gotsnowgotslush
skates like Eck
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Posts
- 25,720
Washington Post writer Caitlin Dewey has spent the last 82 weeks scouring the web through insane ideas from famous quotes that people never said to absurd medical claims for her column “What Was Fake.” She’s over it.
rawstory.com
"In the past 82 weeks, I’m prettyyyy sure I’ve seen just about everything."
We launched “What was Fake” in May 2014 in response to what seemed, at the time, like an epidemic of urban legends and Internet pranks: light-hearted, silly things, for the most part, like new flavors of Oreos and babies with absurd names.
(sourced from the article
The Intersect
What was fake on the Internet this week: Why this is the final column
thanks to the Washington Post)
Needless to say, there are also more complicated, non-economic reasons for the change on the Internet hoax beat. For evidence, just look at some of the viral stories we’ve debunked in recent weeks: American Muslims rallying for ISIS, for instance, or Syrians invading New Orleans. Those items didn’t even come from outright fake-news sites: They originated with partisan bloggers who know how easy it is to profit off fear-mongering.
Frankly, this column wasn’t designed to address the current environment. This format doesn’t make sense. I’ve spoken to several researchers and academics about this lately, because it’s started to feel a little pointless. Walter Quattrociocchi, the head of the Laboratory of Computational Social Science at IMT Lucca in Italy, has spent several years studying how conspiracy theories and misinformation spread online, and he confirmed some of my fears: Essentially, he explained, institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.
"What Was Fake" has had a good run, but the nature of Internet misinformation has changed — so as the year winds up, we’re going to change, as well. Thanks for reading over the past year and a half! And remember: If in doubt about a news item on an unfamiliar source, please click the “about” or “disclaimer” tab.
Complete article at this link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ernet-this-week-why-this-is-the-final-column/
gsgs comment
Snopes is still debunking.
/end gsgs comment
"Immune to facts."
rawstory.com
"In the past 82 weeks, I’m prettyyyy sure I’ve seen just about everything."
We launched “What was Fake” in May 2014 in response to what seemed, at the time, like an epidemic of urban legends and Internet pranks: light-hearted, silly things, for the most part, like new flavors of Oreos and babies with absurd names.
(sourced from the article
The Intersect
What was fake on the Internet this week: Why this is the final column
thanks to the Washington Post)
Needless to say, there are also more complicated, non-economic reasons for the change on the Internet hoax beat. For evidence, just look at some of the viral stories we’ve debunked in recent weeks: American Muslims rallying for ISIS, for instance, or Syrians invading New Orleans. Those items didn’t even come from outright fake-news sites: They originated with partisan bloggers who know how easy it is to profit off fear-mongering.
Frankly, this column wasn’t designed to address the current environment. This format doesn’t make sense. I’ve spoken to several researchers and academics about this lately, because it’s started to feel a little pointless. Walter Quattrociocchi, the head of the Laboratory of Computational Social Science at IMT Lucca in Italy, has spent several years studying how conspiracy theories and misinformation spread online, and he confirmed some of my fears: Essentially, he explained, institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it’s demonstrably fake.
"What Was Fake" has had a good run, but the nature of Internet misinformation has changed — so as the year winds up, we’re going to change, as well. Thanks for reading over the past year and a half! And remember: If in doubt about a news item on an unfamiliar source, please click the “about” or “disclaimer” tab.
Complete article at this link
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ernet-this-week-why-this-is-the-final-column/
gsgs comment
Snopes is still debunking.
/end gsgs comment
"Immune to facts."
