they could serve as an example of what not to do.

I agree with you and think /r/lockdownskepticism is a valuable subreddit, although some would like to ban it.

I believe the best misinformation/manufactured outrage campaigns start with a grain of truth or an existing non-manufactured opinion.

This tiny grain gets augmented and overtaken in social media posts and then spreads to mainstream media who report on it dispassionately.

One way to tell this is happening is that it appears in news everywhere seemingly overnight, without warrant. For example, ivermectin was just one of many potential therapies reported early on, but quickly spread to become one that almost everyone has heard of and appears in the daily news cycle constantly, taking attention and discussion away from many other things.

Generally speaking, no. But a very crude heuristic could be the incidence of proper names: more proper nouns, more is its misinformation propensity. More adjectives/adverbs, more opinionated. A very bad heuristic, but a heuristic nonetheless.

No. Freedom of speech requires the freedom to misinform.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com