1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
[misinformation] is hardly an issue on this platform […]
In my opinion, that statement of yours is, ironically, responsible for why there may be an issue with misinformation. You state it with certainty, yet you provide no source to back up your claim. It is my belief that this sort of conjecture is at the source of misinformation issues.
What concrete steps can be taken to combat misinformation on social media? […]
Regarding my own content: I do my best to cite any claim that I make, no matter how trivial. If I make a statement for which I lack confidence in its veracity, I do my best to convey that uncertainty. I do my best to convey explicitly whether a statement is a joke, or sarcasm.
Fundamentally, my approach to this issue is based on this quote:
Rationality is not a character trait, it's a process. If you fool yourself into believing that you're rational by default, you open yourself up to the most irrational thinking. ^[1]^
Regarding the content of others: If I come across something that I believe to be false, I try to politely respond to it with a sufficiently and honestly cited statement explaining why I think it is false. If I come across something of unknown veracity/clarity, I try to politely challenge the individual responsible to clarify their intent/meaning.
For clarity, I have no evidence to support that what I'm doing is an effective means to this end, but I want to believe that it's helping in at least some small way.
References
What concrete steps can be taken to combat misinformation on social media?
Misinformation is part of the nature of social media and can't be fixed. Stupid people are stupid. There are A LOT of them on social media. The dishonest take advantage of the stupid to spread misinformation. The only way to counteract it is to have gatekeeping, which will crush the user count and block out the biggest users, and network effect will funnel most of the rest into the biggest. (i.e. the one with the most lenient gatekeeping)
The only hope is that people realize how stupid, unrepresentative, and unsuitable social media discourse is. It's a place to find funny pictures of cats and boobs. Looking to it for anything serious, or pretending what you see there is representative of anything, is pointless at best and likely harmful.
It's a pretty regulaely a big problem here.
But to answer your question, just check sources, verify with a second outlet, and call it out when you see it. That's all you can do on an individual level.
step 1. misinformation is a problem on every platform. full stop.
I think what you mean is maliciously manufactured information. still, I believe Lemmy is subject to it.
I believe that both types can be effectively dispatched by effectively moderating the community, but not in the sense that you might be thinking.
I believe that we are looking at community moderation from the wrong direction. today, the goal of the mod is to prune and remove undesired content and users. this creates high overhead and operational costs. it also increases chances for corruption and community instability. look no further than Reddit and lemmy for this where we have a handful of mods that are in-charge of multiple communities. who put them there? how do you remove them should they no longer have the communities best interests in mind? what power do I have as a user to bring attention to corruption?
I believe that if we flip the role of moderators to be instead guardians of what the community accepts instead of what they can see it greatly reduces the strain on mods and increases community involvement.
we already use a mechanism of up/down vote. should content hit a threshold below community standards, it's removed from view. should that user continue to receive below par results from inside the community, they are silenced. these par grades are rolling, so they would be able to interact within the community again after some time but continued abuse of the community could result in permanent silencing. should a user be unjustly silenced due to abuse, mod intervention is necessary. this would then flag the downvoters for abuse demerits and once a demerit threshold is hit, are silenced.
notice I keep saying silenced instead of blocked? that's because we shouldn't block their access to content or the community or even let them know nobody is seeing their content. in the case of malicious users/bots. the more time wasted on screaming into a void the less time wasted on corrupting another community. in-fact, I propose we allow these silenced users to interact with each other where they can continue to toxify and abuse each other in a spiraling chain of abuse that eventually results in their permanent silencing. all the while, the community governs itself and the users hum along unaware of what's going on in the background.
IMO it's up to the community to decide what is and isn't acceptable and mods are simply users within that community and are mechanisms to ensure voting abuse is kept in check.
Great idea but tough to keep people from gaming it
genuinely curious of how would they game it?
of course there's a way to game it, but I think it's a far better solution than what social media platforms are doing currently and gives more options than figuratively amputate parts of community to save itself.
If I need 10 downvotes to make you disappear then I only need 10 Smurf accounts.
At the same time, 10 might be a large portion of some communities while miniscule in others.
I suppose you limit votes to those in the specific community, but then you’d have to track their activity to see if they’re real or just griefing, and track activity in relation to others to see if they’re independent or all grief together. And moderators would need tools to not only discover but to manage briefing, to configure sensitivity
you're right. the threshold is entirely dependent on the size of the community. it would probably be derived from some part of community subscribers and user interactions for the week/month.
should a comment be overwhelmingly positive that would offset the threshold further.
in regards to griefing, if a comment or post is overwhelmingly upvoted and hits the downvote threshold that's when mods step in to investigate and make a decision. if it's found to not break rules or is beneficial to the community all downvoters are issued a demerit. after so many demerits those users are silenced in the community and follow through typical "cool down" processes or are permanently silenced for continued abuse.
the same could be done for the flip-side where comments are upvote skewed.
in this way, the community content is curated by the community and nurtured by the mods.
appeals could be implemented for users whom have been silenced and fell through the cracks, and further action could be taken against mods that routinely abuse or game the system by the admins.
I think it would also be beneficial to remove the concept of usernames from content. they would still exist for administrative purposes and to identify problem users, but I think communities would benefit from the "double blind" test. there's been plenty of times I have been downvoted just because of a previous interaction. also the same, I have upvoted because of a well known user or previous interaction with that user.
it's important to note this would change the psychological point of upvote and downvotes. currently they're used in more of an "I agree with" or "I cannot accept that". using the rules I've brought up would require users to understand they have just as much to risk for upvoting or downvoting content. so when a user casts their vote, they truly believe it's in the interests of the community at large and they want that kind of content within the community. to downvote means they think the content doesn't meet the criteria for the community. should users continue to arbitrarily upvote or downvote based on their personal preferences instead of community based objectivity, they might find themselves silenced from the community.
it's based on the principles of "what is good for society is good for me" and silences anyone in the community that doesn't meet the standards of that community.
for example, a community that is strictly for women wouldn't need to block men. as soon as a man would self identify or share ideas that aren't respondent to the community they would be silenced pretty quickly. some women might even be silenced but they would undoubtedly have shared ideas that were rejected by the community at large. this mimics the self-regulation that society has used for thousands of years IMO.
I think we need to stop looking at social networks as platforms for the individuals and look at them as platforms for the community as a whole. that's really the only way we can block toxicity and misinformation from our communities. undoubtedly it will create echo chambers
Lol misinformation is still an issue on Lemmy, don't kid yourself
Wait, you mean Stalin wasnt a cuddly teddy bear?
This problem is hardly an issue on this platform.
And this is the problem.
I see objectively misleading, clickbait headlines and articles from bad (eg not recommended by Wikipedia) sources float to the top of Lemmy all the time.
I call them out, but it seems mods are uninterested in enforcing more strict information hygiene.
Step 1 is teaching journalism and social media hygiene as a dedicated class in school, or on social media… And, well, the US is kinda past that being possible :/.
There might be hope for the rest of the world.
In US English classes at any level above middle school, the importance of finding valid sources and providing citations is emphasized, although that's mainly for essays and the like.
I could imagine it would be possible to adapt that mindset towards social media as well. Provide your sources, so you can prove you understand what you are saying. The foundations are there, they just need to be applied.
Except there are plenty of "sources" that spew even more BS. We can't even trust what comes out of our government anymore (by design).
yeah, lemmy could stop pushing extreme leftist misinformation from mysterious online "news" sources and rewriting history that would be a great start
That’s not what I meant. It’s true that too many left leaning tabloids get upvoted to the front page, but the direction of the slant isn’t the point, and there’s nothing “mysterious” about them. They’re clickbait/ragebait.
Yeah, western right wing neoliberal misinformation only.
Hey, just wanted to say I’m always grateful when someone calls out posts not linking to proper sources. Your doing good work, thanks!
Hardly an issue on Lemmy?
Or does it just feel that way when everyone around you has the same views?
I just wanna know: What do you do when talking to a friend IRL, face to face, and they tell you something that isn't true?
While there may aftually be people trying to push an agenda, I suspect 90% or more people who "spread misinformation online" are just regular old idiots.
People don't suddenly stop being people just because they have a computer and anonimity. And a lot of people are just misinformed.
Best way to stop misinformation online? Same as it is offline: Through better fucking education.
I say "huh. I hadn't heard that one. Let me look it up. .... Ohh no, that turned out to be fake. It's getting so hard to tell these days. Just the other day I was reading..." And then start rambling about another topic. It prevents them from sitting with the uncomfortable feeling of being an idiot.
This problem is hardly an issue on this platform.
LOLOL -- This platform is just as bad as Reddit for misinformation. It's usually silly shit, but it's almost always 90% truth laced with 10% lie. The fact that you believe it's somehow immune to this is just testament to how hard it is for people to see this kind of thing clearly when it's "on their side". Problem is, any time it's called out, people get massively downvoted for it, so people have stopped calling it out.
I've tried a lot and the problem is that the people are entrenched in their beliefs. They are in irrational states of mind on social media, and you can't rationally talk to people in that state of mind.
The most successful I've had is simply the Socratic method. Remain calm, simply ask open ended questions which are designed to just make them question their tightly held beliefs. Why are cities less safe, why do you feel this, etc. however even I find they will often just get angry at that even.
Ultimately, it's not social media which will win minds. It's in the open. I've had more luck meeting people casually in bars and talking to them vs on a keyboard
I've heard this method as a way to combat racism and transphobia as well (which I guess are based on misinformation). Most of the time people are just repeating what they've heard so it's good to get them to think about why they believe it, even if it doesn't fully change their mind.
I look at any individual's history when they post anything sketchy and contextualize. Anything politically motivated is likely a shill unless they have a long broadly engaged post history across many subjects with depth. I block a lot of people too.
I look at any individual’s history when they post anything sketchy and contextualize. […]
I am concerned that this would distill down to argumentum ad hominem.
Media literacy is an old and important topic. Are you asking for an introduction to it?
Simply leaves social media, or believe nothing on it.
Academic books by experrs, peer-reviewed papers etc. are better.
Wikipedia and podcast/interviews with real experts (not pundits, I mean experts) are good too.
Wikipedia and podcast/interviews
If you're want to know how misinformation got so prominent, look at this as a good start.
