The scary, real-world effects of trolling

[shira]

I just read a article by Fareed Zakaria about a study that found that falsehoods initiated by trolls quickly become stubbornly false beliefs, and how he was a victim of this phenomenon.

We on ATPN often accuse each other of being immune to the facts, but I do feel that most of us here make at least some effort to check information by using reputable sources. Frighteningly, however, it's apparently quite easy to stir up the prejudices (and anger) of many, many people by simply posting outrageous falsehoods that reinforce those prejudices.

In a comprehensive new study of Facebook that analyzed posts made between 2010 and 2014, a group of scholars found that people mainly shared information that confirmed their prejudices, paying little attention to facts and veracity. (Hat tip to Cass Sunstein, the leading expert on this topic.) The result, the report says, is the “proliferation of biased narratives fomented by unsubstantiated rumors, mistrust and paranoia.” The authors specifically studied trolling — the creation of highly provocative, often false information, with the hope of spreading it widely. The report says that “many mechanisms cause false information to gain acceptance, which in turn generate false beliefs that, once adopted by an individual, are highly resistant to correction.”

As it happens, in recent weeks I was the target of a trolling campaign and saw exactly how it works. It started when an obscure website published a post titled “CNN host Fareed Zakaria calls for jihad rape of white women.” The story claimed that in my “private blog” I had urged the use of American women as “sex slaves” to depopulate the white race. The post further claimed that on my Twitter account, I had written the following line: “Every death of a white person brings tears of joy to my eyes.”

Disgusting. So much so that the item would collapse from its own weightlessness, right? Wrong. Here is what happened next: Hundreds of people began linking to it, tweeting and retweeting it, and adding their comments, which are too vulgar or racist to repeat. A few ultra-right-wing websites reprinted the story as fact. With each new cycle, the levels of hysteria rose, and people started demanding that I be fired, deported or killed. For a few days, the digital intimidation veered out into the real world. Some people called my house late one night and woke up and threatened my daughters, who are 7 and 12.

It would have taken a minute to click on the link and see that the original post was on a fake news site, one that claims to be satirical (though not very prominently). It would have taken simple common sense to realize the absurdity of the charge. But none of this mattered. The people spreading this story were not interested in the facts; they were interested in feeding prejudice. The original story was cleverly written to provide conspiracy theorists with enough ammunition to ignore evidence. It claimed that I had taken down the post after a few hours when I realized it “receive[d] negative attention.” So, when the occasional debunker would point out that there was no evidence of the post anywhere, it made little difference. When confronted with evidence that the story was utterly false, it only convinced many that there was a conspiracy and coverup.

Just think of the implication of a rapidly increasing cadre of enraged bigots misled by blatantly-false information, but who are absolutely immune to facts contrary to their beliefs. This is becoming the reality of the world we live in.

The question is, what can be done about it?

 

[PokerGuy]

Just think of the implication of a rapidly increasing cadre of enraged bigots misled by blatantly-false information, but who are absolutely immune to facts contrary to their beliefs. This is becoming the reality of the world we live in.

Perfect examples of this, look at how the BLM movement grew with cases like Treyvon and Michael Brown. Facts got tossed out the window, the mob was assembled and away we go.

The internet is the perfect echo chamber, it allows people to selectively hear and read only the things they already believe or agree with, reinforcing those beliefs.

Like everyone else, I have my own biases and perspective, so I make it a point to get much of my news from sources that are not usually aligned with my point of view.

The question is, what can be done about it?

Nothing. Short of forcing people to consume content they don't want, in this age of social media and 24/7 unfiltered news availability on the internet, people will generally choose to hear and see stuff that confirms what they think, and you can't change that. Even worse, apparently once an idea takes hold, contrary evidence not only doesn't make a dent, it actually entrenches many people in their (false) position even more.

 

[Vic]

And it didn't take long for a troll to show up and sidetrack the discussion with misinformation.

 

[Vic]

Anyway, the solution is to educate people on the importance of critical thinking and on the very real dangers, to themselves, of accepting information based upon personal biases and making decisions accordingly.
Or as Stevie Wonder so excellently put it, "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer."

 

[nakedfrog]

Well, the backfire effect is already known and documented.

 

[Cozarkian]

I'd say Fareed Zakaria has a strong case of libel.

 

[PokerGuy]

And it didn't long for a troll to show up and sidetrack the discussion with misinformation.

Yep, post 3.

 

[Vic]

Yep, post 3.

Your citing of highly controversial topics unrelated to the discussion at hand was a clear-cut example of trolling. This isn't about your false equivalencies.
And yes, there is a way to encourage people to adopt evidence-based critical thinking skills and that is by demonstrating the benefit they themselves will derive from such.
No one has ever gotten rich or become happy from believing in and spreading lies. Distortion of the truth leads to poor decision-making with real world negative consequences. And you can see this effect in social media by the obvious unhappiness demonstrated by those who engage in the activities described here. "Weeping and gnashing of teeth" indeed.

 

[zinfamous]

I'd say Fareed Zakaria has a strong case of libel.

I imagine that would be difficult?

The actual "news" came from a satire piece that was obviously meant as satire. The problem happened when places like Brietbart (or wherever it was) reported this as real news, and the dimwit sphere took off.

I would think that Brietbart, et al could claim that they did not originate anything?

 

[1prophet]

I just read a article by Fareed Zakaria about a study that found that falsehoods initiated by trolls quickly become stubbornly false beliefs, and how he was a victim of this phenomenon.

We on ATPN often accuse each other of being immune to the facts, but I do feel that most of us here make at least some effort to check information by using reputable sources. Frighteningly, however, it's apparently quite easy to stir up the prejudices (and anger) of many, many people by simply posting outrageous falsehoods that reinforce those prejudices.



Just think of the implication of a rapidly increasing cadre of enraged bigots misled by blatantly-false information, but who are absolutely immune to facts contrary to their beliefs. This is becoming the reality of the world we live in.

The question is, what can be done about it?

STOP COVERING UP AND BLAMING VICTIMS, and you will stop feeding and empowering the lunatics on the right fringe.

German Mayor Says Women Should Stand Away From Strangers To Avoid Being Attacked

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/henriette-reker-cologne-attacks_568e3723e4b0c8beacf5c164

The mayor of a German city where scores of women were allegedly threatened or assaulted on New Year's Eve is facing criticism for comments she made about the attacks.
According to the Guardian, Cologne Mayor Henriette Reker said women should avoid standing too close to strangers or traveling alone to avoid being assaulted.

This is a textbook case of an Islamic Apologist throwing all the progress women have made under the bus and then you pretend liberals wonder why the right wing types become more popular.

 

[crashtech]

Why is this being discussed as if was a new phenomenon? Stating a lie as fact is just the most perfidious form of propaganda. It's been going on for much of recorded history, but it got its first real boost once printing presses become more common. But with digital media, it's become ubiquitous at last.

 

[PokerGuy]

Your citing of highly controversial topics unrelated to the discussion at hand was a clear-cut example of trolling. This isn't about your false equivalencies.

Baloney, it's a highly on-topic example of how that echo chamber works, a very good example of how an echo chamber effect can lead to crazy outcomes - exactly relating to the article in the OP. Just because you don't like those particular examples doesn't mean they aren't correct.

And yes, there is a way to encourage people to adopt evidence-based critical thinking skills and that is by demonstrating the benefit they themselves will derive from such.

I'm highly skeptical of that. I suspect that such critical thinking skills are rarely a function of teaching. Those skills can be refined, but I don't think they can realistically be taught on a large scale.

No one has ever gotten rich or become happy from believing in and spreading lies.

Where do you get this drivel? Plenty of people have gotten plenty rich off lies.

The point is, before the internet and social media, people got their news mostly from sources that had to serve the general population so they couldn't be too heavily (or completely) skewed on one side or another. They were somewhat forced to hear more than just their echo chamber. That has changed now, people can very easily sit in their own echo chamber, and it shows -- the "middle ground" seems to be dying, with less crossover and less willingness to listen to the "other side".

 

[PokerGuy]

Why is this being discussed as if was a new phenomenon? Stating a lie as fact is just the most perfidious form of propaganda. It's been going on for much of recorded history, but it got its first real boost once printing presses become more common. But with digital media, it's become ubiquitous at last.

I think that's the key change. Stating a lie (and doing it often enough) is a very powerful form of propaganda and always has been... but it's gotten whole new levels now that people can easily restrict their worldview and feedback to those beliefs they agree with.

I personally don't see how that trend is going to change, I think further polarization will continue, not just in politics, but in pretty much every facet of life.

 

[Vic]

The Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin cases included misinformation on both sides. To claim that the misinformation occurred on only one side is a disingenuous false equivalence at best.
And the people who make money spreading lies do not believe in those lies themselves.
I do agree that the middle ground is dying, but continue to assert that radicalism and extremism, that sitting in one's own echo chamber, comes with its own very real negative consequences. Which will eventually self-correct the problem, but not before a lot of damage is done.

 

[ivwshane]

I think that's the key change. Stating a lie (and doing it often enough) is a very powerful form of propaganda and always has been... but it's gotten whole new levels now that people can easily restrict their worldview and feedback to those beliefs they agree with.

I personally don't see how that trend is going to change, I think further polarization will continue, not just in politics, but in pretty much every facet of life.

Yep! I've tried many techniques but the only one that can be considered even remotely successful is shamming. Unfortunately that doesn't make people smarter or realize the errors in their thinking, instead it simply shuts them up and they crawl back into the hole they came from.

 

[HumblePie]

I just read a article by Fareed Zakaria about a study that found that falsehoods initiated by trolls quickly become stubbornly false beliefs, and how he was a victim of this phenomenon.

We on ATPN often accuse each other of being immune to the facts, but I do feel that most of us here make at least some effort to check information by using reputable sources. Frighteningly, however, it's apparently quite easy to stir up the prejudices (and anger) of many, many people by simply posting outrageous falsehoods that reinforce those prejudices.



Just think of the implication of a rapidly increasing cadre of enraged bigots misled by blatantly-false information, but who are absolutely immune to facts contrary to their beliefs. This is becoming the reality of the world we live in.

The question is, what can be done about it?

Welcome to the world of Religion and wars since the start of humanity on this planet.

 

[Vic]

I think that's the key change. Stating a lie (and doing it often enough) is a very powerful form of propaganda and always has been... but it's gotten whole new levels now that people can easily restrict their worldview and feedback to those beliefs they agree with.

I personally don't see how that trend is going to change, I think further polarization will continue, not just in politics, but in pretty much every facet of life.

Unless people take active steps to think critically and find middle ground among themselves, the polarization will continue until it escalates into mass violence. Watch as those cynically spreading the lies increase their investments in such an outcome.

 

[Moonbeam]

Baloney, it's a highly on-topic example of how that echo chamber works, a very good example of how an echo chamber effect can lead to crazy outcomes - exactly relating to the article in the OP. Just because you don't like those particular examples doesn't mean they aren't correct.



I'm highly skeptical of that. I suspect that such critical thinking skills are rarely a function of teaching. Those skills can be refined, but I don't think they can realistically be taught on a large scale.



Where do you get this drivel? Plenty of people have gotten plenty rich off lies.

The point is, before the internet and social media, people got their news mostly from sources that had to serve the general population so they couldn't be too heavily (or completely) skewed on one side or another. They were somewhat forced to hear more than just their echo chamber. That has changed now, people can very easily sit in their own echo chamber, and it shows -- the "middle ground" seems to be dying, with less crossover and less willingness to listen to the "other side".

I believe that the truth is always some third way regarding, what I would call your conservative and Vic's more liberal interpretation of what is happening here. I think the opposite truths both of you advance integrate at a different level of understanding.

You see that people who lie and bear false witness can and do profit from doing so and Vic says it damages them to do this. Both can't be true, it would appear unless you have additional insight into this matter, namely, in my opinion, that the harm people do to themselves by lying isn't something they consciously recognize. People who cut in line, say, get in before people who were polite and waited. They succeed in achieving their aim. What they do not see is that this behavior is characteristic of people who have large egos, who place their self interest above others. They are unaware of the price they pay for this because they do not know the vastly superior quality of life people have who have self respect.

So one may win from one's personal perspective while at the same time existing in a life that's not worth living.

The answer to shira's question, then, is that the answer to the problem of trolls who lie is real conscious awareness, the understanding and practice of all of the methodologies that promote real self love and cure the damages of self hate. No person who has love for himself would ever want to intentionally harm another.

 

[Vic]

The person who cuts in line lives in constant fear that someone else will do the same to them. Even a sociopath will still expect others to be as evil as they are, and will suffer accordingly.
You see this a lot on social media when people express their fears of what others might do. Oftentimes, they're really telling you what they would do if they thought they could get away with it.

 

[crashtech]

A woman I once worked under once accused me of stealing. I left the company, but later it turned out that she was embezzling.

 

[Jaskalas]

The question is, what can be done about it?

There are laws against libel and slander. The original host of that information should be brought under charges for their crimes.

 

[Moonbeam]

The person who cuts in line lives in constant fear that someone else will do the same to them. Even a sociopath will still expect others to be as evil as they are, and will suffer accordingly.
You see this a lot on social media when people express their fears of what others might do. Oftentimes, they're really telling you what they would do if they thought they could get away with it.

Of course. They live inferior lives but they don't know it because they have nothing to compare their state to. They really do believe, as you say, that others are just like them. Nobody would be that way if they consciously knew the costs. Nobody would ever trade self respect for a place in line if they had self respect.

 

[shira]

There are laws against libel and slander. The original host of that information should be brought under charges for their crimes.

As has already been pointed out, the originator of the mis-information was engaging in obvious satire. But when it was repeated by a right-wing website, it was stripped of its satirical context and accepted as reality by those who read it, and then re-repeated, and then re-believed and re-re-repeated, ad-nauseum by the clueless, confirmation-biased hoards. So who would Zakaria sue?

 

[elitejp]

I'd say Fareed Zakaria has a strong case of libel.

I would hope so. The site should be more specific in that it is a satire piece. Like having satire in big red letters across the top of the page. I never read "the onion" and didn't hear about it until they named north Korea's leader as the most handsome man in the world or something like that and then it got a few laughs from other media. But if other news agencies and forums started to pick up that story and run with it i would think it would be easy for most people to take it as real.

 

[Aegeon]

As has already been pointed out, the originator of the mis-information was engaging in obvious satire. But when it was repeated by a right-wing website, it was apparently stripped of its satirical character and accepted as reality, and then re-repeated, and then re-believed and re-re-repeated, ad-nauseum by the clueless, confirmation-biased hoards. So who would Zakaria sue?

Since the right-wing website apparently reported it as straight news, they would be the potential target of a lawsuit. Basically the website should have been able to easily determine that the original news story was satirical and should have properly checked before posting the story. (Assuming for the moment the website didn't intentionally alter the story in a way designed to hide the fact it was originally satire.) You don't need to prove someone knew a story was false to successfully sue them for libel, you just need to prove they should have known better given the evidence and they were therefore negligent.

Having said this, Zakaria still has to decide if he wants to go through the aggravation of a lawsuit, especially given reporters generally don't like the idea of libel lawsuits at all given they are the ones who ordinarily have to worry about possibly ending up targets of them.