Internet Trolls

[Ten oz]

42 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

No. You haven't. The proof I asked for was to show me a youtube channel posting crackpot/political propaganda with more than 1 million subscribers.

I posted that there are anonymous people on YouTube with audience large as or larger than some journalist. I have already proved there are. Words like "crackpot" are your words and not mine. I do not need to provide you proof of things I have not posted. What I posted was 100% accurate. 

46 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You've yet to show me a large internet troll.  However, I've already answered this question. 

Large is a relative term. Are you suggesting trolls don't exist?

"WASHINGTON — An estimated 126 million Americans, roughly one-third of the nation’s population, received Russian-backed content on Facebook during the 2016 campaign, according to prepared testimony the company submitted Monday to the Senate Judiciary Committee and obtained by NBC News."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-backed-election-content-reached-126-million-americans-facebook-says-n815791

54 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Your problem, specifically, wasn't that there were anonymous people online. It was that you believed there were massive cults of them spreading political lies and propaganda. You've yet to show me one that does. However, if that's not what you're worried about, and you're just upset that anonymous people make money online, I still disagree.

The DNC hacked material weren't lies. Something can be true yet still used as propaganda or to sow division. Wikileaks uses anonymous sources. Had people been aware the source was Russia and Russia was interfering  I think it would have influenced the way the information was processed. So you are wrong about my position. I am not directly associating anonymity with cults and lies. I am arguing that when something is anonymous its motives aren't known and that motive matters.  Something true can be said for destructive or manipulative reasons.  Context always is always important when consuming information

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

First, Youtube and Social Media know who it is. It's not like the government couldn't track them down or anything. You can't monetize without proving your identity. 

Next, why should people have to know? If they want to watch someone anonymously, why do you say they must know? What difference does it make?

Actually they do not always know who there are. That is why Twiiter froze accounts and forced people to verify they weren't bots this week. It is a constant struggle.  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/conservatives-melt-down-as-twitter-annihilates-fake-accounts

 

As for why average people should knowing; I think it is good to know the source of information. Consider that Yevgeny Prigozhin was one of the financiers for the Russia troll farms that interfered in the 2016 election. He backs groups in Syria that have tried to kill U.S. Military personnel. You don't think people should know if they are viewing info promoted by someone like him?

"Yevgeny Prigozhin — a Russian businessman and restauranteur dubbed “Putin's chef" by the Russian media — is deeply involved in the Wagner Group, officials said, a paramilitary firm based in southern Russia. According to those officials, the firm deployed mercenaries in Syria who tried to strike U.S. special operations forces earlier this month. The attack failed, two intelligence officials told ABC News, as the mercenaries were decimated by U.S. airstrikes during their advance."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-troll-farm-financier-backs-russian-mercenaries-syria/story?id=53256296

[Raider5678]

33 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I do not need to provide you proof of things I have not posted. What I posted was 100% accurate. 

 

So I'll take that as you won't be providing any.

34 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Are you suggesting trolls don't exist?

 

No, I'm clearly not.

However, if we've only gotten to the second page and you're already straw-manning my arguments, there is no point for me to continue debating this.

35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

The DNC hacked material weren't lies. Something can be true yet still used as propaganda or to sow division.

Wait. So all these "political propaganda lies" weren't actually lies??? These things were true?

And not to go off on a tangent, but if it's true then why are we so bothered about knowing it? 

Jeeze, I've been spending the last year thinking the Russian meddling was them telling lies and fake news to trick people, not revealing the truth.

37 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Actually they do not always know who there are. That is why Twiiter froze accounts and forced people to verify they weren't bots this week. It is a constant struggle.  https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/conservatives-melt-down-as-twitter-annihilates-fake-accounts

2

1. That's a click-bait headline. "Conservatives meltdown as twitter annihilates fake accounts" I'm not going to bother clicking it because I'd like to avoid 50 million ads being shoved in my face.

2. You're pretty thick. You were claiming that accounts shouldn't be anonymous if they monetized themselves, and now you're advocating EVERYONE on social media must reveal theirtrue name?

That must be what you're saying. Because I very clearly said, "you can't monetize without proving your identity". You have to provide a phone number at the very minimum to use thumbnails, often much more to monetize.

But, since you've chosen to focus on all accounts now instead of just ones that are monetized......

I seriously disagree.

[Ten oz]

As part of the fall out over Cambridge Analytica using FaceBook data to target individuals with fake and or manipulative information it seems some major players in social media are considering legislative measures. I think confirmation bias is something everyone struggles with and allowing those who seek to propagandize access to personal information via social media really opens the door nice and wide mass manipulation. 

Quote

 

“I think that this certain situation is so dire and has become so large that probably some well-crafted regulation is necessary,” he said. “The ability of anyone to know what you’ve been browsing about for years, who your contacts are, who their contacts are, things you like and dislike and every intimate detail of your life — from my own point of view, it shouldn’t exist.” Cook didn’t specify what he wants to see in any potential legislation, but he made it a point to underline that lawmakers should take care in creating it. In an astonishing moment during an otherwise on-message CNN interview earlier this week, Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg didn’t oppose the idea of outside regulation.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/24/17159610/apple-ceo-tim-cook-wants-privacy-regulation-facebook-cambridge-analytica

 

 

[Ten oz]

Quote

 

news consumers must make rapid-fire judgments about how to internalize news-related statements – statements that often come in snippets and through pathways that provide little context. A new Pew Research Center survey of 5,035 U.S. adults examines a basic step in that process: whether members of the public can recognize news as factual – something that’s capable of being proved or disproved by objective evidence – or as an opinion that reflects the beliefs and values of whoever expressed it.

The findings from the survey, conducted between Feb. 22 and March 8, 2018, reveal that even this basic task presents a challenge. The main portion of the study, which measured the public’s ability to distinguish between five factual statements and five opinion statements, found that a majority of Americans correctly identified at least three of the five statements in each set. But this result is only a little better than random guesses. Far fewer Americans got all five correct, and roughly a quarter got most or all wrong. Even more revealing is that certain Americans do far better at parsing through this content than others. Those with high political awareness, those who are very digitally savvy and those who place high levels of trust in the news media are better able than others to accurately identify news-related statements as factual or opinion.

http://www.journalism.org/2018/06/18/distinguishing-between-factual-and-opinion-statements-in-the-news/

 

As people become less able to distinguish between fact and opinion the dissemination of false information becomes more harmful. What can be done?

[StringJunky]

58 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

As people become less able to distinguish between fact and opinion the dissemination of false information becomes more harmful. What can be done?

The obvious first step is to carefully select your primary news sources and have them in different countries so that you get balanced but different viewpoints on the same news. I use BBC (UK), Reuters (Canada), Japan Times (Japan). I don't if it's me getting older, but the BBC seems to be not as neutral as I would like. It has agendas that it consistently promotes.

Edited June 19, 2018 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The obvious first step is to carefully select your primary news sources and have them in different countries so that you get balanced but different viewpoints on the same news. I use BBC (UK), Reuters (Canada), Japan Times (Japan). I don't if it's me getting older, but the BBC seems to be not as neutral as I would like. It has agendas that it consistently promotes.

Right, to an individual it isn't really a problem provide due diligence is exercised but society at large clearly isn't do that.  

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

As people become less able to distinguish between fact and opinion the dissemination of false information becomes more harmful. What can be done?

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Right, to an individual it isn't really a problem provide due diligence is exercised but society at large clearly isn't do that

You're already doing everything you can, that's why I don't watch/read/listen to the news, other than by accident.

 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Right, to an individual it isn't really a problem provide due diligence is exercised but society at large clearly isn't do that.  

Has it ever? Most people used to read one newspaper a day, have a radio news and a TV news programme. You could turn the whole thing around and say, with all the current choices, propaganda is harder to do in a concerted way and shorter-lived. Leaks are much more prevalent now. I think I'm too positive and always make good things out of bad.  

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Has it ever? Most people used to read one newspaper a day, have a radio news and a TV news programme. You could turn the whole thing around and say, with all the current choices, propaganda is harder to do in a concerted way and shorter-lived. Leaks are much more prevalent now. I think I'm too positive and always make good things out of bad.  

Are true leaks more prevalent now? I think in the past people, companies, and etc had a more direct way of interacting with media. Cable news and the internet are still relatively new forms of media. I think it took time to develop ways to use those platforms to manipulate information. I think "Leaks" are just a marketing tool. People know that if the go off the record they have more flexibility in how they deliver their message. Meanwhile media itself knows that the labeling something as "leaked" is sexier and will help boost interest. That said I do not believe there is more legitimately "leaked" information today as there was 30 or 40 years ago. If a company purposely "leaks" something based on their messaging strategy than it isn't truly a leak but rather just a bit of propaganda. Most leaks I am familiar with seem to be orchestrated by the very people claiming to be the victim of the leak.  

I think on Social Media and streaming websites there should be more oversight for those who have followings into the millions. Once a person or organization has millions of followers they are earning an income which in my opinion makes them a business. All forms of truth in advertising rules and ethic standards should apply. When I see pro flat earth YouTube videos with millions of views it is disheartening. By law those videos should have to run disclaimers. Don't get me wrong though. I am not saying everyone who pedals fake info online, just those who are making a living at it. 

[Markus Hanke]

The top-down approach (trying to police what appears in the media) is never going to work, in my opinion. The best chance we have on this issue is going bottom-up - education is the key. We need to teach people the critical thinking skills that will enable them to distinguish between what is real and what is fake, or at the very least to question suspicious claims. To some of us these skills come naturally, but to the vast majority of the populace they do not. However, at least to some degree, this is a skill that can be taught and learned - I think it is high time we make engagement with media a subject in our school curriculums, instead of taking it for granted that people somehow just have the necessary skills.

Is education a magic bullet? Of course not, but it would at least alleviate the problem. 

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I think on Social Media and streaming websites there should be more oversight for those who have followings into the millions.

My point is, it's potential is available to both sides, who know's what's going to trend next? It could be one of our statements from this very thread...

26 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

The top-down approach (trying to police what appears in the media) is never going to work, in my opinion. The best chance we have on this issue is going bottom-up - education is the key. We need to teach people the critical thinking skills that will enable them to distinguish between what is real and what is fake, or at the very least to question suspicious claims. To some of us these skills come naturally, but to the vast majority of the populace they do not. However, at least to some degree, this is a skill that can be taught and learned - I think it is high time we make engagement with media a subject in our school curriculums, instead of taking it for granted that people somehow just have the necessary skills.

Is education a magic bullet? Of course not, but it would at least alleviate the problem. 

All we can really do is hope our words, of reason, can reach the right ears. 

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

Is education a magic bullet? Of course not, but it would at least alleviate the problem. 

Magic doesn't exist. But education, free education available to every human who wants access to accumulated human knowledge, is a silver bullet to destroy fear and ignorance. I think the cascade of reason that would result could be astonishing.

[Scott of the Antares]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 I don't if it's me getting older, but the BBC seems to be not as neutral as I would like. It has agendas that it consistently promotes.

I am with you on this StringJunky.  Being in my mid-forties, I have grown up with the BBC at the core of my media-consuming life. I think their documentary and sport programmes are genuinely amongst the best in the world; certainly the best I have personally viewed. I viewed their news services the same until the last few years as their decades old neutrality seems to be severely compromised at the moment.

[StringJunky]

22 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

I am with you on this StringJunky.  Being in my mid-forties, I have grown up with the BBC at the core of my media-consuming life. I think their documentary and sport programmes are genuinely amongst the best in the world; certainly the best I have personally viewed. I viewed their news services the same until the last few years as their decades old neutrality seems to be severely compromised at the moment.

It's taking on a distinctly pro-feminist, pro-European tone and contorts itself over the migrant issue, for three examples. Reuters is definitely more neutral. Opinions should stay in explicitly-labelled opinion pieces not in the general news reportage. A news organ should not have an opinion pervading through its reporting.... that's up to the reader to have. On the technical side, in filming and sound techniques, they are without peer...I can always appreciate that.

Edited June 19, 2018 by StringJunky

[Scott of the Antares]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A news organ should not have an opinion pervading through its reporting...

Especially when publically financed; it is what has always made the BBC such a well respected organisation (plus no adverts makes the whole media consuming experience so much more refreshing and pleasant). I still support them; I am just a little disheartened by their bias.

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Scott of the Antares said:

Especially when publically financed; it is what has always made the BBC such a well respected organisation (plus no adverts makes the whole media consuming experience so much more refreshing and pleasant). I still support them; I am just a little disheartened by their bias.

Yes, this is true. Considering how thin the line of neutrality is, they've done rather well for a very long time  but I suppose nothing lasts forever. I do bear in mind i'm getting older and my opinions may be fossilizing, consistent with my era... born in 1962. 

Edited June 19, 2018 by StringJunky

[YaDinghus]

On 2/21/2018 at 12:44 PM, Ten oz said:

What are the long and shot term implication of people believing the fiction of Internet Trolls? What can be or should be done about it?

My blood pressure is currently a bit low so my focus is also a bit off. At first I thought this was a question whether internet trolls were a fiction or not (lolz).

I think it's sorta important to recognize the evolution the term Troll has made through the past decades. At first trolling was like a hazing practice, which are found in many other professions. A troll would make the noob do a nonsensical task or ask a lot of trick questions to confuse the noob.

The next evolutionary step I am aware of is the cyberbullying. While hazing the noob is still fun and games, it rarely reaches the level of cruelty that cyberbullying does. 

It's only recently that I've become aware of Fake News being called trolling. 

What's the long term consequence of people falling for fake news on a regular basis? It will be more difficult to find intelligent conversation on the internet, because the people condictig this intelligent conversation will look for more effective ways to keep those out who don't appreciate it, or even disrupt it. There will be more (futile) calls from politicians to regulate the internet. The stupid people will get even stupider (a trucker recently told me to look up 'organic photons' on google and how microwave radiation interferes with them thereby disrupting physiological processes)

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, YaDinghus said:

My blood pressure is currently a bit low so my focus is also a bit off. At first I thought this was a question whether internet trolls were a fiction or not (lolz).

I think it's sorta important to recognize the evolution the term Troll has made through the past decades. At first trolling was like a hazing practice, which are found in many other professions. A troll would make the noob do a nonsensical task or ask a lot of trick questions to confuse the noob.

The next evolutionary step I am aware of is the cyberbullying. While hazing the noob is still fun and games, it rarely reaches the level of cruelty that cyberbullying does. 

It's only recently that I've become aware of Fake News being called trolling. 

What's the long term consequence of people falling for fake news on a regular basis? It will be more difficult to find intelligent conversation on the internet, because the people condictig this intelligent conversation will look for more effective ways to keep those out who don't appreciate it, or even disrupt it. There will be more (futile) calls from politicians to regulate the internet. The stupid people will get even stupider (a trucker recently told me to look up 'organic photons' on google and how microwave radiation interferes with them thereby disrupting physiological processes)

I did a poor job naming this thread and the OP could have been better. That is on me. I conflated different types propaganda without distinguishing between all the different motives (politics, greed, insecurity, religious, etc). 

Can anything be done to reign in the proliferation of online propaganda?   

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I did a poor job naming this thread and the OP could have been better. That is on me. I conflated different types propaganda without distinguishing between all the different motives (politics, greed, insecurity, religious, etc). 

Can anything be done to reign in the proliferation of online propaganda?   

One man's propaganda is another man's confirmation of his views. It shall be ever thus. We see what we want to see and ignore the rest.

[Ten oz]

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

One man's propaganda is another man's confirmation of his views. It shall be ever thus. We see what we want to see and ignore the rest.

Sure, but should those making a living off disseminating false information have any liability? Free speech is free speech. You and I are both free to get on twitter or youtube and say whatever we want for the most part. Once either of us get millions of subscribers and are earning a living off our content shouldn't we have some professional responsibility to say things which are true to the best known knowledge or at least run a disclaimer of some type? Even comedians regularly remind the audience that what they say are jokes. 

 

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Sure, but should those making a living off disseminating false information have any liability? Free speech is free speech. You and I are both free to get on twitter or youtube and say whatever we want for the most part. Once either of us get millions of subscribers and are earning a living off our content shouldn't we have some professional responsibility to say things which are true to the best known knowledge or at least run a disclaimer of some type? Even comedians regularly remind the audience that what they say are jokes. 

2

It's the thin edge of the wedge and can only benefit those, currently, in power.

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's the thin edge of the wedge and can only benefit those, currently, in power.

Trevor Noah made an interesting point on his show. Rather than asking his viewers to contact their Congress reps to complain about the ongoing family separations he asked them to contact FoxNews and complain. His point being that the President is more likely to listen to FoxNews than Congress, he is not wrong.

[dimreepr]

46 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Trevor Noah made an interesting point on his show. Rather than asking his viewers to contact their Congress reps to complain about the ongoing family separations he asked them to contact FoxNews and complain. His point being that the President is more likely to listen to FoxNews than Congress, he is not wrong.

1

He's a fitting replacement for Jon Stewart...

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

He's a fitting replacement for Jon Stewart...

I don't have cable. I only watch short clips on youtube from time to time. 

[YaDinghus]

23 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I did a poor job naming this thread and the OP could have been better. That is on me. I conflated different types propaganda without distinguishing between all the different motives (politics, greed, insecurity, religious, etc). 

Can anything be done to reign in the proliferation of online propaganda?   

Dispelling fake news and propaganda is a lot of work, and people generally speaking don't want to put in that kind of work. It is mentally taxing and if you've been working all day (or night) in a physically or mentally taxing job, you want to relax. I'm quite aware that regular participants here are part of the minority that doesn't find this kind of work too taxing, recognizes the importance of this task and/or has a compulsion to analyze virtually everything. Also there is a 'infrastructure' of ideas and knowledge (a.k.a experience context) that this minority has built over the course of their lives and which is constantly being curated that helps them identify BS. I'm not saying the majority of people don't have experience context of any kind, but it is not as extensive and well curated in regards of dispelling propaganda and fake news. I also happen to believe that this is the reason why (right-wing) populism is flourishing now; it offers easy answers that sound good at first glance, and the majority of people don't want to dig deeper. 

What can be done? How many people have learned math because their teacher told them it would be important later in life? So how many young people will pay attention when their teachers tell them that its important to learn history, philosophy and follow politics? Serious journalism is at a disadvantage because they need to cite sources that only a minority of people check, while the majority will either believe them or not, with fake news trolls using quite sophisticated rhethorical tactics at times to confuse their audiences. 'Real' journalists need to be independent, and private funding of their work is often used to discredit them in this regard, while fake news trolls take money from whomever to propagate their patron's agenda shamelessly (or do it free of charge for ideological purpouses).

We could steep to the fake news trolls' level and employ their tactics. If hardly anyone cares about the sources, just don't bother about sources. Why not take money from private parties who share our views, and put that money to good use? Why hold standards that just slow down our output of stories and tie our hands?

Because credibility is the last resource of consequence 'we' have, and we'd better hope that those with power care about who is really telling the truth.