[ceilingcorner]

Sorry but unless you provide actual links to so-called misinformation, I’m going to assume that this is either overexaggerated or labeling anything against Western values as disinformation.

Especially when it is described as ”This industry’s main goal is to sway public opinion during elections and protests” which is different than every other media organization how, exactly?

[didibus]

I think you're missing the point, as a Twitter user, do you expect other users to be paid money to post and retweet things that they were told to post and retweet by some patron? Do you expect to be baited by some fake account that is sold to the best bidder for amplification? And do you expect the recommendations and trending to be full of manipulated content that actually all come from a single source of coordinated promotion?

It doesn't really matter what the messages in those are, it could be wishing everyone a good day, it is still disinformation, because it is trying to masquerade itself as a popular opinion on Twitter, and as being a real representation of real people's personal opinion that they hold so strongly they are willing to be actively expressing it publicly on Twitter.

To me, this amounts to fraud, and Twitter has a huge problem with this stuff. It's similar in nature to fraud on Amazon with fake reviews, and with selling aftermarket goods and fake brands.

[Applejinx]

As a twitter user, you'd damn well better expect all this.

The difference between this revolution in social media influencing, and previous revolutions in social media influencing seized and used for fascism such as the use of new radio preceding WWII, is this:

With radio, you were told things by a trusted stranger and believed them because it was on the radio and, thus, news.

Now, you are told things by what is apparently the personal friend of your personal friend, 'privately'. And you believe them because it is real. Your friend said so. Sort of.

It's an advance in propaganda technology for SURE. I don't know where it goes, but it's not like humanity hasn't had to weather this sort of thing before. The parallels are completely obvious, historically. It is nothing more than recontextualizing how to get information past critical questioning, and it's just as effective as the first radio was in its day.

[didibus]

So Twitter should do nothing about it and even make it easier for people to sign up to be for-hire parrots ? And we just all stop complaining about it ?

[Applejinx]

Twitter doing nothing about it and making it easy for people to sign up to be sockpuppets is part of what defines what it is to be Twitter. It's maximizing for a certain kind of thing.

Facebook has strongly different intentions: it is aggressive about wanting to tie single identifiable accounts to single identifiable real people, and wouldn't like the Twitter-nature one bit. Facebook's purpose is to do that, and then make it easier for people to pay money to propagandize exactly whatever people you can define as most vulnerable, for any reason you like, no questions asked. That's Facebook-nature. You can be pretty sure an individual person there is a single, real actual human, and also that you can sell preselected groups of them on anything you want them to believe.

I like that people are complaining about it, don't get me wrong. I think it's pretty clear at what point all this becomes a problem: if it isn't clear already, it will become clearer within ten years, guaranteed, and humanity may or may not survive the result. Complaining is GOOD.

I'm just saying, the reason these social media giants are as huge as they are IS because of their natures. Twitter will not go against Twitter-nature. Facebook will not go against Facebook-nature.

[ceilingcorner]

to be paid money to post and retweet things that they were told to post and retweet by some patron?

What do you think the network of “real media” is?

[didibus]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, what is happening on Twitter is fraud and disinformation for-hire. That seems factually true.

We can talk about traditional media on an article that discuss traditional media maybe?

[ceilingcorner]

The entire premise of “misinformation” is that a true media exists which gives accurate information, as opposed to the army of people out to nefariously influence the public. I’m simply suggesting that there is fundamentally no difference.

[didibus]

Ah, I can see why you'd think that, unfortunately it's not the right understanding in this context.

The definition of disinformation is:

> False information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.

And the definition of misinformation is:

> False or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.

As you can see, the definitions aren't relative to some other piece of information. It doesn't mean that some information is incorrect based on some other source of acknowledged correct information.

It means that the intent of the information you were given was to deceive and mislead you, and that the information was thus specifically crafted in a way to do so, generally by being false, inaccurate, cherry picked, fabricated, or manipulated in some way.

In this case, you can see that there are some wealthy people who want to propagate some information in order to mislead people, the deceiving part is that they are not transparent about who they are, and they want to make it look like the information is coming from influencers as part of their own volition, and that the belief is held by a lot of people through trying to manipulate the Twitter recommendations and trending algorithms, making it look like the content is more popular than it really is.

The validity of the content of the tweets doesn't even matter, the misinformation is in the misleading lineage of who is really behind the tweets and what their agenda is, and the false representation of how popular the content is.

[curryst]

Some media organizations focus on spreading information. I would say NPR focuses on that. They're not infallible, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes they miss an angle, but I get the sense that they're truly more interested in spreading information than spreading opinion.

Wikipedia as well. Other people try to use Wikipedia to sway public opinion, but Wikipedia itself seems rather opposed to articles designed for that.

Reuters seems to do some solid work as well. I don't usually get a heavy spin vibe from them, but maybe it's an international spin that I'm not in on.

[uniqueuid]

The whole disinformation question is very complicated, but this particular question is very easy.

Media are legitimate influences on public opinion with accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices.

Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence on public opinion by hidden actors without accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices.

[edit] Perhaps I should say what I mean by legitimate. Legitimate here means: Society agreed to allow media to exist in the form that they do, by creating laws in support and by refraining from creating laws that would prevent them. As long as there is no political consensus and/or riots which would fundamentally undermine the media's standing, they benefit from a special role (and are held to that standard).

[ceilingcorner]

accountability, transparency and formal ethics codices

Are you seeing much of this lately? Lately as in the last 40 years? I certainly am not.

[uniqueuid]

Disclaimer: I study this stuff as a scientist.

Yes accountability especially in the US is lacking. But there is some, there are formal ethical codices (i.e. see NPR's https://www.npr.org/ethics), there is proper journalism training (see e.g. the Annenberg schools).

If you compare the US media to other nations, and especially if you look at them historically, they have been pretty good at this.

I'd argue that your standards are probably too high. Accountability is a shitshow and virtually nonexistent across the globe. It's a darn lucky situation if you even have some.

[edit due to reply limit]: Of course NPR is biased, what do you expect? There is no neutrality in things that human believe. The difference is having public guidelines, committing to them and listening to criticism That's accountability.

[jwond]

> But there is some, there are formal ethical codices (i.e. see NPR's https://www.npr.org/ethics), there is proper journalism training (see e.g. the Annenberg schools).

Publishing a code of ethics means absolutely nothing if it is not followed.

For example, NPR’s code of ethics says “We know that truth is not possible without the active pursuit of a diversity of voices, especially those most at risk of being left out.” and “In all our stories, especially matters of controversy, we strive to consider the strongest arguments we can find on all sides, seeking to deliver both nuance and clarity.”

but just recently they had a segment where they spent an hour trashing free speech without a single person to argue in favor of free speech. So much for “diversity of voices.”

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/npr-trashes-free-speech-a-brie...

> I'd argue that your standards are probably too high. Accountability is a shitshow and virtually nonexistent across the globe. It's a darn lucky situation if you even have some.

I’d argue your standards are too low. Just because things are worse elsewhere doesn’t mean we should be content that things aren’t quite as bad here.

[ceilingcorner]

NPR is just as biased and deliberately misleading as any other organization. The fact that they have a link on their website is not much proof of anything.

Replying to your edit: well, that is my point. They are all biased. This idea that having a public code of conduct means anything is nonsense.

When’s the last time a mainstream media organization was held accountable for anything? Even the people that helped sell the WMD lie are still in positions of power.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/iraq...

The reality of the situation is that there are no meaningful standards of conduct and everyone is biased. Legacy brands with elite clout are no different.

[uniqueuid]

I'm sorry that you are downvoted, because your perception is pretty common and not completely wrong.

There are many well-documented cases where accountability failed, and brilliant people have written about it (Chomsky, Lippmann etc.).

But - and this is really important - it's not helpful to cynically assume that either everything is OK or that there is no accountability/meaning/use at all.

All of the important things in society (discussions, getting along, identification of problems, negotiating solutions) are not a state, but a process. There is accountability, but only as much as citizens and institutions manage to produce. Go ahead and help (constructively)!

The alternative to politics is (civil) war, the alternative to free media is basically the middle ages.

[ceilingcorner]

I wouldn’t say I am cynical, merely realistic. In my opinion, it is a fool’s errand to think that accountability or unbiased news is even a possibility. It goes against the nature of the thing. An unbiased media has never been the case and never will be. Full stop.

Thus it is better to recognize that no single entity will ever be truly honest and to instead read a variety of sources and come to your own conclusions.

[Applejinx]

There is also the societal expectation that, just because a mainstream media news source asserts something, it may possibly not be 100% authentic. Never mind the direction that doubt can lead you: there's a trace of skepticism.

What's going on (by now, obviously) with Twitter and Facebook and all, is that they are a vector for bypassing skepticism, by delivering information purportedly from your personal friend who is personally trusted.

Still no neutrality, but if you can make a web of propaganda through people who are believing things their apparent 'friends' (through various signifiers) are saying, and coordinate that, you can propagandize WAY more effectively than through mainstream media.

And that's what's happening. Everywhere.

[pueblito]

You found it ok to go around the sites rules (as enforced by the reply limit) by editing to reply. You’re breaking the rules to influence others to your opinions, and you study people breaking the rules to influence others to their opinions.

[uniqueuid]

Thanks for pointing out the irony!

This is actually a great example:

- I broke the rules (code as law), but was transparent about it

- You held me accountable

- Others can read our exchange and adjust their trust (in me in particular)

That's a good outcome, I guess!

[busterarm]

Aye. Journalism is activism now.

[AbrahamParangi]

Fascinating to see this framed as "legitimate" and "illegitimate" vs true and false. I wonder how much disagreement on the topic comes from the distinctions in these meanings.

[uniqueuid]

Well, true and false are practically unusable concepts outside of (and sometimes even in) courts.

My use of (il-)legitimate ties to the legal framework, which means I don't need to take a normative (=subjective) position - I'm only describing the state of the rules and the mechanisms at play.

You can also use economic terms if you want: Illegitimate manipulation of public opinion doesn't pay (the platforms), advertisements as legitimate manipulation of public opinion pays (the platforms).

[AbrahamParangi]

As a corollary, I wonder just how much disagreement is actually "objective truth exists" vs "objective truth does not exist", repackaged.

[denton-scratch]

> Media are legitimate influences

> Disinformation is illegitimate (i.e. illegal) influence

So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex?

> Society agreed to allow media to exist

"Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it.

> (and are held to that standard)

Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.

[uniqueuid]

> So hopefully there's a space in-between: is it still legitimate (or legal) for me as an individual to influence people, or does that count as disinformation? Is it because I don't possess a codex?

Of course, the laws and norms governing individuals are different from the laws and norms governing institutions, companies, parties etc.

> "Society" was actually never asked. In liberal democracies, you don't have to ask permission to publish something. Anyone is allowed to do it.

Right, let me be more precise: Society, through its existing mechanisms of decision-making, decided to draft and ratify laws that ...

> Goodness, can you really be talking about "mainstream" media? I don't see anyone holding them to any standard.

Well, the US model is that of the "marketplace of opinions", so the assumption is that there is mutual holding accountable. But you can also count the times that citizens and politicians critique "the media", and I'd say there is pretty much holding accountable going on! :)

[denton-scratch]

In the "marketplace of opinions", everyone is automatically accountable. So accountability should be deleted from your list of features that distinguish disinformation.

[uniqueuid]

Only if they are communicating with some identifier!

If someone poses as other people (which these campaigns do), accountability becomes impossible because normal users cannot tell who said what.