Can fake news help you remember real facts better?
A 2020 study published in the journal of Psychological Science explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.
22 October, 2020
Credit: Rawpixel.com on Shutterstock
- In 2019, researchers at Stanford Engineering analyzed the spread of fake news as if it were a strain of Ebola. They adapted a model for understanding diseases that can infect a person more than once to better understand how fake news spreads and gains traction.
- A new study published in 2020 explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.
- "These findings demonstrate one situation in which misinformation reminders can diminish the negative effects of fake-news exposure in the short term," researchers on the project explained.
<p>Fake news spreads like a virus. In 2019, <a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">researchers at Stanford Engineering</a> analyzed the spread of fake news as if it were a strain of Ebola. The researchers adapted a model for understanding diseases that can infect a person more than once to better understand how fake news spreads and gains traction.</p><p>Researchers studied how many people are "susceptible" to the disease (or in this case, how many people are likely to believe a certain piece of fake news). The researchers also looked at how many people are exposed to fake news, how they are actually "infected" (believing the story), and how many people are likely to then spread that "infection" (misinformation) on to others. </p><p>Much like a virus, this study concluded that over time, being exposed to multiple strains of fake news can wear down a person's resistance and make them increasingly susceptible to believing it. The more times a person is exposed to the same fake news, especially if it is coming from an influential source, the more likely they are to become persuaded, no matter the likelihood of such news being true.</p><p>"The so-called 'power-law' of social media, a well-documented pattern in social networks, hold that messages replicate most rapidly if they are targeted at relatively small numbers of influential people with large followings," the <a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus" target="_blank">researchers explained in the Stanford study</a>.</p><ul class="ee-ul"></ul>
Previous studies on misinformation have already paved the way to a better understanding
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDU1NzQ4NC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxNjE2Mjg1Nn0.hs_xHktN1KXUDVoWpHIVBI2sMJy6aRK6tvBVFkqmYjk/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C800%2C0%2C823&height=700" id="fc135" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="246bb1920c0f40ccb15e123914de1ab1" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="fake news concept of misinformation and fake news in the media" />How does misinformation spread?
Credit: Visual Generation on Shutterstock
<p><strong>What is the "continued-influence" effect?</strong></p><p>A challenge in using corrections effectively is that repeating the misinformation can have negative consequences. Research on this effect (referred to as "continued-influence") has shown that information presented as factual that is later deemed false can still contaminate memory and reasoning. The persistence of the continued-influence effect has led researchers to generally recommend avoiding repeating misinformation. </p><p>"Repetition increases familiarity and believability of misinformation," <a href="https://engineering.stanford.edu/magazine/article/how-fake-news-spreads-real-virus" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the study explains</a>.</p><p><strong>What is the "familiarity-backfire" effect?</strong></p><p>Studies of this effect have shown that increasing misinformation familiarity through extra exposure to it leads to misattributions of fluency when the context of said information cannot be recalled. <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797#" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">A 2017 study</a> examined this effect in myth correction. Subjects rated beliefs in facts and myths of unclear veracity. Then, the facts were affirmed and myths corrected and subjects again made belief ratings. The results suggested a role for familiarity but the myth beliefs remained below pre-manipulation levels. </p>New research into fake news has uncovered something interesting about misinformation
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ddeac998508e09fb9d1b4691d6c20d28"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bJ5qUx1WOsg?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>A 2020 study published in the journal of <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797" target="_blank">Psychological Science</a> explores the idea that fake news can actually help you remember real facts better.</p><p>Fake news exposure can cause misinformation to be mistakenly remembered and believed. In two experiments, the team (led by Christopher N. Wahlheim) examined whether reminders of misinformation could do the opposite: improve memory for and beliefs in corrections to that fake news. </p><p>The study had subjects reading factual statements and then separate misinformation statements taken from news websites. Then, the subjects read statements that corrected the misinformation. Some misinformation reminders appeared before some corrections but not all. Then, subjects were asked to recall facts, indicate their belief in those recalls, and indicate whether they remembered the corrections and misinformation. </p><p>The results of the study showed that reminders increased recall and belief accuracy. These benefits were greater both when misinformation was recalled and when the subjects remembered that corrections had occurred. </p><p>Researchers on the project <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">explained</a>: "These findings demonstrate one situation in which misinformation reminders can diminish the negative effects of fake-news exposure in the short term."</p><p><strong>The conclusion: fake-news misinformation that was corrected by fact-checked information can improve both memory and belief accuracy in real information.</strong></p><p>"We examined the effects of providing misinformation reminders before fake-news corrections on memory and belief accuracy. Our study included everyday fake-news misinformation that was corrected by fact-check-verified statements. Building on research using fictional, yet naturalistic, event narratives to show that reminders can counteract misinformation reliance in memory reports," <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797620952797" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">the researchers</a> explained.</p><p>"It suggests that there may be benefits to learning how someone was being misleading. This knowledge may inform strategies that people use to counteract high exposure to misinformation spread for political gain," <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-10/afps-rtf101620.php" target="_blank">Wahlheim said</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Why social media has changed the world — and how to fix it
MIT Professor Sinan Aral's new book, "The Hype Machine," explores the perils and promise of social media in a time of discord.
30 September, 2020
Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images for Somerset House
Are you on social media a lot? When is the last time you checked Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram? Last night? Before breakfast? Five minutes ago?
<p>If so, you are not alone — which is the point, of course. Humans are highly social creatures. Our brains have become wired to process social information, and we usually feel better when we are connected. Social media taps into this tendency.</p><p>"Human brains have essentially evolved because of sociality more than any other thing," says Sinan Aral, an MIT professor and expert in information technology and marketing. "When you develop a population-scale technology that delivers social signals to the tune of trillions per day in real-time, the rise of social media isn't unexpected. It's like tossing a lit match into a pool of gasoline."</p><p>The numbers make this clear. In 2005, about 7 percent of American adults used social media. But by 2017, 80 percent of American adults used Facebook alone. About 3.5 billion people on the planet, out of 7.7 billion, are active social media participants. Globally, during a typical day, people post 500 million tweets, share over 10 billion pieces of Facebook content, and watch over a billion hours of YouTube video.</p><p>As social media platforms have grown, though, the once-prevalent, gauzy utopian vision of online community has disappeared. Along with the benefits of easy connectivity and increased information, social media has also become a vehicle for disinformation and political attacks from beyond sovereign borders.</p>
<p>"Social media disrupts our elections, our economy, and our health," says Aral, who is the David Austin Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management.</p><p>Now Aral has written a book about it. In "The Hype Machine," published this month by Currency, a Random House imprint, Aral details why social media platforms have become so successful yet so problematic, and suggests ways to improve them.</p><p>As Aral notes, the book covers some of the same territory as "The Social Dilemma," a documentary that is one of the most popular films on Netflix at the moment. But Aral's book, as he puts it, "starts where 'The Social Dilemma' leaves off and goes one step further to ask: What can we do about it?"</p><p>"This machine exists in every facet of our lives," Aral says. "And the question in the book is, what do we do? How do we achieve the promise of this machine and avoid the peril? We're at a crossroads. What we do next is essential, so I want to equip people, policymakers, and platforms to help us achieve the good outcomes and avoid the bad outcomes."</p>
<h3>When "engagement" equals anger</h3><p>"The Hype Machine" draws on Aral's own research about social networks, as well as other findings, from the cognitive sciences, computer science, business, politics, and more. Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles, for instance, have found that people obtain bigger hits of dopamine — the chemical in our brains highly bound up with motivation and reward — when their social media posts receive more likes.</p><p>At the same time, consider a 2018 MIT study by Soroush Vosoughi, an MIT PhD student and now an assistant professor of computer science at Dartmouth College; Deb Roy, MIT professor of media arts and sciences and executive director of the MIT Media Lab; and Aral, who has been studying social networking for 20 years. The three researchers found that on Twitter, from 2006 to 2017, false news stories were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted than true ones. Why? Most likely because false news has greater novelty value compared to the truth, and provokes stronger reactions — especially disgust and surprise.</p><p>In this light, the essential tension surrounding social media companies is that their platforms gain audiences and revenue when posts provoke strong emotional responses, often based on dubious content.</p><p>"This is a well-designed, well-thought-out machine that has objectives it maximizes," Aral says. "The business models that run the social-media industrial complex have a lot to do with the outcomes we're seeing — it's an attention economy, and businesses want you engaged. How do they get engagement? Well, they give you little dopamine hits, and … get you riled up. That's why I call it the hype machine. We know strong emotions get us engaged, so [that favors] anger and salacious content."</p>
<h3>From Russia to marketing</h3><p>"The Hype Machine" explores both the political implications and business dimensions of social media in depth. Certainly social media is fertile terrain for misinformation campaigns. During the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Russia spread false information to at least 126 million people on Facebook and another 20 million people on Instagram (which Facebook owns), and was responsible for 10 million tweets. About 44 percent of adult Americans visited a false news source in the final weeks of the campaign.</p><p>"I think we need to be a lot more vigilant than we are," says Aral.</p><p>We do not know if Russia's efforts altered the outcome of the 2016 election, Aral says, though they may have been fairly effective. Curiously, it is not clear if the same is true of most U.S. corporate engagement efforts.</p><p>As Aral examines, digital advertising on most big U.S. online platforms is often wildly ineffective, with academic studies showing that the "lift" generated by ad campaigns — the extent to which they affect consumer action — has been overstated by a factor of hundreds, in some cases. Simply counting clicks on ads is not enough. Instead, online engagement tends to be more effective among new consumers, and when it is targeted well; in that sense, there is a parallel between good marketing and guerilla social media campaigns.</p><p>"The two questions I get asked the most these days," Aral says, "are, one, did Russia succeed in intervening in our democracy? And two, how do I measure the ROI [return on investment] from marketing investments? As I was writing this book, I realized the answer to those two questions is the same."</p>
<h3>Ideas for improvement</h3><p>"The Hype Machine" has received praise from many commentators. Foster Provost, a professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, says it is a "masterful integration of science, business, law, and policy." Duncan Watts, a university professor at the University of Pennsylvania, says the book is "essential reading for anyone who wants to understand how we got here and how we can get somewhere better."</p><p>In that vein, "The Hype Machine" has several detailed suggestions for improving social media. Aral favors automated and user-generated labeling of false news, and limiting revenue-collection that is based on false content. He also calls for firms to help scholars better research the issue of election interference.</p><p>Aral believes federal privacy measures could be useful, if we learn from the benefits and missteps of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and a new California law that lets consumers stop some data-sharing and allows people to find out what information companies have stored about them. He does not endorse breaking up Facebook, and suggests instead that the social media economy needs structural reform. He calls for data portability and interoperability, so "consumers would own their identities and could freely switch from one network to another." Aral believes that without such fundamental changes, new platforms will simply replace the old ones, propelled by the network effects that drive the social-media economy.</p><p>"I do not advocate any one silver bullet," says Aral, who emphasizes that changes in four areas together — money, code, norms, and laws — can alter the trajectory of the social media industry.</p><p>But if things continue without change, Aral adds, Facebook and the other social media giants risk substantial civic backlash and user burnout.</p><p>"If you get me angry and riled up, I might click more in the short term, but I might also grow really tired and annoyed by how this is making my life miserable, and I might turn you off entirely," Aral observes. "I mean, that's why we have a Delete Facebook movement, that's why we have a Stop Hate for Profit movement. People are pushing back against the short-term vision, and I think we need to embrace this longer-term vision of a healthier communications ecosystem."</p><p>Changing the social media giants can seem like a tall order. Still, Aral says, these firms are not necessarily destined for domination.</p><p>"I don't think this technology or any other technology has some deterministic endpoint," Aral says. "I want to bring us back to a more practical reality, which is that technology is what we make it, and we are abdicating our responsibility to steer technology toward good and away from bad. That is the path I try to illuminate in this book."</p><p>Reprinted with permission of <a href="http://news.mit.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">MIT News</a>. Read the <a href="https://news.mit.edu/2020/hype-machine-book-aral-0924" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
How viral social media memes trigger real-world violence
What responsibility should government authorities and Big Tech take in policing the spread of sedition-oriented content?
15 September, 2020
Credit: Christian Buehner on Unsplash
- It can be hard to believe that comical images online are enough to rile people up enough that they'll actually attack.
- Originating in the darker corners of the internet, Bugaloo is now prominent on mainstream online platforms like Facebook and Instagram.
- The Network Contagion Research Institute's recent series of Contagion and Ideology Reports uses machine learning to examine how memes spread.
<p>There has been talk lately about fringe hate groups using memes to incite real world violence, but many prefer to casually dismiss this narrative as hysteria. It can be hard to believe that comical images online are enough to rile people up enough that they'll actually attack, and for most of us, this is thankfully true.</p><p>If you spend your time scrolling through pumpkin spice recipes and cat videos, you're probably not the target of a systematic hate campaign. But that doesn't mean these campaigns don't exist. Not every Facebook user is susceptible to radicalization, but <a href="https://ncri.io/wp-content/uploads/NCRI-White-Paper-Memetic-Warfare.pdf" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">memetic warfare</a> is increasingly being recognized as an important element of counter-governmental sedition and racist propaganda.</p><p>Studies have long shown that exposure to hate makes it easier for people to hate – and to act on their hate. If there is an organized effort by hate groups to manipulate people with memes, then these visuals can actually be influencing people to perpetrate violent attacks. </p><p>What kind of memes were used on the Facebook Event listing that <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/26/facebook-kenosha-guard-militia-protest/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">the Kenosha Guard used</a> to mobilize Kyle Rittenhouse?</p><p>Many netizens appreciate the dangers and want social media platforms to do much more to <a href="https://bigthink.com/technology-innovation/consumer-brands-facebook-boycott" target="_self">curb the spread of hate</a> across their networks. From Snapchat to Gab, TikTok to WhatsApp, memes are <a href="https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/how-social-media-and-tech-fuel-the-far-right-explained-29517" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">fueling hatred</a> and inciting violence, and more Americans are asking what responsibility these companies should take in policing the spread of harmful content. </p>
What’s in a meme?
<p>The Network Contagion Research Institute's recent series of <a href="https://ncri.io/reports/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Contagion and Ideology Reports </a>leverages machine learning to examine how memes spread. The idea is to unearth a better understanding of the role memes play in encouraging real-world violence. </p><p>So what exactly is a meme, and how did it become a tool for weaponizing the web? Originally coined by Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins in his 1976 book "<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/29/selfish-gene-40-years-richard-dawkins-do-ideas-stand-up-adam-rutherford" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Selfish Gene</a><em>," </em>the term is defined there as "a unit of cultural transmission" that spreads like a virus from host to host and conveys an idea which changes the host's worldview. </p><p>Dawkins echoes "Naked Lunch" author William Burroughs's concept of <a href="https://www.twisttheknife.com/william-s-burroughs-playback-from-eden-to-watergate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">written language as a virus</a> that infects the reader and consequently builds realities that are brought to fruition through the act of speech. In this sense, a meme is an idea that spreads by iterative, collaborative imitation from person to person within a culture and carries symbolic meaning.</p><p>The militant alt-right's use of internet memes <a href="https://journals.openedition.org/angles/369" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">follows this pattern</a>. They are carefully designed on underground social media using codes, before attaining approval by like-minded users that disseminate these messages on mainstream platforms like Twitter or Facebook.</p><p>Sometimes these messages are lifted from innocuous sources and altered to convey hate. Take for example Pepe the Frog. Initially created by cartoonist Matt Furie as a mascot for slackers, Pepe was appropriated and altered by racists and homophobes until the Anti-Defamation League branded the frog as a <a href="https://www.adl.org/education/references/hate-symbols/pepe-the-frog" target="_blank">hate symbol</a> in 2016. This, of course, hasn't stopped public figures from sharing variations of Pepe's likeness in subversive social posts.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDMxODk5My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1MDM4ODQ5OH0.rXIs1y_j9aPhj-hLf8i3PXNZrHrYwQD1btrhkC_dduw/img.png?width=980" id="9f9d2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="db9295cb7a598f85e468623b92707969" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Pepe memes" />Twitter
<p>The dissemination of hateful memes is often coordinated by an underground movement, so even its uptake by mainstream internet users and media outlets is claimed as a victory by a subculture that prides itself on its trolling.</p>
Slenderman and the Boogaloo Bois
<p>Indeed, these types of memes have a tricky way of moving from the shadows of the internet to the mainstream, picking up supporters along the way – including those who are willing to commit horrific crimes.</p><p>This phenomenon extends well beyond politics. Take, for example, the Slenderman. Created as a shadowy figure for online horror stories, Slenderman achieved mainstream popularity and a cult-like following. When two girls tried to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/06/03/the-complete-terrifying-history-of-slender-man-the-internet-meme-that-compelled-two-12-year-olds-to-stab-their-friend/" target="_blank">stab their friend to death</a> to prove that Slenderman was real in 2014, the power of the meme to prompt violence became a national conversation. </p><p>Slenderman creator Victor Surge told Know Your Meme that <a href="https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/slender-man" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">he never thought</a> the character would spread beyond the fringe Something Awful forums. "An urban legend requires an audience ignorant of the origin of the legend. It needs unverifiable third and forth [sic] hand (or more) accounts to perpetuate the myth," he explained. "On the Internet, anyone is privy to its origins as evidenced by the very public Somethingawful thread. But what is funny is that despite this, it still spread. Internet memes are finicky things and by making something at the right place and time it can swell into an 'Internet Urban Legend.'"</p><p>While Slenderman is obviously a fiction, political memes walk many of the same fine lines – and have galvanized similarly obsessed followers to commit attacks in the real world.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDMxOTA2Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MjQ4MzY5Nn0.0OpikBGVCd_jjbHzSsY1IirhpiGbCWh4cNVP6pmk0HE/img.png?width=980" id="4743c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="567ac78259ae040d7a889e245b0e5d4f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="creepy pasta illustration on Instagram" /><p>Take, for example, the Boogaloo movement. This extremist militia has strong online roots and uses memes to incite violent insurrection and terror against the government and law enforcement. Originating in the darker corners of the internet, Bugaloo is now prominent on mainstream online platforms like Facebook and Instagram. Boogaloo followers share how to build explosives and 3D-printed firearms, spread encrypted messages and distribute violent propaganda.</p><p>Boogaloo's intentions seem to be twofold: recruit new followers and communicate tactical information to incumbent members. While finding more people to adopt their ideology is one thing, there is a strong possibility that Boogaloo memes and messaging can be used to <a href="https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/05/17/americas-far-right-is-energised-by-covid-19-lockdowns" target="_blank">trigger sleeper cells</a> to violent action. </p><p>Boogaloo isn't alone. The use of memes by groups like the Proud Boys, which operate on an ideology consisting of both symbolic and physical violence, is spreading across America – especially since the start of the pandemic. </p>
Understanding digital indoctrination
<p><a href="http://www.ncri.io/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The Network Contagion Research Institute</a> (NCRI) uses advanced data analysis to expose hate on social media. The institute's scientists work with experts at the ADL's <a href="https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/advocacy-centers/center-on-extremism" target="_blank">Center on Extremism </a>(COE) to track hateful propaganda online and offer strategies to combat this phenomenon. By better understanding how memes spread hateful propaganda, the NCRI is helping law enforcement, social media companies and citizens get better at preventing online chatter about violence from becoming real action.</p><p>Founded by Princeton's Dr. Joel Finkelstein, the NCRI is finding that the spread of hate online can be examined using epidemiological models of how viruses spread, only applied to language and ideas, much as Burroughs imagined decades ago. </p><p>Now that the internet has obviated the need for people to meet in person or communicate directly, recruiting and deploying members of violent groups is easier than ever before.</p><p>Before social media, as <a href="https://njjewishnews.timesofisrael.com/princeton-scientist-connects-web-hate-and-the-acts-it-spawns/" target="_blank">Finkelstein reminds us</a>, organizing underground hate groups was harder. "You would have to have an interpersonal organization to train and cultivate those people," he said. "With the advance of the internet, those people can find each other; what it lacks in depth it makes up in reach. The entire phenomenon can happen by itself without a trace of anyone being groomed."</p>Can anything be done?
<p>Memes generate hysteria in part by being outrageous enough for people to share – even the mainstream media. This is a concrete strategy called <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/24/132228/political-war-memes-disinformation/" target="_blank">amplification</a>. The extreme alt-right manages to reach mainstream audiences with racialist and supremacist memes, even as these messages are being denounced.</p><p>Content spreads virally whether those spreading it support the embedded ideology or not, making it difficult to intervene and prevent meme-incited violence.</p><p>Some people may unwittingly amplify messaging designed to spread violence, mistaking memes like ACAB (all cops are bastards) for harmless if somewhat dark humor.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yNDMxOTE4MS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MjQ0NDc1OH0.r5h7TfBbkkxyCn0XzQIP6iu-_HPKEuChXyqTWAj6gts/img.png?width=980" id="a3bc9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="f6c88678fcf3d2fe66c52429f03ff094" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Anti law enforcement memes" />
NCRI
<p>So what can be done about the meme wars, and what onus is on law enforcement and Big Tech?</p><p>Finkelstein recommends a three-pronged approach to combating the violent outcome of subversive memes.</p><ol><li>Push for more stringent boundaries defining civility online using technology.</li><li>Educate courts, lawmakers and civil institutions about how extreme online communities operate and create better industry standards to regulate these groups.</li><li>Bring the federal government, including the FBI and Homeland Security, up to speed on the new reality so they can intervene as necessary.</li></ol><p>But not everyone thinks Big Tech or the law have much ground to stand on in combating viral hate. Tech companies haven't gone the mile in truly enforcing stricter standards for online content, but some companies are closing down accounts associated with <a href="https://www.voanews.com/silicon-valley-technology/can-shutting-down-online-hate-sites-curb-violence" target="_blank">extremist leaders' websites</a> and their movements. </p><p>But this is largely tilting at windmills. The proliferation of memes online spreading ideology virally might be too big to combat without dramatically limiting freedom of speech online. Facebook and YouTube have <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/social-media-2020-us-election?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4" target="_self">banned thousands of profiles</a>, but there's no way of knowing how many remain – or are being added every day. This leaves the danger of meme radicalization and weaponization lurking beneath the surface even as we head into elections. </p>What we stand to lose
<p>Boogaloo and other seditious groups have been empowered by recent crises, including the pandemic and the anti-racist protests sweeping the country. Greater numbers of these community members are showing up at anti-quarantine protests and are disrupting other gatherings, and the press they're getting – this article included – is only bringing more attention to their violent messages.</p><p>Extremist memes continue to circulate, as America heads to the polls amidst a global pandemic and widespread civil unrest. It stands to reason that more blood will be spilled. Getting a handle on Twitter handles that spread hate and shutting down groups whose sole purpose is sowing the seeds of brutality is vital – the only question that remains is how. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
The homogeneity of the news media can now be quantified
New research reveals the extent to which groupthink bias is increasingly being built into the content we consume.
30 August, 2020
Shutterstock
- When ownership of news sources is concentrated into the hands of just a handful of corporations, the kind of reporting that audiences get to see is limited and all the more likely to be slanted by corporate interests.
- Newsroom employment has declined dramatically over the past decade, and this has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- The findings of a new University of Illinois study suggest that Washington journalists operate in insular microbubbles that are vulnerable to consensus seeking. If the reporters on the Hill are feeding America copycat news information, we are all at risk of succumbing to groupthink.
<p class="">Distrust of the media is a growing phenomenon in the U.S., with many Americans feeling that mainstream news media <a href="https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">presents biased views</a> and an alarming number saying they're <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/267047/americans-trust-mass-media-edges-down.aspx" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">reluctant to believe</a> what is being reported.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU5NzQzNS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY2MTQ3NzY4MX0.Y1wMO3k3Tj0RqIvdODKnKCxg6_mXhQUgGzm3GGGhWTE/img.png?width=980" id="fe8df" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2426f57c3e6950e118f1e8ea43a6c2aa" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="chart showing Americans' trust in media data from 1997 to 2019" /><p>It's easy to make the argument that media consolidation is to blame for this trend.</p><p>When ownership of news sources is concentrated into the hands of just a handful of corporations, the kind of reporting that audiences get to see is limited and all the more likely to be slanted by corporate interests. </p><p>Combined with the <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/loss-of-local-newspapers-is-making-america-more-politically-polarized" target="_self">contraction of traditional local print news</a> in the face of infotainment TV and clickbait-influenced web publishing, journalists are becoming increasingly homogeneous in their views and more susceptible to groupthink. </p>
Deregulation and the rise of new media
<p>Up until the 1980s, the federal government worked to <a href="https://billmoyers.com/story/media-consolidation-should-anyone-care/" target="_blank">prevent media consolidation</a> in partnership with the FCC. But under Reagan, many of the existing regulations were shelved, giving corporations greater leeway in acquiring local news outlets.</p><p>The deregulatory trend persisted, arguably culminating with Clinton's 1996 <a href="http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/National_050905_Fallout_From_The_Telecommunications_Act_2.pdf" target="_blank">Telecommunications Act</a>. A watershed moment for news media homogeneity, the law essentially permitted corporations to amass large numbers of local newspapers and news stations, granting hegemons access to almost every household in America.</p>Traditional news outlets have been suffering for years with the rise of cable networks and the advent of web publishing. With free content constantly available online, many outlets have given up the ghost and shut down print and broadcast. Newsroom employment has <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/20/u-s-newsroom-employment-has-dropped-by-a-quarter-since-2008/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">declined dramatically</a> over the past decade, and this has only been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/apr/09/coronavirus-us-newspapers-impact" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">exacerbated by the COVID-19</a> pandemic.<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU5NzQzNy9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxOTQ4MDQ5NH0.2b4wSOcZHVbQlMkxY8XxGV9u0d9HKUPd1NMZqtSJgRo/img.png?width=980" id="96317" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5f961f7d76381b8407e2d0184e568ce6" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Newsroom employment chart" /><p><span>The outlets that are left standing are now under corporate ownership and are reliant on social media platforms for distribution. Trading hard-hitting news for click baiting has a direct impact on both the format of the news and the kind of information that is disseminated.</span></p><p>One effect of the contraction of the news industry is that journalists are networking with fewer peers and sources. In one <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305120926639" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">recently published study</a>, "Sharing Knowledge and 'Microbubbles': Epistemic Communities and Insularity in US Political Journalism," researchers from the University of Illinois explore the extent to which groupthink bias is increasingly being built into the content we consume. </p><p>The study even goes so far as to measure news media homogeneity using data from journalists' interactions on social media. Analyzing 680,021 tweets posted by 2,292 accounts belonging to credentialed journalists, the researchers concluded that "beltway insularity," as they call the phenomenon, can easily be grouped into nine distinct clusters.</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU5NzQ0NC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1ODIxMTg0Nn0.T8lR_XT_opQXADgwvKWlUoEkaHodXr2ll6O-hO55uKo/img.png?width=980" id="c3322" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="15d6b1dc28cec11c2f3c764c7dbaa78d" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Study data infographic" /><p>The findings of the study suggest that Washington journalists operate in insular microbubbles that are vulnerable to consensus seeking. If the reporters on the Hill are feeding America copycat news information, we are all at risk of succumbing to groupthink.</p><p>Critics have two main concerns with this consensus-reinforcing phenomenon: a less diverse output of storylines and takes on those storylines, and the ease with which unsubstantiated or shoddily substantiated reporting can get picked up by mainstream news outlets. </p>
Record distrust in the media industry
<p>There's never been a time in American history when the sources of information were so doubted. Even <a href="https://www.cjr.org/special_report/the-fall-rise-and-fall-of-media-trust.php" target="_blank">after Watergate</a>, trust in the media stood at 74 percent. At last count, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1597/confidence-institutions.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup found</a> that just 20 percent of American have confidence in print and broadcast journalism, two more percentage points than TV news received in the same poll.</p><p>There is a growing concern that news media is biased, that reporters don't just report but curate and editorialize, and that the money behind the news has an impact on what is reported and how. This suspicion is fodder for conspiracy theorists who vilify the mainstream media and offer alternative facts to what is available. Playing on people's fears, alternative outlets online are picking up steam and spreading misinformation (and deliberate disinformation). </p><p>For example, although many leading news outlets – including The Washington Post, The Independent, The New York Times and even Fox News – independently debunked the "Pizzagate" conspiracy as soon as it began to spread in 2016, media coverage of the story has steadily risen throughout the past year.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU5NzQ0Ny9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTA0NTYyMn0.rdhhF97C71Uo618-ztibU3QrFn7nZWNeeBJD7na-yI4/img.png?width=980" id="4bab7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d5bfc3faa3c44852cc79ee40b74c87e8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" /><p>Recent examples of <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/coronavirus-conspiracy-theories" target="_blank">conspiracy theories</a> about COVID-19 achieving widespread popularity attest to this trend. Other examples include climate change denial, the <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/qanon-child-abuse" target="_blank">QAnon</a> "deep state" conspiracy, and others. Where public trust in news media is lacking, fake news fills the void. </p>
Fewer journalists means fewer voices
<p>One factor in Americans' diminishing trust in the news is that there are fewer journalists, especially local journalists, that viewers can turn to as distinct voices. Lack of local coverage and the rise of homogeneous, sensationalist journalism are perpetuating distrust and driving many Americans to look for news elsewhere – and leaving them susceptible to manipulation. </p> <p>As mentioned earlier, print media has been <a href="https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2020/here-are-the-newsroom-layoffs-furloughs-and-closures-caused-by-the-coronavirus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">hit hard</a>, and broadcast journalism is also feeling the pain. With lots of newsroom layoffs and closures, having fewer journalists means exposure to fewer perspectives. This has created a situation where there is less original reporting, with more repurposing of others' stories and less fact checking, thereby contributing to the spread of misinformation. </p><p>Lack of local news has far reaching effects on democracy. One study from <a href="https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/cmcp/local-news.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">King's College London</a> found that communities without local community news outlets have less public engagement and greater distrust of public institutions. </p><p>"We can all have our own social media account, but when local papers are depleted or in some cases simply don't exist, people lose a communal voice," Martin Moore, the author of the study, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/sep/29/local-newspapers-closing-down-communities-withering" target="_blank">remarked</a>. "They feel angry, not listened to and more likely to believe malicious rumour."</p>Mainstream media and fake news
<p> Ironically, while the erosion of mainstream media is contributing to the rise of misinformation and alternative news, when outlets attempt to expose fake news, it often backfires, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23808985.2020.1759443" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">propelling its dissemination</a>. Plenty of news consumers first encounter conspiracies and disinformation on the news, but rather than building trust, <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/media/394352-poll-72-percent-say-traditional-outlets-report-news-they-know-to-be-fake-false" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">72 percent of Americans</a> believe that traditional outlets are the ones with the agenda. </p><p> And who can blame them? The parroting of identical headlines across consolidated newsrooms doesn't help instill confidence. Take for example this compilation of "local news" talking heads repeating the same script: </p><p> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_fHfgU8oMSo" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> </p><p> All of these reporters are part of the <a href="http://sbgi.net/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Sinclair Broadcast Group</a>. It's hard to deny the dangers of corporate consolidation of news media when confronted with damning clips like this, and Sinclair is out for even more control. An attempted acquisition in 2017 would have put Sinclair stations in 72 percent of households with a television, but the deal was <a href="https://www.niemanlab.org/2019/08/when-it-comes-to-the-consolidation-of-local-news-companies-american-worry-a-lot-more-about-political-bias-than-about-newsroom-cutbacks/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">struck down</a> by Tribune. </p><p> This is a huge amount of influence for one company, or person, to have. In an election year, this is even more pertinent. </p>Social media algorithms and information bubbles
<p>Just as more Americans distrust mainstream news, the majority get their facts on social media. This wouldn't be a problem per se, but the way online news is delivered to consumers <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/social-media-2020-us-election" target="_self">perpetuates echo chambers</a> and information bubbles. </p><p>Social media deliberately surfaces content to individuals that confirm their views and echo previously viewed or shared content. The algorithms amplify biases and screen out dissenting opinions. Before you know it, other voices are blocked from your feed, leaving you in an echo chamber. This doesn't just apply to news, but also to targeted ads and campaigns designed for microcommunities with shared attributes. </p> <p>It has never been easier to convince so many people to believe stories that aren't necessarily true – lack of trust, consolidation of news outlets, the contraction of journalism, and the pervasiveness of web news is creating isolated information bubbles that many of us now find ourselves stuck in. People naturally want to read news that confirms their beliefs. </p><p>When infotainment is commoditized and served up for quick and easy consumption, critical thinking takes a back seat.</p>Finding the facts on your own
<p>With quantified evidence of journalistic groupthink and information bubbles among those who consume political information, is there hope for open dialogue and a variety of perspectives? </p><p>Ultimately, yes. However, this won't likely be coming from the news media. Choosing not to be misled and seeking out a variety of opinions and perspectives is something that each individual will likely have to do on their own, even if it means questioning one's fundamental beliefs. This entails verifying the information you read, actively engaging with people outside of your comfortable echo chamber, and even changing your mind when confronted with hard evidence. </p><p>Finding the facts on your own can be tough, but if we can't rely on the news to give us the news, there's no other choice. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Will social media’s impact on the elections be different this time?
Will nefarious players use social media to sway public opinion again this November?
27 August, 2020
Photo by Phillip Goldsberry on Unsplash
- The effective subversion of social media during the 2016 U.S. presidential election was unprecedented and highlighted the major role social media plays in politics.
- Today, it's harder to repurpose private social data than it was four years ago, but paid and organic audience microtargeting continues.
- Fake news and disinformation still spread freely. Networks of fake accounts are being taken down, but there's no way to know what percentage continue to operate. Meanwhile, the same principles power the news feed algorithms, surfacing partisan content and reaffirming audience biases.
<p>Social media has emerged as a <a href="https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-past-decade-and-future-of-political-media-the-ascendance-of-social-media/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">political intermediary</a> used to assert influence and achieve political goals. The effective subversion of social media during the 2016 U.S. presidential election was unprecedented and highlighted the major role social media plays in politics. </p><p>With the continual growth of online communities, Americans have gained greater access to the political landscape and election news. But on the other hand, social media can be used to spread misinformation and engender bias among voters. </p><p class="">With a new election just around the corner, it's worth revisiting the dynamics of social media and American politics in order to better anticipate <a href="https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/election-prediction" target="_self">what we can expect</a> on November 3, 2020.</p>
Microtargeting will be a strategy
<p>It didn't take long for pundits to recognize how much had changed in manipulative electioneering with the rise of social media. Quickly after the results were announced, it became clear that the 2016 election was a watershed moment in how targeted propaganda can be disseminated using advanced computational techniques.</p><p>Consulting firm Cambridge Analytica, for example, bypassed Facebook rules by creating an app requiring Facebook account login, which, in turn, mined vast amounts of personal information about the users and their friends. This information was then shared with Cambridge Analytica's network of contacts, despite a ban on downloading private data from Facebook's ecosystem and sharing it with third parties. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU4ODU4My9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYwNTc5NTg0OH0.yGc_mm0iV1Cj0jcX25rCEPcORLek1xPERUQGBKvxUdw/img.png?width=980" id="a6844" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2377a01b028bacc246510e1a8c8f8fde" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Facebook privacy settings" />
Shutterstock
<p>The firm then leveraged the data to generate microtargeted political ad campaigns, according to former Cambridge Analytica staffer and <a href="https://bigthink.com/podcast/cambridge-analytica" target="_self">whistleblower Christopher Wylie</a>. Facebook suspended Cambridge Analytica, but the platform won't stop <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/jan/09/facebook-political-ads-micro-targeting-us-election" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">microtargeting campaigns</a> on its platform. To make things worse, Cambridge Analytica analysts are already <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/19/trump-cambridge-analytica-oczkowski-114075" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">back at work</a>.</p><p>One trend to watch out for in microtargeting is the rise of nanoinfluencers. These small time influencers have far fewer followers, but target a highly tailored audience. Political marketers <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-nanoinfluencers-are-slyly-barnstorming-the-2020-election/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">will leverage nanoinfluencers</a> in tandem with other forms of social media manipulation to digitally knock on the doors of those most likely to be swayed by their canvassing. But knocking on the right doors requires data.</p><p>This ease of access to data and the continued popular strategy of <a href="https://www.cbinsights.com/research/what-is-psychographics/" target="_blank">psychographic segmentation</a> means that unethical use of user information will likely still play a role in the 2020 elections.</p>Foreign influence and disinformation is still a threat
<p>Dividing voters into narrow segments and then whispering targeted messages into their ears was also central to <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us-voters-before-2016-election/" target="_blank">Russian trolls' strategy</a> of spreading disinformation via social media in an effort to influence the outcome of the 2016 elections. It's estimated that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/technology/facebook-google-russia.html" target="_blank">126 million</a> American Facebook users were targeted by Russian content over the course of their subversive campaign.</p><p>Aside from fake news, jackers also skewed the elections by illegally obtaining and then releasing private information and documents amidst tons of hype. The Wikileaks scandal gave hackers the opportunity to <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37639370" target="_blank">discredit Clinton</a> and the DNC leadership by leaking emails days before the party's convention. Likewise, the circumstances surrounding FBI Director James Comey's October 28 letter to Congress, discussion of which dominated social media news feeds for weeks, will likely never be revealed.</p><p>Social media big hitters have stated before Congress that they are taking active steps to prevent the spread of disinformation and ensure protection from foreign influence, but stopping deceptive networks is a constant battle. In 2019, Facebook removed 50 networks from foreign actors, including Iran and Russia, that were actively spreading <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/18/facebook-twitter-describe-efforts-fight-fake-posts-before-election/3215630001/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">fake information</a>, and from January to June of this year, another 18 have been removed. Just this month, Facebook removed dozens of troll accounts <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/8/21359823/facebook-trolls-black-trump-supporters-fake-accounts-instagram" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">based out of Romania</a> for coordinated inauthentic behavior. </p><p>Both Twitter and Facebook have begun flagging posts from public figures when disinformation is contained therein, although the way these flags look differs considerably.</p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU4ODU5OS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1ODk1MDYzNn0.afT6fCcKOnMe9L8kuXgzEqcD8DYu7Wv43rReHv9w4uo/img.png?width=980" id="80115" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="477553980d061aa4300aeaf356a1af2a" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="Donald J. Trump tweet flagged for violating Twitter rules" />
Facebook and Twitter
<p>Facebook, which eventually instituted new ad transparency policies, has also <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/facebook-will-block-ads-from-state-controlled-media-outlets.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">banned ads</a> from state-controlled media outlets, for example from Russia or China, from their platform. This won't stop governments from accessing more illicit means of spreading propaganda on Facebook and into the minds of America's voters — identifying proxies can be tricky. Plus, they pretty much <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/18/how-russia-weaponized-social-media-got-caught-escaped-consequences/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">got away with it</a> last time and even convinced the mainstream media to pick up some of the fake stories.</p><p>Well into election season, the spread of disinformation and the potential involvement of foreign influence has already begun. And it isn't limited to the election. These tactics are also being used to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-trump-us-disinformation-foreign-interference-2020-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">spread lies</a> about the coronavirus pandemic and the racial protests to incite division and unrest. Even with constant vigilance, it's likely that information war-inclined countries with the tech knowhow and the will to do harm could influence the upcoming election, and that should concern us all. </p>It’s still too easy to weaponize algorithms
<p>After the Cambridge Analytica scandal, social platforms made efforts to change their algorithms and policies to prevent manipulation. But it just isn't enough.</p><p>On Twitter, complete anonymity and the proliferation of automated bots and fake accounts were integral to the 2016 campaign and continue to outpace any efforts the platform makes to curb disinformation. Just last month, a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/us/politics/twitter-hack.html" target="_blank">Twitter hack</a> into blue check accounts, including those of Obama and Biden, showed that this year's election is still at risk. </p><p>Hackers have a rapt audience if they manage to make it in. Close to <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">70 percent of American adults</a> are on Facebook and millions are on Twitter, most of them every day. As part of the 2016 campaign, foreign agents published more than <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/10-31-17%20Edgett%20Testimony.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">131,000 tweets</a> and uploaded over<a href="https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-uniblog-publish-prod/documents/google_US2016election_findings_1_zm64A1G.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> 1,100 videos</a> to YouTube. Now, with the global domination of TikTok, there are even more ways to target voters.</p><p>Digital propaganda has only improved with time, and despite the valiant efforts of Dr. Frankenstein, the monster social media created is not easily subdued. This month YouTube <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/05/youtube-bans-thousands-of-chinese-accounts-to-combat-coordinated-influence-operations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">banned thousands of accounts</a> for a coordinated influence campaign, Facebook <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/07/removing-political-coordinated-inauthentic-behavior/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">shut down even more</a> and has implemented additional encryption and privacy policies since 2016. On Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram and more, malicious manipulation is just a click away, and there is only so much community standards and terms of service agreements can do to stop it. </p>Echo chambers and growing mistrust
<p>Since 2016, more Americans than ever mistrust mainstream news and get their facts on social media making misinformation and deliberate disinformation a concern in 2020. By 2016, only <a href="https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/the-past-decade-and-future-of-political-media-the-ascendance-of-social-media/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">half of Americans</a> watched TV for news, while those who found their news online reached 43 percent – up 7 percent from the year before. </p><p>The problem isn't that people are getting their news from the internet, it's that the internet is the perfect forum for spreading fake news. And a rapidly growing number of Americans will take at least some of this fake news to be fact. Furthermore, believing misinformation is actually linked to a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/fake-news-republicans-democrats/591211/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">decreased likelihood</a> of being receptive to actual information. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzU4ODYxMC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMjcwMjUzOX0.cpyfQbBKT-q8eOMcR8SgO0zoiAfNp5FKoFXSmMeIaVI/img.png?width=980" id="cb7b9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="486fb507d56dac1b55a50f47f8c827c3" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of woman trapped in bubble" />
Shutterstock
<p>This demonstrates how <a href="https://bigthink.com/mind-brain/non-partisan-brain" target="_self">the spread of partisan messaging</a> is amplified by the proliferation of echo chambers online. Americans who engage with partisan content are likely choosing to do so because the story confirms their existing ideologies. In turn, social media algorithms exacerbate this tendency by only showing content that is similar to what we engage with. This<a href="https://theconversation.com/feedback-loops-and-echo-chambers-how-algorithms-amplify-viewpoints-107935" target="_blank"> algorithmic amplification</a> of people's confirmation biases screens out dissenting opinions and reinforces the most marginal viewpoints.</p><p>Extreme online groups leverage this tendency to market to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17457289.2018.1434784" target="_blank">homogeneous networks</a>. Recent research demonstrates that social networking sites such as Facebook or Twitter can facilitate this selection into homogenous networks, increasing polarization and solidifying misinformed beliefs. The fundamental principles that inform these algorithms hasn't changed since 2016, and we're already seeing them at play, fomenting polarization in 2020, as civil discontent and the pandemic have propelled divisiveness and discontent. </p>Conclusion
<p>In 2016, subversive actors used social media to manipulate the American political process, both from within and from without. There isn't much room for optimism that this year things will be much different. If anything, the risks are greater than before. There is, however, some glittering hope emanating from a somewhat ironic place: TikTok.</p><p>Flipping the script on Twitter-happy Trump, some activists engaged in a weeks-long campaign to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-rally-tiktok-crowds-tulsa/" target="_blank">artificially inflate</a> the number of people registered to attend a June campaign rally in Tulsa. The prank was a success, with campaign staff bragging about anticipated turnout going through the roof, leaving the arena with only 31 percent of its seats occupied with Trump supporters.</p><p>While anecdotal, this goes to show that while social media can be a tool for the halls of power to manipulate the masses, it can also be a tool for grassroots mobilization against the halls of power. </p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
