Someone roll this baby whale back in the water...
Posted on 01/21/2021 12:37:18 PM PST by PhxRising
As law enforcement continues its nationwide manhunt for violent pro-Trump extremists involved in last week’s deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, one of America’s top experts in disinformation is here to remind you that if you want to understand how we got here, you need to look beyond Donald Trump and Washington.
“The internet is a crime scene,” says Joan Donovan, research director at Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy. “We’re collectively witnessing the aftermath of probably one of the biggest lies ever told in terms of the amount of people it reached and the effects that it had.”
The internet makes radicalization easy, and in the insurrection, Donovan sees a textbook case of how a conspiracy theory—fueled by an unending buffet of disinformation served up by algorithms—can grow online and spawn a community that commits the kind of real-world violence that took place at the Capitol on January 6. But the seeds of insurrection were planted much earlier.
“The way in which we operate online has a lot to do with good faith. We have good faith that people are posting things that are true,” says Donovan. “Our algorithms have good faith that a thing that says it’s news is news. That’s the kind of openness of the system that we built. And now we’ve realized that you only get a few good years with that, because bad people with bad intentions figure out how to use that system to their own ends.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
"The lack of guardrails that transcend the corporations that provide these services really led to this moment. And unfortunately, we’ve gotten to this situation because disinformation is an industry."
Speaking of algorithms...
There’s a concept I’ve heard you refer to when talking about media manipulation: “trading up the chain.” Can you describe how that works?
“Yeah, so that’s actually from a book by Ryan Holiday called Trust Me, I’m Lying. He used to design viral media campaigns, and noticed that if low-level bloggers covered, say, a movie he was marketing, that it would quickly “trade up the chain,” because people in online news organizations and cable news looked to those low-level blogs for interesting stories. In his book, he even talks about posing as outraged people who have seen a certain billboard or a movie trailer or this controversial ad—then you can even make it seem like even more of a story.”
“The idea is simple: You create outrage about something, and then you try to get journalists to pay attention to it. We see that tactic happen often on the internet. On anonymous forums and message boards, it’s almost a game, where if there is a breaking news event, they will try to plant disinformation—misidentifying a mass shooter is one of the “favorites” in this world—and then try to get journalists to report the wrong thing.”
You describe this cycle of media manipulation where people with power—whether elected officials or those with resources—spread disinformation about, for instance, the election being rigged. And then they point to the fact that their supporters believe that disinformation as evidence that this is something “real” people are worried about and needs to be taken seriously. How do you get out of that cycle? It seems like it’s a downward spiral.
It does, and it’s been feeling like that for several years now. At this stage, I think even calling it “disinformation” is doing a disservice, because as a researcher this is on a scale that I haven’t seen, and it touches every kind of media that we have.
Our media ecosystem is incredibly fragile and broken. The way in which we operate online has a lot to do with good faith. We have good faith that people are posting things that are true. We have good faith that people are communicating openly and honestly with one another. Our algorithms have good faith that a thing that says it’s news is news. That’s the kind of openness of the system that we built. And now we’ve realized that you only get a few good years with that, because bad people with bad intentions figure out how to use that system to their own ends. And they pay money to do it, profit off it and face no consequences for their actions.
If the internet can radicalize people, can we also de-radicalize people online?
There’s a mass phenomenon in which you can bring people into a worldview and have them see it your way. When we study this, we look for signs along the way that a YouTuber or podcaster is trying to radicalize people. How do they talk about gender? Are they talking about women “denying you” their bodies, rather than women being thinking beings—and, hey, you’re not that cool? What are they saying about people of color? Are they telling you that Black people are stealing things from you, that they’re not doing as much in this world as you are, that they are not as deserving of college scholarships? How are they talking about immigrants? Are they saying immigrants are siphoning off of the goodwill of white Americans and that they’re better off in another country where they can’t get the benefits of living in America?
Note of clarification: The extremists were not pro-trump.
When I think about deradicalizing someone or bringing someone back from the brink, that is a process of love and understanding and community-building. I don’t think it’s necessarily just like, “Oh, somewhere along the way, this individual must have been broken, and then this filled that void.” We’re all broken in some way. All of us have had something that we’ve had to overcome. It’s really about those moments when someone could have led you out of that.
But the technology we use that connects people, we failed in the design of it. [Instead of getting led out,] people get endless streams of Nazi propaganda under the guise of “history,”. Technology gives you easy access to these things. It’s all laid out for you.
First, sorry for the MANY posts to get the Politico article on here.
Second, REPLACE the words in the article that talk about the Jan 6th protest (and ANY AND ALL references) to Antifa, BLM, LGBTQ, etc., and you can see how these ideas spread.
But I suppose none of this applies to ANTIFA/BLM, only us ?????
The Russian collusion hoax, you mean?
Disinformation like the major media networks did when they where accusing an innocent man of colluding with a foreign power to get elected which turned out to be totally false and defamatory?
FBI......AntiFa!
To quote a recent accomplice to criminal engagement,
“It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well...-Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
If you have watched the movie “Social Dilemma” and combine it with the theme of this article “we’ve gotten to this situation because disinformation is an industry. It’s good money.”
Yes, just look at the market value of Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple and Google. They companies have all profited and spread disinformation.
The algorithms Twitter and Facebook uses to promote content are DESIGNED to keep your attention and keep you on your device so THEY can get the ad revenue. You are the product!
So, intentionally or unintentionally, Twitter, Facebook, Google all peddle and profit from disinformation, and there algorithms are designed to promote the most attention-grabbing stories, which tend to be disinformation and extreme content.
Just follow his logic, and you can see how the MSM gets filled with peddling misinformation, like Russia collusion or there was no election fraud. It starts with a blog post or leak, and, in order to get the “scoop”, it gets into MSM and spreads like wildfire. MSM uses the excuse that it was published online and we are just quoting our sources, but fails to either check if it is true or to interview a competing viewpoint.
This post is the manifestation of disinformation.
Yes!
Sorry that I wasn’t clear in my message. Though this is written from a Leftist viewpoint to attack pro-Trump people, flip it around.
His logic is reasonable, now flip the narrative, and you can see how the lie of George Floyd gets peddled to incite Antifa/BLM, and, the MSM continues to spread it because “disinformation is an industry. It’s good money”.
Did the MSM bother to prominently issue corrections and state that the autopsy report shows George Floyd “had fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system at the time of his death” and “death due to heart failure”?
No, of course not! Because they would rather spread disinformation and incite violence because it leads to more viewers and more money.
Agreed!
However, flip it around. Then you can see how the Russia collusion hoax spread or how the lie of how George Floyd died was spread.
The MSM peddles disinformation, because there is good money in it.
Someone roll this baby whale back in the water...
bmp
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.