I found this to be fascinating. As we come closer to the midterms here in the US, I expect we'll see a lot more of this. I was only able to tell the difference by closely examining each, but to be...
I found this to be fascinating. As we come closer to the midterms here in the US, I expect we'll see a lot more of this. I was only able to tell the difference by closely examining each, but to be honest I would rarely do that otherwise.
I managed to get them all right, but I don't think I could have done as well in isolation. Being able to compare two posts and knowing for certain that one is fake is very different than looking...
I managed to get them all right, but I don't think I could have done as well in isolation. Being able to compare two posts and knowing for certain that one is fake is very different than looking at a single post and deciding whether it's real or not. Take the Mindful Being post-- I assumed that an image post with no added text was fake, especially when compared to a post with grammatically correct text, but legit pages share image-only posts all the time. The real feminist page's post was basically just a meme.
I guessed only 1 out of 4 correctly. However, in fairness, it's very unlikely that we'll need to assess one single post out of context. To see these posts at all, you would have to follow the...
I guessed only 1 out of 4 correctly. However, in fairness, it's very unlikely that we'll need to assess one single post out of context. To see these posts at all, you would have to follow the relevant page - in which case, you would see a series of posts like these over time. It might be easier to pick up a pattern in that case.
If social media companies won't do the least they could, like verifying source IPs being within the nation where accounts are created, we're kind of on our own. I guess that too much time spent...
If social media companies won't do the least they could, like verifying source IPs being within the nation where accounts are created, we're kind of on our own.
I guess that too much time spent building spam filters was something of a training assist, but I didn't have much trouble spotting the influence campaigns.
As mentioned elsewhere, we need some better guidelines for information hygiene, and here are mine.
Be suspicious of anything that agrees too well with your preferred viewpoint, especially if it's crafted to appeal to emotion and preexisting prejudices.
Look at the whole picture before trusting the source - is all their content low-information emotional appeals?
Does the source respond directly to inquiries and comments, in a manner that confirms their purported identity, or do they just mechanically post stuff?
Are you suddenly seeing their memes everywhere, to the exclusion of the content your friends usually post?
Look for the usual tells of a non-native speaker - missing or excessive articles/plurals, erratic punctuation, weird declensions, etc. If you're just glancing, they can be missed, but will usually appear consistently across posts.
This is a really good punch list! I guess building spam filters paid off. The other thing I noticed is that the fake posts are divisive to the point of inciting revolution/rioting (which you touch...
This is a really good punch list! I guess building spam filters paid off.
The other thing I noticed is that the fake posts are divisive to the point of inciting revolution/rioting (which you touch upon on your 1st and 2nd point).
I got them all right too, but I think I probably did better because I don't use facebook or any site that uses ads like that. I think most of us look more closely at unfamiliar things, so if I...
I got them all right too, but I think I probably did better because I don't use facebook or any site that uses ads like that. I think most of us look more closely at unfamiliar things, so if I were accustomed to seeing those sorts of ads all the time, it's likely that I'd look less closely at them.
As much as there have been many fake accounts and pages on Twitter and Facebook, it is somewhat startling to see the amount of evidence needed for Facebook to take down a page. Like for the...
As much as there have been many fake accounts and pages on Twitter and Facebook, it is somewhat startling to see the amount of evidence needed for Facebook to take down a page.
Like for the healthy living page mentioned in the article, all it took was a copy and pasted quote. That's not to say it isn't a page building a reputation before fully using its influence, but it could be someone genuinely saying their opinion. Not even an opinion I remotely agree with, but one nonetheless.
Social media sites are private companies and so completely reserve the right to allow or prohibit whichever posts they choose, though censorship based upon the use of the English language and plagarized quotations aren't very solid evidence for foreign manipulation.
This stuff scares me as it should everyone, but I hope at least some people are learning critical thinking from this and reviewing and critiquing their news sources.
I found this to be fascinating. As we come closer to the midterms here in the US, I expect we'll see a lot more of this. I was only able to tell the difference by closely examining each, but to be honest I would rarely do that otherwise.
I managed to get them all right, but I don't think I could have done as well in isolation. Being able to compare two posts and knowing for certain that one is fake is very different than looking at a single post and deciding whether it's real or not. Take the Mindful Being post-- I assumed that an image post with no added text was fake, especially when compared to a post with grammatically correct text, but legit pages share image-only posts all the time. The real feminist page's post was basically just a meme.
I guessed only 1 out of 4 correctly. However, in fairness, it's very unlikely that we'll need to assess one single post out of context. To see these posts at all, you would have to follow the relevant page - in which case, you would see a series of posts like these over time. It might be easier to pick up a pattern in that case.
If social media companies won't do the least they could, like verifying source IPs being within the nation where accounts are created, we're kind of on our own.
I guess that too much time spent building spam filters was something of a training assist, but I didn't have much trouble spotting the influence campaigns.
As mentioned elsewhere, we need some better guidelines for information hygiene, and here are mine.
This is a really good punch list! I guess building spam filters paid off.
The other thing I noticed is that the fake posts are divisive to the point of inciting revolution/rioting (which you touch upon on your 1st and 2nd point).
I got them all right too, but I think I probably did better because I don't use facebook or any site that uses ads like that. I think most of us look more closely at unfamiliar things, so if I were accustomed to seeing those sorts of ads all the time, it's likely that I'd look less closely at them.
As much as there have been many fake accounts and pages on Twitter and Facebook, it is somewhat startling to see the amount of evidence needed for Facebook to take down a page.
Like for the healthy living page mentioned in the article, all it took was a copy and pasted quote. That's not to say it isn't a page building a reputation before fully using its influence, but it could be someone genuinely saying their opinion. Not even an opinion I remotely agree with, but one nonetheless.
Social media sites are private companies and so completely reserve the right to allow or prohibit whichever posts they choose, though censorship based upon the use of the English language and plagarized quotations aren't very solid evidence for foreign manipulation.
This stuff scares me as it should everyone, but I hope at least some people are learning critical thinking from this and reviewing and critiquing their news sources.