Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #bystander22
Most recents (13)
The final keynote of #bystander22 is by @jayvanbavel on "Morality in the Anthropocene".
We evolved in small-scale groups but is now connected in vast, social media network. What are the consequences? 1/17
We evolved in small-scale groups but is now connected in vast, social media network. What are the consequences? 1/17
As EO Wilson noted: "We have paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology". How can we manage our ancient emotions in the modern technology environment? Contrast with Zuckerberg's notion of "moving fast and breaking things". 2/17
57 % of all humans use social media. The average user uses it 2.2 hours per day. On average, 5.7 years of your life will be used on social media. All this has emerged fast. 3/17
At #bystander22 @CecilieTraberg talks about the role of social processes in judgments of misinformation.
Prior research mainly look at headlines & individual traits. Yet, we do not consume info in a social vacuum. We need to bring the social into the study of misinformation. 1/8
Prior research mainly look at headlines & individual traits. Yet, we do not consume info in a social vacuum. We need to bring the social into the study of misinformation. 1/8
Source cues matter hugely according to work on persuasion. Social identity theory also suggest that factors like group membership is key. 2/8
In Study 1, accuracy of fake headlines is rated as well as the slant and credibility of the sources. Is the source linked to the perceived accuracy of the headline? The results show that this is the case. 3/8
At #BYSTANDER22 @rvinsroom presents on whether we can reduce the spread of online misinfo by assigning user reputations that signal credibility.
Spoiler alert: No! But this null-finding is demonstrated using a cool new interactive open-source experimental platform. 1/7
Spoiler alert: No! But this null-finding is demonstrated using a cool new interactive open-source experimental platform. 1/7
A problem is that there are limited consequences of engaging with misinformation. Is it possible to leverage social identity processes? People have a desire to make positive impressions. These impressions can be curated online. 2/7
It is possible to change social media to disincentivize interaction with false news via reputation score systems. An individual will score points by spreading credible info and loss points by doing the opposite. This can create "necessary friction" between people & info. 3/7
At #BYSTANDER22 @A_Marie_sci presents our research on how moralization of rationality increases (!) motivations to share hostile misinformation.
The spread of hostile misinfo is problematic. But would more valuation of rationality help? That is the research question. 1/8
The spread of hostile misinfo is problematic. But would more valuation of rationality help? That is the research question. 1/8
Rationality is often seen as the antidote to misinformation. But many conspiracy theorists talk alot about how they advance "facts", "data", "rationality", "critical thinking" and are not gullible sheeple (like the rest of us). 2/8
Here, we particularly suggest that *moralization* of rationality can be problematic and often may be a form of moral grandstanding. Moral grandstanding is fueled by status-seeking rather than truth-seeking. 3/8
Now keynote at #BYSTANDER22 by @DG_Rand on the problem of misinformation and how polarization might solve the problem.
The key question is: How do we fight misinformation at scale? 1/19
The key question is: How do we fight misinformation at scale? 1/19
Currently, platforms are using technical solutions such as machine learning etc. But there are limits to this solution. These limits often entails that human fact-checkers are brought in. This *does* work. Warning labels limits false news. 2/19
The problem with fact-checking is that it doesn't scale. How can we deal with misinformation at scale?
The solution is to turn towards the wisdom of the crowds (i.e., the finding that aggregations of average people's opinions are often very accurate). 3/19
The solution is to turn towards the wisdom of the crowds (i.e., the finding that aggregations of average people's opinions are often very accurate). 3/19
At #BYSTANDER22 @jrpsau presents our research on how an intervention by @SSTSundhed during the pandemic decreased false news sharing by boosting people's competence in spotting "fake news". 1/5
One intervention often recommended is "accuracy nudges". These assume that people have an intrinsic motivation to be accurate but leave people on their own re: how to spot "fake news".
In risk communication, however, the recommendation is always to give *actionable* advice. 2/5
In risk communication, however, the recommendation is always to give *actionable* advice. 2/5
According to Protection Motivation Theory, actionable advice boosts feelings of competence and efficacy that drives behavior. 3/5
At #BYSTANDER22 @zeaszebeni presents on the profiles of "fake news" believers in Hungary.
Many different factors shape people's beliefs in disinformation. But most research is variable-centered. Here, a *person-centered* approach is used. 1/7
Many different factors shape people's beliefs in disinformation. But most research is variable-centered. Here, a *person-centered* approach is used. 1/7
A person-centered approach focuses on whether different types of disinfo speaks to different people. This approach is here used in the polarized Hungarian context, where the term "fake news" is often used to delegitimize the other side. 2/7
295 participants were recruited. They rated the accuracy of news stories (true and false). Multiple factors related to trust were measured and then cluster analysis was applied. 3/7
At #BYSTANDER22 @Sacha_Altay presents on how effective fact-checking, nudges & literacy is against misinformation.
Many interventions are being tested & have been shown to be effective, but short-lived, in the lab. BUT they do not reflect our info eco-systems. 1/7
Many interventions are being tested & have been shown to be effective, but short-lived, in the lab. BUT they do not reflect our info eco-systems. 1/7
News consumption is low. Unreliable news may be 5 % of their news diet and even less of media diet. People spend more time on porn (!) than news. Political news consumption is even smaller. 2/7
People's false beliefs does not reflect that they are misinformed but because they are uninformed. Enhancing engagement with reliable news is more important than fighting misinfo. 3/7
At #BYSTANDER22 @aqsa_farooq13 presents work on how young people react to peers who shares misinfo.
Young people are massive users of social media but abilities to detect misinfo is limited. Much misinfo research focus on the content of misinfo. But what about the source? 1/7
Young people are massive users of social media but abilities to detect misinfo is limited. Much misinfo research focus on the content of misinfo. But what about the source? 1/7
Development involve multiple factors that can shape kids' reactions to misinfo. Social group membership influence young people's acceptance of information. Info from ingroups is strongly preferred. Rather than seeking accuracy, children may prioritize loyalty. 2/7
Children uses three domains of knowledge in reasoning (cf. Social Domain Theory): Moral, social and personal. Depending on developmental stage, children will prioritize different domains. 3/7
At #Bystander22 @StefSelmer presents on our research on extreme misogyny including violent extremism - and its potential relationship to individual differences in sociosexuality. 1/7
Extreme misogyny and violent extremism is often seen as an extreme face of (parts of) the incel community. Why could there be this link? 2/7
Potentially because of "sociosexual mismatches": That violence emerges from frustrated sexual desires - and extreme misogyny is a reflection of a "revenge strategy" against the women they desire. 3/7
At #BYSTANDER22 @Linn_Sandberg presents on images of muslims in online & legacy news media.
Is attention to muslims greater online than in legacy media? Do representations differ? And are online representations more hostile (supporting the "online hostility thesis") 1/5
Is attention to muslims greater online than in legacy media? Do representations differ? And are online representations more hostile (supporting the "online hostility thesis") 1/5
The data is online and media documents from 8 countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany & Spain. And Word2vec models are used to analyze text and extract similarity scores between "muslim"/"islam" and neighboring terms. 2/5
In most countries (not Denmark) there is more attention to muslims/islam online than in legacy media. In some countries (but not all), more negative words are close to muslim/islam. In online space, however, there is a stronger connection to eg "extremist" and "terrorist". 3/5
At #BYSTANDER22 @CostelloWilliam presents on "modern mating markets" and incels.
Incels are a "subculture who forge a sense of identity around inability to form sexual relationships". A significant minority engage in online hostility and, in extreme cases, violence. 1/7
Incels are a "subculture who forge a sense of identity around inability to form sexual relationships". A significant minority engage in online hostility and, in extreme cases, violence. 1/7
Incels are difficult to study because of the group being cynical of academia. However, 151 self-identified incels were recruited to participate - and a similar number for a control group. 2/7
Incels tend to have a tendency for interpersonal victimhood. This mindset leads to an external locus of control, reflected in "black pill" beliefs: There is nothing incels can do to improve prospects. "It is over". 3/7
First up at #BYSTANDER22: @RebekahKTromble on a trauma-informed approach to support experts facing online harassment. How can journalists and experts take back the Internet? That is the focus of the project "Expert Voices Together". 1/11
"Expert Voices Together" is a "rapid socio-technial response system" that provides supports for journalists & experts that face online harassment. The basis is insights from trauma-informed care. 2/11
The problem? There is a low trust in our info-ecosystem. Those sharing trustworthy info (experts + journalists) are themselves targeted (online insults, stalking, threats etc.). The platforms provide little help, don't make it easy & people feel it doesn't matter. 3/11
