Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds. In 1975, researchers at Stanford invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study about suicide.
They were presented with pairs of suicide notes. In each pair, one note had been composed by a random individual, the other by a person who had subsequently taken his own life. The students were then asked to distinguish between the genuine notes and the fake ones. Peut-on répondre à la désinformation ? Depuis l’élection de Trump (voir nos deux précédents articles : « Trump : les 5 échecs des nouvelles technologies » et « Facebook, une entreprise politique ?
»), la question de la propagation de fausses informations semble révéler d’une véritable crise de confiance dans notre système médiatique et politique, comme l’expliquait récemment le chercheur en science de l’information Olivier Ertzscheid. De partout, les esprits s’agitent pour tenter de trouver des réponses. Eli Pariser, celui qui a imaginé le concept de « bulles de filtres » tant mis en question ces dernières semaines, a ouvert un Google Doc pour recueillir des solutions. Le document fait désormais plus de 100 pages et Nicky Woolf, pour le Guardian, a tenté d’en faire la synthèse. Des solutions… concrètes ? Mieux comprendre la diffusion de la désinformation Si, comme nous le disions, Google et Facebook ont annoncé des premières mesures pour lutter contre la désinformation, reste encore à s’assurer de la réalité du problème.
Did Media Literacy Backfire? – Data & Society: Points. Anxious about the widespread consumption and spread of propaganda and fake news during this year’s election cycle, many progressives are calling for an increased commitment to media literacy programs.
Others are clamoring for solutions that focus on expert fact-checking and labeling. Both of these approaches are likely to fail — not because they are bad ideas, but because they fail to take into consideration the cultural context of information consumption that we’ve created over the last thirty years. The problem on our hands is a lot bigger than most folks appreciate. Why are some of us better at handling contradictory information than others? – Research Digest. Take the time and effort to correct misinformation. With the election of Donald Trump, his appointment of advisers who are on record as dismissing scientific evidence, and the emboldening of deniers on everything from climate change to vaccinations, the amount of nonsense written about science on the Internet (and elsewhere) seems set to rise.
Post-truth and information literacy. CC0, Public Domain So there’s this phrase being bandied about: “post-truth.”
As in, we live in a “post-truth era.” Popular use of the phrase is over a decade old, but its recent ascendancy lead The Oxford English Dictionary to name it Word of the Year for 2016; here’s the OED definition: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. I mean, we’re at the point where Trump supporters racists are literally saying that “there’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore of facts.” Armchair political scientists and ersatz media commentators are having a field day using post-truth politics to explain everything from contemporary political discourse to Brexit to identity politics to the rise of neo-Nazism to the presidential election and everything in between.
Bursting the Filter Bubble: Pro-Truth Librarians in a Post-Truth World. Guest post by Claire McGuinness, assistant professor in the School of Information & Communication Studies, UCD.Claire has a long-held interest in information and digital literacies, new media, and the role of the teaching librarian.
In this post, she examines filter bubbles, fake news and the effect of social media in the “post-truth society” and asks whether librarians have a responsibility to their users and students to point out where the line between fact and fiction has been blurred. Depending on your perspective, the social media chickens have been either coming home to roost, or learning to soar recently. For information professionals, these are fascinating times. All of these issues have inevitably turned the spotlight towards the social media companies, and what their role should be.
Google, democracy and the truth about internet search. Reuters built a bot that can identify real news on Twitter. The Bin-Laden raid, the Boston Marathon bombing, Scully’s life-saving landing on the Hudson.
News often hits Twitter well before the mainstream media has a chance to catch up. In fact, according to Reuters’ internal research, about 20 percent of all news breaks on Twitter first. Emancipating Users Against Algorithmic Biases for a Trusted Digital Economy. CITIZEN EVIDENCE LAB - Amnesty International. How technology disrupted. One Monday morning last September, Britain woke to a depraved news story.
The prime minister, David Cameron, had committed an “obscene act with a dead pig’s head”, according to the Daily Mail. The pedlars of fake news are corroding democracy. The most interesting question about 2016 is not why the Brexit result and Trump happened, but whether historians will regard both as incidental; whether this will go down as the year democracy revealed itself unworkable in the age of the internet – in which reality, already engaged in a life-or-death struggle with inverted commas, finally gave way to “alt-reality”.
The results of these votes were shocking, but not surprising. The rules of capitalism have been gamed by the ruling kleptocracy and a lot of working people are angry.