Für Fact-Checker-Buden, die es ernst meinen, heisst das vor allem Engagement in den Kommentarspalten. Die lukrativen Deals mit Plattformen sind für die Sache irrelevant. (Wohl aber relevant für die Monetarisierung von professionellen Fact-Checker-Buden, is klar.)
This study examines the effects of conformity to others online when individuals respond to fake news. It finds that after exposure to others’ comments critical of a fake news article, individuals’ attitudes, propensity to make positive comments and intentions to share the fake news were lower than after exposure to others’ comments supportive of a fake news article. Furthermore, this research finds that the use of a disclaimer from a social media company alerting individuals to the fact that the news might be fake does not lower individuals’ attitudes, propensity to make positive comments and intentions to share the fake news as much as critical comments from other users.
Making Sense with Sam Harris: #152 — The Trouble with Facebook (MP3): In the episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Roger McNamee about his book Zucked: Waking Up to the Facebook Catastrophe.
April Fools hoax stories could offer clues to help identify ‘fake news’: The researchers have compiled a novel dataset, or corpus, of more than 500 April Fools articles sourced from more than 370 websites and written over 14 years.
“April Fools hoaxes are very useful because they provide us with a verifiable body of deceptive texts that give us an opportunity to find out about the linguistic techniques used when an author writes something fictitious disguised as a factual account,” said Edward Dearden from Lancaster University, and lead-author of the research. “By looking at the language used in April Fools and comparing them with fake news stories we can get a better picture of the kinds of language used by authors of disinformation.”
A comparison of April Fools hoax texts against genuine news articles written in the same period – but not published on April 1st – revealed stylistic differences. (Paper: Fool’s Errand: Looking at April Fools Hoaxes as Disinformation through the Lens of Deception and Humour)
Where to Draw the Line on Deplatforming: Facebook and YouTube were right to delete the video shot by the New Zealand shooter. Internet providers were wrong to try to do it, too.
Das amerikanische Frauenmagazin Bustle Digital, die mit Gawker, Jezebel und Mic bereits einige der bekanntesten Outlets der illiberalen Linken gekauft haben, kaufen jetzt auch The Outline von Joshua Topolsky. Mir scheint sich hier das Äquivalent des Bullshit-Frauenzeitschriften-Verlags mit ein bisschen weniger Billo-Gossip und dafür ein bisschen mehr ideologisch-politischer Prägung zu formieren.
Grade online hält sich in selbstverstärkenden und um sich selbst kreisenden Bubbles der illiberalen Linken das Gerücht, es gäbe keine Unterschiede zwischen den Gehirne von Frauen und Männern, während akademische Literatur immer und immer wieder grundlegende Unterschiede feststellt.
Interessant sind zwei Links auf Nature.com, wo man kürzlich erst feststellte, dass die Geschlechter Schmerzen unterschiedlich verarbeiten und genau einen Monat vorher einen ideologischen Neologismus namens Neurosexismus einführen, laut dem genau diese Unterschiede angeblich schlechte Wissenschaft seien. Was denn nun?
Und währenddessen auf Psychology Today: A New Study Blows Up Old Ideas About Girls and Boys. Dort liest man von einer neuen Studie, die massive pränatale Unterschiede feststellt, die im Laufe des Lebens verschwinden. Es ist also nicht so, dass Gehirn-Unterschiede ein soziales Konstrukt sind, sondern die Beseitigung und neurologische Angleichung der Hirnstrukturen sind das Ergebnis eines sozialen Konstrukts, möglicherweise das Ergebnis unserer modernen freien Gesellschaft. Mich würde das Ergebnis einer solchen Studie in unfreien Gesellschaften interessieren, also ob die Unterschiede im Iran oder in Saudi Arabien ebenfalls verschwinden. In jedem Fall scheint es, als wäre die (linke) Mythologie des Blank Slate Brains nicht haltbar und damit ein nicht geringer Teil der Behauptungen der Gender Studies. In den Medien erfährt man davon: Nichts. (Und bevor ein paar Lefties hier Schnappatmung bekommen: Man muss diese Themen rückhaltlos abarbeiten, öffentlich, um den Rechten die Munition wegzunehmen. Es geht in einer vernetzten Welt nicht anders, tut mir leid.)
A review of this literature suggests that there are (at least) seven well established types of cooperation: (1) the allocation of resources to kin; (2) coordination to mutual advantage; (3) social exchange; and conflict resolution through contests featuring (4) hawkish displays of dominance and (5) dove-ish displays of submission; (6) division of disputed resources; and (7) recognition of prior possession.
In my research, I have shown how each of these types of cooperation can be used to identify and explain a distinct type of morality.
(1) Kin selection explains why we feel a special duty of care for our families, and why we abhor incest. (2) Mutualism explains why we form groups and coalitions (there is strength and safety in numbers), and hence why we value unity, solidarity, and loyalty. (3) Social exchange explains why we trust others, reciprocate favors, feel gratitude and guilt, make amends, and forgive. And conflict resolution explains why we (4) engage in costly displays of prowess such as bravery and generosity, why we (5) express humility and defer to our superiors, why we (6) divide disputed resources fairly and equitably, and why we (7) respect others’ property and refrain from stealing.
According to CrowdTangle data provided by Facebook, Savage’s story on the suspected child predator racked up more than 50,000 shares on the original US 105 FM post alone—even though the station’s Facebook page has only about 7,000 followers. Within days, the story was being shared by much larger pages, including the Longview Police Department, Donald Trump Republic 2016, and Good Times With Trump 2016-2024. Over the course of February, it found traction on an ever-wider variety of subnetworks, including the page of R&B singer Sarahi Allende and a group called Truckers Wall of Shame.
In each case, the story garnered not only traditional “shares,” in which people repost it to their own friends and family, but large numbers of comments in which users tagged other people they know, presumably to alert them to the danger. That pattern might help to explain why several stories about crime, including Amber Alerts, make NewsWhip’s Top 10 most-shared list. (NewsWhip published a separate ranking of “Most Engaged” stories, a metric that counts other interactions such as likes and comments in addition to shares. The US 105 FM post ranked 15th on that list, with TMZ’s Luke Perry story taking the top spot. You can download NewsWhip’s full study here.)
While Facebook couldn’t confirm exactly what aspects of its algorithm helped the story on its way, Savage’s crime brief appears to have ticked nearly every box that the social network is trying to prioritize. First, it was shared by a local news organization, making it more likely that people in the Waco area would see it at the top of their feeds. Second, it generated large numbers of comments, which Facebook counts as “meaningful interactions.” Finally, its sharing was driven heavily by individual Facebook users, rather than by professional publishers with large followings, which means that it would be helped along by the company’s focus on surfacing posts from “friends and family first.”
But the wild card may have been the story’s headline. While it was clear from reading the story that it was about Waco and Central Texas, the headline just said the predator was in “our area.” Anyone who read the headline without reading the story might reasonably have thought the story was about their area, even if they were far from Texas.
Cluetrain at 20: „The plain truth is that ‘content’ insults the nature of what it labels. Expressions like ‘B2B’ and ‘B2C’ — labels for ‘business-to-business’ and ‘business-to-consumer’ — insult the nature of business itself. Ask yourself, do you do business to people or with them?“
Doc Searls: Suddenly here was this fabulous new medium, this shiny new shipping system for everything you can name that ever went through an old medium, plus lots of new stuff. Let’s re-conceive everything as content and carry on with Business as Usual, but with a great new way to move stuff from A to Z, including B to B, B to C and all the rest of it. Just like we did with Television, we can load our content into a channel and address it for delivery to end users through medium that serves as a distribution system or a value chain.
Linux Journal: So when you say somebody “adds value,” you’re using a shipping metaphor.
Doc Searls: Absolutely.
Linux Journal: What’s so bad about that?
Doc Searls: Nothing, as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far in a world built on relationships in which shipping stuff from X to X is more a technicality than a fundamental concept. In the industrial world, especially the commercial mass media part of that world, shipping was a very appropriate conceptual metaphor. It gave us a useful vocabulary for describing a world where a goods move great distances between a few producers and millions of consumers. The problem is, when you apply that metaphor in a networked world, with its networked markets, you make the mistake of treating in-your-face customers as distant consumers. They aren’t cattle. They fish-like gullets gulping down products that fall off the end of distribution’s conveyor belt. But we still conceive them that way, or we wouldn’t talk about “aggregating” and “capturing” them. We also wouldn’t talk about “moving content” through the Net as if it were just another medium, like TV, radio and newspapers.
Linux Journal: Is the Net really that different?
Doc Searls: It’s absolutely different because it’s infinitely more than a way to convey crap from producers to consumers. It’s the connected consciousness of the market itself. It makes markets smart by giving customers unprecedented powers, the most fundamental of which is each other
Many would argue that these are the fundamental goals of a good education. So why has Cambridge University taken to warning its students that the sexual violence in Titus Andronicus might be traumatic for them? Why are other universities in America and increasingly in Britain introducing measures to protect students from speech and texts they might find harmful? Safe spaces, trigger warnings and no-platforming are now campus buzzwords – and they’re all designed to limit free speech and the exchange of ideas. As celebrated social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues in his book ‘The Coddling of the American Mind’, university students are increasingly retreating from ideas they fear may damage their mental health, and presenting themselves as fragile and in need of protection from any viewpoint that might make them feel unsafe.The culture of safety, as Haidt calls it, may be well intentioned, but it is hampering the development of young people and leaving them unprepared for adult life, with devastating consequences for them, for the companies that will soon hire them, and for society at large.
That, Haidt’s critics argue, is an infuriating misinterpretation of initiatives designed to help students. Far from wanting to shut down free speech and debate, what really concerns the advocates of these new measures is the equal right to speech in a public forum where the voices of the historically marginalised are given the same weight as those of more privileged groups. Warnings to students that what they’re about to read or hear might be disturbing are not an attempt to censor classic literature, but a call for consideration and sensitivity. Safe spaces aren’t cotton-wool wrapped echo chambers, but places where minority groups and people who have suffered trauma can share their experiences without fear of hostility.
In November 2019, Haidt came to the Intelligence Squared stage to discuss and debate these ideas. Joining him were the former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks, who believes that educating young people through debate and argument helps foster robustness, author and activist Eleanor Penny, and sociologist Kehinde Andrews, one of the UK’s leading thinkers on race and the history of racism.