
Anatomy of an online misinformation network - azerwyn
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196087
======
allenz
In addition to identifying the network, the authors also calculate that taking
down as few as ten influential accounts can halve the retweets of
misinformation. I'm not convinced that it's quite that easy, because the
network would respond and adapt, but it's still an eye-opening demonstration
of the power of social media companies.

The paper also finds that many misinformation accounts are not bots.
Currently, misinformation is not a bannable offense for most social networks.
Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube leaders have said, verbatim, that they don't
want to be "arbiters of truth". Of course, that leaves open the question of
what responsibility they have and what actions they should take.

~~~
stordoff
There's also the question of what is misinformation? You have a continuum from
differences of opinion, to people being mistaken, to deliberate
misinformation. Where do you (reliably) draw the line? I can see why they
wouldn't want them to be "arbiters of truth" \-- I'm not sure I would want
them to be either.

~~~
masswerk
The problem is that there's no such thing as a positive truth. Truth always
refers to a certain framework which is shared and acknowledged by a given
group, which also distinguishes groups one from another. (So we may say, truth
is necessarily a question of ideology.)

The interesting part is the mutual reinforcement of targeted content and what
we may call "idiosyncratic truth," since both refer to distinctive group
boundaries and the respective framework of shared world view. Social media
will always reinforce such bias, it's part of the setup.

Lastly, if we acknowledge that there's no way to identify an unbiased
(positive) truth, it may be also hard to identify bias at all. It may be
possible to identify misinformation which is spread arbitrarily as part of a
broader strategy (then better called disinformation) but even then it may be
hard to reach consensus. (Elefant in the room may be the UN presentation
proceeding the last Golf War.)

~~~
catawbasam
2+2=4 regardless of ideology.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Other counterpoint: [https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-
beautiful](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/technically-beautiful)

~~~
croon
That's not a counterpoint. That strip is countering a statement based on the
flawed assumption that aliens would count using the same base-10 system most
of us here use.

Which really is the argument that falsehoods are [some portion of the time]
rooted in wrong assumptions and premises.

I would argue that this only strengthens the statement that facts exist.

That some people (here on Earth) want to claim that 2+2=5 because they have
invented their own number 2 (which they conveniently withhold), is precisely
the kind of misinformation being discussed in the thread.

------
empressplay
The fundamental problem to all of this is those who believe they are righteous
(on any side of politics) will use whatever methods they can to promote their
"truth". This includes infiltrating "credible" sources. So it's impossible to
have an entire organisation that can be universally considered to be an
arbiter of truth, because you can be fairly certain at least some of its
members are bad actors. That's not to say some organisations aren't more
accurate than others – of course some are. But if you can't entirely remove
the need for critical analysis on the part of the reader, you would be better
off teaching the reader to be critical than attempt to "fix" a system which
fundamentally can't be fixed.

Deciding who we should and shouldn't silence is not the solution. Whatever one
chooses, some propagandists are going to win. Giving people the tools to
determine the veracity of a statement themselves is (usually this is simple
common sense, the ability to reason, some knowledge of rhetoric and an
understanding that personal bias in prevalent in themselves and others - that
it's human nature). Throw in a bit of knowledge about politics (both domestic
and international) and armed with these tools I'm confident the majority would
be able to come to accurate conclusions on their own.

------
razius
Not everything is a technical problem to solve and acting like it is is a
dangerous path.

This will never work in practice, truth is not a popularity contest.

~~~
aaron-lebo
What aspect of the study makes you believe they are relying on popularity?
They are mostly relying on a very limited set of approved sources (which could
be criticized), but their approach seems pretty straightforward. You've gotta
have some baseline to compare to.

I'm glad someone is making a public/academic attempt to measure this, because
it's hard to imagine just how easy it is to spread disinformation.

What would you have done differently?

~~~
cloggifier
So, they're talking about how to disrupt the propagation of information deemed
deleterious, given that actors are operating networks of amplifiers. They
target the network to disrupt, and then strategize methods of dismantling the
network.

But the qualifier " _bad_ " is ensconced in lofty vocabulary. The reality is
this is likely a generalizable analysis of how to attack information networks
regardless of alignment. All of the high-level adjectives ascribed to these
networks are window dressing, related to a separate discrete task: target
selection.

After that, it's just take down operations.

The inverse activity is conceptualizing "take-down resistant" information
networks, at which point, it becomes evident on closer inspection that all of
this is just the throes of an arms race. So let's just cut to the chase, and
stop thinking in terms of cat and mouse games.

This is all simply reduced to harasser/harassed relationships. Calculate
motives, look at what the objectives of the belligerents are, and instead of
feeding into the meat grinder, aim for greener pastures. Go where everyone
else isn't.

~~~
twentyOne
Once a take-down resistant network is assembled, it can be filled with any
sort of content.

Given that the content may be arbitrary, looking at the content alone is not
enough. Analysis of at-risk "swing voting" audiences would be the qualifier
for an offending orchestrated botnet.

The intent of these botnets for the past victory was to " _milgram_ " people
into voting Trump (influence opinion, by surrounding and immersing of easily
swindled individuals in currated content, many sources creating a magnitude
perception for illusory peer pressure) [0] so, the content is nothing if it
isn't seen.

Whatever the case, this is last year's tactic. It's possible that it may never
be used again, in anticipation of adaptaion to defend against it. That's if
you buy into the hypothesis that this is why people voted the way they did in
the 2016 election, and that external technical influence was truly
responsible, and even capable of such a manner of attack.

To be honest, it also sounds like a kissing cousing to the hand-wavey premise
of flashing inserts of suggestive hypnotic single-frame advertisments ( _BUY
MORE POPCORN_ fnord) in movie theaters to provoke subliminal brainwashing so
that people buy more popcorn at movie theaters.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment)

------
keyle
This looks at the election days. What worries me most is that it's still is
ongoing today, and it's more obvious than ever, and completely taking over
social networks. Every presidential tweet is followed by a horde of bots
praising some religious aspect of belief in the greater work achieved here.
None of it makes sense.

Why is twitter not fixing these issues?

~~~
dstroot
Cambridge Analytica showed that they figured out that people who are highly
religious can be manipulated easily. They are called them something like “low
information” voters. Meaning they vote more on emotion vs facts. The fact that
Trump got the religion vote astounds me as he seems to hold no Christian
morality at all.

~~~
wysisyg
It is surprising that Trump got the religious vote, since he had shown support
for abortion previously, had been divorced multiple times, and engaged in
recreational sex with women he was not married to.

Maybe religious people aren't the one-dimensional voters that you imagined
them to be. But if you were to admit that, how would you slam both Trump and
non-atheists in the same post?

~~~
croon
"Despite being a good god-fearing American, I'll vote for Satan in 2020,
because of his fiscal conservatism and his views that immigrant children
should be separated from their parents"

Your point would be valid if religion was a low priority hobby.

It isn't, so (a subset of) [religious voting block] are just religious when it
suits them, ie hypocrites.

~~~
alien_at_work
Ugh. Is what happened so very difficult to understand? Chistians were faced
with voting for someone they were generally not comfortable with vs. someone
believed to be truly evil. Her husband votoed a bill to ban so named "partial
birth abortion" and Hillary expressed support for late term abortions.

If you could get over your contempt for people who see things differently than
you do and actually talk with some of them you might find that a lot of people
were voting _against_ Hillary instead of _for_ Trump.

~~~
croon
> Asked by a reporter today what kind of language he could support in a
> revived bill, Mr. Clinton said he had originally planned to sign the earlier
> one.

> ''The problem is,'' he said, ''there are a few hundred women every year who
> have personally agonizing situations where their children are born or are
> about to be born with terrible deformities, which will cause them to die
> either just before, during or just after childbirth. And these women, among
> other things, cannot preserve the ability to have further children unless
> the enormity -- the enormous size of the baby's head is reduced before being
> extracted from their bodies.

> ''You know, Hillary and I, we only had one child. And I just cannot look at
> a woman who's in a situation where the baby she is bearing, against all her
> wishes and prayers, is going to die anyway, and tell her that I'm signing a
> law which will prevent her from ever having another child.''

Clearly a monster of pure evil. And his wife too.

Whereas her opponent supported torture, dehumanized immigrants every chance he
got, has 5 children with 3 different women, bragged about cheating and sexual
assault, lied as easy as breathing. Admittedly after the election, but
supported a pedophile, although he joked about dating his daughter years
before.

I fully stand by exactly what I originally posted. As a raised pentecostal
Christian, if that should matter at all.

------
v_lisivka
Why not to use detected bots for automatic false-news alerter, like ad-block
or spam filter, but for false news?

I currently use few accounts, which are spreading false-news, as indicators
with great efficiency. A bit of automation and a browser plugin from trusted
source (like Bellingcat) can help to fight that problem.

~~~
ASalazarMX
Fake news increase user engagement. I don't think Tweeter can convince its
shareholders to invest in lowering user engagement.

~~~
jacquesm
That's a reverse tragedy of the commons: the happiness of the one. Twitter's
(not Tweeter) shareholders can jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned, you -
and they - can't place their own interests over those of the world at large.
They're a communications medium and one with serious problems, user engagement
metrics come into play when what the users engage with is not outright
propaganda.

Fake news isn't there to drive user engagement, it is there to derail
societies and institutions that underpin those societies.

~~~
lopmotr
Honestly, is fake news there to derail societies (funded by anarchist
ideologues?) or is it to make advertising revenue for the publishers? As far
as I've worked out, it's the latter. What's the evidence that it's done with a
political aim of derailing a society?

~~~
toofy
> funded by anarchist ideologues?

I could be wrong, but I don’t think the poster above yours were implying the
aim was to take down all of society — I think they were implying the goal of
some of these networks is to bring down particular targeted societies.

I tend to think you’re both correct. I think it’s a combination, some people
are into driving traffic through clickbait and some networks are amplifying
divisive subjects in an attempt to make The Others appear to be unreasonable.

There are certainly many other networks taking part as well. There are
definitely other networks of unorganized regular citizens who are also
intentionally pushing misinformation in order to make their ideological rivals
appear to be completely irrational. Whether these citizen groups are a
consequence of the former groups I’m not sure, but knowingly pushing
misinformation is definitely _not_ isolated to governments and clickbait
sites. We seem to be overrun with unapologetic and ideology driven liars.

This is somewhat of a tangent but still related, we can see an active attack
on science and higher education right now and it’s pretty clear why, many of
these ideological driven people instinctively know they’ll never return to
their former glory when science and an educated populace stands in their way.
I think we’re going to discover many of the root causes of the misinformation
campaigns stem from the same battleground - many groups and individuals who
instinctively know science and the-closest-thing-to-truth-we-have stands in
their way.

~~~
lopmotr
People talking about politics always try to make their opponents appear
unreasonable. You surely can't be complaining about normal people grouping
together and promoting the ideas they believe in, can you? The alternative
would be censorship of all political dissent, and suppression of citizens
talking about opposition political parties. It would be non-democracy.

Your last paragraph about science could be about all sorts of groups but it
sounds like you have your personal political enemy in mind. You could be
describing Muslims who are opposed to science's revelation that women are as
smart as men. Or it could be about liberals who are opposed to science's
revelation that the smartest men are smarter than the smartest women (male IQ
has a higher standard deviation than female). Or is about feminists who are
trying to suppress science that shows that women aren't as hard-working as
men? Or is it about transgender activists who are trying to suppress science
showing that women are not men? I wouldn't want to censor any of these people.
Who am I to say what the one true truth really is for all time? Even science
doesn't know that.

What I really think the GP meant, but didn't say because when you actually
write it down, it sounds ridiculous, was a conspiracy theory like "Putin wants
to destroy America so he supported fake news to get Trump elected and since
Trump is obviously bad, he'll destroy America.". As far as I can tell, that's
what the opposition to fake news is all about - Trump winning the election.
That's certainly when it started anyway.

------
tw1010
Interesting content, but I get really worried when studies and research show a
tendency being influenced by trends; it's often a sign of poorly aligned
incentives and sometimes even produces hasty or bad results in favour of
career maximization.

------
baybal2
The truth is one, but lies are many

~~~
irickt
"... If falsehood had, like truth, but one face only, we should be upon better
terms; for we should then take for certain the contrary to what the liar says:
but the reverse of truth has a hundred thousand forms, and a field indefinite,
without bound or limit. The Pythagoreans make good to be certain and finite,
and evil, infinite and uncertain. There are a thousand ways to miss the white,
there is only one to hit it. ..." \-- Montaigne
[https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/montaigne/michel/essays/boo...](https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/montaigne/michel/essays/book1.9.html)

------
jimjimjim
I wish there was a way of making misinformation a punishable offense. (cue
people moaning about misuse, who decides what is misinformation etc which is
why I said wish).

At the moment people can publicly and on-the-record spout the most outrageous
bullshit and even when they get proven wrong there is no repercussion. none.

~~~
toofy
> At the moment people can publicy and on-the-record spout the most outrageous
> bullshit and even when they get proven wrong there is no repercussion. none.

On a personal level, just cut those people out of your life. Refusing to
interact with people who knowingly lie and knowingly spread misinformation is
the only rational choice. Time is our most valuable resource, spend your time
on projects and people who will carry us forward rather than wasting time on
people who are just worthless timesinks.

------
gadders
I've had a look through their list of "low credibility websites" and they seem
to be either humour sites (like the The Onion and ClickHole) or right wing
sites (I admit there may be some left-wing ones on there that I'm not familiar
with).

Is the claim that there are only the right-wing sources for these
misinformation networks, or is this just one network they examined?

------
robotrout
The article specifically mentions snopes and politifact as sources of truth.
They can be, but have also been shown to be less than perfect, and do tend to
lean left.

Yesterday, twitter was full of pictures of the immigrant kids that Trump put
in cages. This morning, we find out that the pictures were taken in 2014. It's
a difficult problem because the retractions are never broadcast/retweeted as
prevalently as the original fake news.

This is a difficult area, and the stakes are so high that the arms race will
doubtless continue. Because the stakes are so high, you are competing with
organizations from allied countries as well as non-allied countries, and from
multinational corporations and industry groups, all throwing tens of millions
of dollars each on think-tanks and lobbying groups, whose main activities are
to publish source material that can be used as supporting "facts" for various
news stories.

~~~
panarky
_> have also been shown to be less than perfect_

Perfection shouldn't be the objective. If it's better than what we have then
it's worthwhile.

 _> do tend to lean left_

Citation needed.

And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.

~~~
JadeNB
> > do tend to lean left

> Citation needed.

I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for
citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually
recognised authority to cite (and, besides, when the claim to be resolved is a
factual one—'biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven
without some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are
likely to disagree). Here's the first hit in a search for "Snopes biased".
I've intentionally mangled the first component of the URL to avoid linking to
whatever kind of site this is.

[http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-
websi...](http://d@ilyc@ller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-
political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger)

I don't know Daily Caller, but the title alone makes me fairly confident that
it's a biased source; but there it is, a citation to back up the claim that
Snopes is biased.

~~~
forapurpose
> I think that this is probably a dangerous game to get into; calling for
> citations is, I think, only likely to be helpful when there is a mutually
> recognised authority

> biased' is not a characterisation that can be proven or disproven without
> some really careful definitions, on which two disputing parties are likely
> to disagree)

That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to say
there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source more
accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put
themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say, 'everyone
lies'.

In fact, humanity has developed many ways of distinguishing truth from lie,
fact from superstition, critical thought from ideology, physics from alchemy.
That is, in a significant way, the project of the Enlightenment, which led to
science, the rule of law, liberty, democracy, and all the things that have
been born of them (including the Internet). Not coincidentally, I think, the
propagandists are generally enemies of democracy and seek to suppress its
effectiveness and the power of the public, in part by undermining its
foundation of informed citizenry and open debate by interfering with it and
saying it's impossible.

~~~
JadeNB
> That happens to be the modus operendi of the propagandists, the liars, to
> say there is no truth, there's no way to determine it, there's no source
> more accurate than another. They say 'it's all propaganda', trying to put
> themselves on equal footing with honest people. It's liars who say,
> 'everyone lies'.

Yes, this was my point. If you (not you personally) are arguing against a
propagandist who says that all your sources are biased, then I don't know what
is an effective rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even
is one—but I'm almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias
isn't it, since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to
"who can be trusted to judge bias?".

~~~
forapurpose
> If you (not you personally) are arguing against a propagandist who says that
> all your sources are biased, then I don't know what is an effective
> rhetorical strategy—it seems that no-one does, if there even is one—but I'm
> almost certain that asking for a citation for the claim of bias isn't it,
> since all it does is shift the question from "who is biased?" to "who can be
> trusted to judge bias?".

I see your point, but I think the propagandist is only effective if we buy
their premise, that there is no way to distinguish between biased and unbiased
sources (and information). My point is that there are many ways to respond,
that it's not at all a new problem, and that the solution is _reason_ , in the
Enlightenment sense. The propagandist says it's all arbitrary faith, but
reason always has been their downfall (which is why propaganda often appeals
to hatred, to crowd out the application of reason).

(On one had, this comment and my GP comment are written so loosely and broadly
that it's a bit embarrassing; on the other, I think my point gets across and I
don't have time to write a treatise.)

------
jakeogh
Reminds me of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16664759](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16664759)

Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their conventional
wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to someone who
has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend mentioned
something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common knowledge for
anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact (that I'm
deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art collection Skippy's
brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but thoroughly archived)
Instagram account.

"Fact checking" sites are about as unscientific as it gets. They have two
obvious flaws, first they generally only "check" facts they can "debunk",
second, they often frame what they are checking in a way that lets them use a
corner case.

The right way would be to just list data, things others can independently
check and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions.

~~~
JadeNB
> Some are so sure of their world view that they just assume their
> conventional wisdom is correct about specific subjects that they clearly (to
> someone who has) have not studied. I know I was back in 04 when a friend
> mentioned something to me that I thought was absurd, but is now common
> knowledge for anyone understands F=ma and has checked that specific fact
> (that I'm deliberately not mentioning). For example, look up the art
> collection Skippy's brother keeps, or that shop owners (now hidden but
> thoroughly archived) Instagram account.

This paragraph is almost incomprehensible to me. Is it meant to be read with a
lot of background knowledge, or am I just being dumb (or both)?

~~~
jakeogh
Ya, it requires significant background. The trouble is, if I just say exactly
what it is about, people will automatically assume things about stuff they
haven't checked themselves, but have been strongly conditioned to believe.

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta-
talks...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/john-podesta-talks-
about_n_146272.html)

~~~
rtb
I still have no idea what this is about

~~~
52-6F-62
They’re peddling conspiracy theories as if they’re just maligned truths being
persecuted by the media.

~~~
jakeogh
Consider suggesting to a parishioner that a priest they deeply trust is up to
no good. How similar is your reaction? Both of you have beliefs head so
strongly you don't even need to check what was suggested. I cant imagine you
would make that comment if you really looked at the "art" collection I alluded
to.

~~~
orf
Let me guess, pizzagate right? If so just come out and say it, own the fact
you believe such nonsense.

~~~
jakeogh
Anything to avoid that "art" collection.

~~~
orf
Anything to avoid accurately explaining what you mean or believe.

~~~
jakeogh
I believe people will avoid looking at things that challenge their assumptions
rather than spend a few seconds checking them. I have no doubt you can find
that art collection in a few seconds, I also have no doubt you are not going
to.

~~~
orf
See above.

Also that statement applies to you as much as it does anyone else.

~~~
jakeogh
What's so hard about checking out Skippie's bro's art collection? It's a
highly specific, easy to check thing. It's so common to try and distract
specific stuff with something else; I strongly suspect you wouldn't be
commenting about this if you had.

~~~
orf
If anyone here gives a crap, he believes that John Podesta's art collection
means he is part of an international pedophile ring, seemingly run out of a
pizza place.

Not sure why he is too scared to just say this. I guess in the cold light of
day it sounds pretty stupid. Perhaps if you wrap it up in code words it sounds
a bit better, or at least makes him feel special.

The Russians really did a number on the US didn't they.

~~~
jakeogh
You are so sure of your beliefs that you are not going to look at the art
collection (don't even think about the Instagram account!). By all means,
swear, blame the Russians, and make basic mistakes that prove you cant bring
yourself to click. Think about it, you are spending all this time refusing to
make a simple search. Why? You reaction is a textbook emotional reaction....
denial at all costs.

~~~
orf
You still seem to be unable to articulate what you believe. I've asked you
what, 3 times now? Still you deflect.

Why is that? Is your conviction in what you believe that weak?

~~~
jakeogh
I believe people will go to extreme lengths to avoid specific things that
challenge their wold view. This is an excellent example, you are not going to
look at the art collection, but need a way to deflect that fact, so instead
you demand I talk about something else. Maybe make some personal attacks and
keep trying to change the subject?

~~~
orf
It's funny that you say that after having repeatedly avoided stating your
world view for fear that it will be challenged, and constantly deflecting (the
comment I am replying to is an excellent example of a deflection). I'm
positive the irony is completely lost on you though.

So, one last time, share your views and maybe a link or two. No deflections,
no comments on your irrelevant theories about peoples worldviews (obviously
born by reactions to when you behave as you have in this thread) and no
childish code words.

Thanks.

~~~
jakeogh
I made a suggestion, that people, on their own, checkout an art collection and
a (archived) Instagram account. You have more than enough information to find
both. If you don't want to, then don't. Asking that I instead talk about
something else, or elaborate on what I suggested you look at is fine, ask all
you want. It might be obvious if you took a few seconds to search for "podesta
art" why I am not going to link to it.

