This thread is permanently archived
According to a new study conducted by researchers at MIT, being corrected online just makes the original posters more toxic and obnoxious.
| '2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.'
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3411764.3445642
| The MIT researchers work is actually a continuation of their study into the effects of social media. This recent experiment started because the team had previously discovered something interesting about how people behave online. "In a recent paper published in Nature, we found that a simple accuracy nudge -- asking people to judge the accuracy of a random headline -- improved the quality of the news they shared afterward (by shifting their attention towards the concept of accuracy)
| "In the current study, we wanted to see whether a similar effect would happen if people who shared false news were directly corrected," the MIT researchers said. "Direct correction could be an even more powerful accuracy prime -- or, it could backfire by making people feel defensive or focusing their attention on social factors (eg embarrassment) rather than accuracy."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03344-2
| The purpose of confronting disinformation spreaders is not to convert the spreader, but to persuade the audience.
That the spreader becomes angry and obnoxious is a good thing because it reduces their credibility.
| Having met and "debated" 3 or 4 actual conspiracy theorists face to face I have found the best weapon is not studies or facts or data, they don't care about that. You just keep asking "who" and "why" after every claim and they will go deeper and deeper until eventually the engine sputters out from lack of fuel. All conspiracy theories will hit several points of contradiction at their core.
| Does this change their minds? Almost certainly never when you are a stranger to them. Only people close to them can ever really turn them around long term.
| Except that's not true buddy
| Is this just an example of bunker mentality/doubling down?
| Ur all wrong
Now, dissolve me!
| Does the study cover the "fact-checking" that FB and Twitter do? Cause I'd rather debate conspiracy theorists than have a social media platform censor shit
| My my, for you people it's all black or white.
It all depends on the approach, tell someone "you're dumb lol, let me explain why" and they won't listen, nothing new.
| >>759653
Private social media platforms don't "cencor". They just make use of their housholder rights based on the EULA their users accepted. You are free to use or even launch platforms that have a different EULA. The monopolistic character of those platforms is a serious problem. But even in a more diverse environment platform providers and users shouldn't be able to spread false information and hate without any restrictions and/or consequences.
| >>759653
BTW: Does the "fact-checking" on those platforms remove the questioned statements? (It's a serious question, since I'm not using them)
| >>a3b768 I did, did you?
1500 twitter replies saying "You're wrong, source" is crap and not a proof.
Not enough data, and the way it's "debunked" is so inept that of course it doesn't convince anyone.
So instead of acting smart, try to think about what you supposedly read.
| https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3411764.3445642
Page 4 and 5 are particularly interesting.
| OP who makes a thread and gets pissed and defensive when people dont like it, nothing /new/ here
| >>759747
Thanks for demonstrating what an obnoxious and toxic post might look like after being corrected.
>>759520
Kinda, but it's always nice to have more hard evidence. I doubt the bunker down mentality was scientifically verified, until now.
| >>759791
Refusing to take bait doesn't make you angry. It's all in you head and you can do better.
| >>759653
Instead of asking people to do it for you, why not read the study and find out by yourself?? Having to explain the article to people is a pain in the ass and discussing it's contents doubly so if the people haven't even read it. What even is the point?
| >>759856 >Refusing to take bait doesn't make you angry
What bait? >>759735 made some complaints about the article and you got pissed and called it bait
| >>759859 >Having to explain the article to people is a pain in the ass and discussing it's contents doubly so
Also >>a3b768 at>>759736
Seemed like you wanted to discuss about the article with someone.
If you do not want to talk about the article why make the thread in the first place?
Or why reply to the people who doubt the validity of said article if they are just a bunch of trolls?
| >>759737
I'm not suprised to see conservatives in the 95% range of toxic low quality content. It's their modus operandi after all, but it's useful to have the scientific empirical evidence to back it up with.
Bookmarked for future uses.
| tbh what actually suprised me was that this thread wasn't filled with toxic, science-denying, low quality shitposting like all the other /new/ threads. It's literally only one single poster trying to stir the pot.
| >>759865
Yeah, it's not very suprising. What I found interesting was that their low quality of content and behaviour stuck around for 24 hours after being corrected.
This means they're very easy to manipulate. All you need is a single fact-check and these people will adopt a mentally unhealthy state of mind for the rest of the day. What a life...
| Its a bit annoying how people nowadays think anyone who doesnt comply to their informataion is a part of a certain group or an -ism, its a pretty toxic attitude that hinders communication yet nobody calls it out, not even the article
| >>759871 OP you've pretty much shut down anyone who questioned or corrected something in this thread, its a not very commendable action if your goal was to spread an article about people becoming more toxic after being confronted, you should look at how you treat others before judging them, reading an article wont make you a better person
| >>759868 allergies have adverse reactions, if he was allergic you could at least make him sneeze like craza, he just cant see any oposing opinions as an opinion, for them its all about what is and isnt their truth with no room for discussion
| >>759873
If you actually bothered to read the article it *clearly* says on page 4 and onward that these Twitter users provided their political stances voluntarily. No amount of hasty stereotyping has been done, besides from yourself that is.
Until you actually read the article we have nothing more to discuss.
| >>759883 but I was not arguing about stereotyping, I was talking about people not giving enough attention to a specifi toxic behaviour, I brought that topic up and used the article as an example of that topic
| >>759892 OP is just too busy screaming at everyone who doesn't agree that they didn't read the article, to actually read what they wrote. Ironic.
| You tried to shut my opinion just because it put the article in a positive context, OP, you are one of the people the artcile talks about
| >>759501 >>759502 >>759653 >>759735
Well,I think the biggest thing is that for conspiracies and other "misinformation" there is a certain emotional element as well. People are hardly rational at all times and we frequently hold conflicting beliefs. Hell, society has so many conflicts in it's manor of which is goes about it is insane. Though most people when you do attack their ideas. It becomes more of a personal attack and as such a emotional reaction follows.
| >>759892
> Its a bit annoying how people nowadays think anyone who doesnt comply to their informataion is a part of a certain group or an -ism
You were stereotyping. Period.
| >>759871
I figured this out ages ago and regularily enjoy myself by putting these miserable haters down. Every time you cite scientific sources or utilize common sense to break down their "arguments" they grow deeper and deeper into their delusions. The best part is it's their percieved enemies who manipulate them into getting stuck in their self-destructive ways. Their enemies are totally in control of their well-being and they'll never truly understand it.
| You were so triggered that you couldnt even notice that >>759892 was being steriotyped, not stereotyping
| >>760175
I kinda get it. It's fun making midia-chan cry. Some people don't have the capacity to handle being corrected without regressing into a low-quality state of being. I think by now every single thread on /new/ is filled with their partisan whiny shitposting and it's no secret that it's a direct consequence of them getting debated into the ground over and over.
| I LOVE MIDIA CHAN
| >MIT
g/u/rl we figured out "dont feed the trolls" like 15 years ago
| Which is why we should focus on creating more joyful experiences with eachother instead of toxic discussion which only benefits the websites they're hosted on.
It's counterintuitive but that and building relationships is the best way to "correct" people long term.
And technically speaking this correct regardless of which lane you're in.
| >>761012
It's very easy to talk ideologically about how people *should* behave towards each other. Trying to talk with someone who doesn't want to listen, refuses every attempt at building relationships, denies basic science and doesn't even recognize your right to exist on the other hand... Easier said than done and not worth the effort imo. They can sink or swim, it doesn't matter to me.
| >>761136 spoken like a true person who only pretends to care about what is right but lashes out in hate to every small signs of differences in opinion.
| >>760191
Imagine refering to yourself as dangeru's "lore"
>>761149
Like you're doing right now? Stop crying you big reactionist baby.
| >>761149
Facts aren't opinions though. What people(you) are attempting is to spread lies and we're not taking the bait, which, scientifically proven, causes you to become whiny, partisian shitposters.
If you had any argument to stand on you wouldn't have had to resort to crying and personal attacks. You would've argumented your point. But you're not doing that because *everyone* knows you don't have anything worthwhile to share about the topic.
| >>761191 says the dude who makes the same thread shiting on the same things and ends lashing out with insuts whenever there is someone who falls out of your narrative.
| God I hate people
| >>a3b768 well that's the great thing about anonymity. You don't have to bring identity into it. You're whatever you partake in or enjoy.
I think one should also understand that no one changed their mind over a twitter rowl. There may be some that like being technically correct and change but are very rare.
Even this board, from a game that flirts with 4chan culture and progressive issues has likely done alot to expose people to certain things in a joyful way.Sck my pp ur wrng:)
| >Imagine being narcisistic enough to think you're part of the dangeru lore
| >>761229
Dude, he's baiting you in order to fuck with your head and you take the bait Every. Single. Time.
| >>761432 the lore part was a joke, as if people care, they will call them midia whoever they feel like but its sorta annoying how they lump people on a group and smear them while ignoring their different opinions, desires and morals
>>761434 I doubt someone would spend time making threads to bait 1 anon
| Probably the commie
| >>761437
Every thread that isn't cynisism, crying or pro-trump gets spammed by screeching edgelords who's sole mission on dangeru seems to be to censor every thread about topics they don't like. Just look at the latest 50 threads or so. *Every single one* follows that formula.
Obviously, posting scientifically validated evidence to explain why they behave the way they do would lure them out of their shadows. I don't think anyone expected this topic would become a serious debate here.
| People who didn't read the article already tried to debunk it 2 posts in, which everyone with half a brain saw coming from a mile away.
| >its sorta annoying how they lump people on a group and smear them while ignoring their different opinions, desires and morals
I have never seen this happen here and it's certainly not a problem worth talking about. If you can back up your statements with facts it doesn't matter if you get smeared or not. Midia-kuns(and other shitposters) "opponents" knows this all to well considering they debate him into the ground every single time despite his efforts to smear, ignore and derail.
| >>761447
>its sorta annoying how they lump people on a group
>Midia-kuns(and other shitposters)
Fuck right outta here
| >>761448
Midia-kun is a shitposter. Why would it upset you to compare him to other people who *behave exactly like him*??
Oh, nevermind! You're one of the crying shitposters I talked about. My bad. Carry on shitposting, good sir!
| >>759496
Some viewpoints are not worthy of serious debate by serious people. Do we need to "look at both sides" of the "debate" on whether the Holocaust happened, or wether the earth is flat? Do we take the views of people like David Irving seriously? Absolutely not. Those people are best ridiculed, ignored for their own good and, in some particularly rare and egregious cases, criminally prosecuted.
| We're not talking about serious people trying to engage in a serious debate, but rather about deliberate, harmful disinformation promulgated by a small number of people acting in bad faith and with intent to cause harm.
| Fact: you cannot distinguish between internet trolls, and people who genuinely believe the bullshit they're posting.
| Fact: trolls want you to engage them, that's how they get their jollies.
| Fact: since the above are both true, society is presented with a quandary: people who actually believe the bullshit they're posting want to silence everyone who disagrees with them (which means their damage is allowed to spread unchecked), but if they're actually trolls, not engaging them is the only way to actually get them to knock it off (they'll get bored and go away if no one responds to them).
| >Obviously, posting scientifically validated evidence to explain why they behave the way they do would lure them out of their shadows. I don't think anyone expected this topic would become a serious debate here.
Having them prove the concept while being completely oblivious to it is... honestly kinda entertaining.
| >>761457 >>761458 >>761459
Fact: you are a retard. Also you are commiegurl and no one agrees with you.
| >>761453 thing is: I am not a shit poster but yall mix me up so much that things said by other people end up being my fault
| >>761457 that seems to be your problem
>>761454 empathy went where? Is it not censorship only when you are th one ridiculing others for their opinion?
If you cant debate their bad takes and opinions then you have no right to determine if they are wrong, pretty simple
| Also >implying you can tell people apart based on writing patterns
i can write like this too and yall wouldnt know who is who so shut up
| >>761448 if you call any shitposters you see midia-kun you are lumping everyone you dislike in one category its not rocket science to see that
| >>761468 oh so if you know not everyone is me, why do you lump everyone in the midia-kun group and tells ME to shut up when I point that out?
| >>761473 well If I mistook you for someone(which I probably did) I am sorry, its an anom board and there is too many green IDs in this thread, so again, sorry
| >>761477 lol I dont even know you irl and I dont like alcohool, if I were to meet all the (probably 7) users in /new/ I would probably end up being the awkward guy who just sits in the corner and watches everyone killing themselves out cuz of dumb internet arguements
This thread is permanently archived
| Basically, the new thinking is that correcting fake news, disinformation, and horrible tweets at all is bad and makes everything worse. This is a "perverse downstream consequence for debunking," and is the exact title of MIT research published in the '2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.' The core takeaway is that "being corrected by another user for posting false political news increases subsequent sharing of low quality, partisan, and toxic content."