Research by @lkfazio shows that repeating false claims makes people more likely to believe them, even if the false claims contradict knowledge people had before they saw the misinformation
Is there a link between "epistemic motivation" and misinfo? Yep, according to research by @dannagal. Trump supporters are more likely to say they value intuition and emotion as a way to get to truth, and to endorse false info. They're not as swayed by data & evidence.
On TikTok, not a good way to direct people to a source or provide info. @lindsaypjuarez focused on how to prevent exposure & spread of misinformation (avoid repetition). Created a flag that says "caution, this video has been flagged for unverified information"
When someone attempted to share a flagged video, another interaction came up asking if you're sure you want to share this video. Looking at TikTok user behavior, @lindsaypjuarez found they could reduce views, likes & shares.
Role of media: @lkfazio points out that when Trump shared lies on Twitter, the news media picked up on it and amplified it.
Our "identity in groups" is how we're packaged and sold on media platforms. @dannagal says that squishes people even more into distinct streams of content
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Headlines are the most important three to 12 words in any story. Here's where they come from, in case anybody's interested, and some observations about recent trends and misunderstandings (thread)
The writer or videographer or graphic artist (the person whose name, or byline, is at the top of the piece) usually doesn't write the headline. The editor (whose name is probably not on the piece) usually writes the headline.
The same story can have different headlines depending on where you're seeing it. Print headlines have to fit a physical layout with images and other display copy (words that aren't part of the story, like subheadlines or captions)
There's been a shift in science in past 25 years toward more engagement & communication & solutions -- @JaneLubchenco
But when she & other scientists talked to Newt Gingrich about climate change, he wanted to know which policies he could champion that were different from That Al Gore Thing.
"some of us are trying to understand how to put a wrench in this system and stop the madness"
Platform policies around health and election misinformation have made a difference -- suspensions on Twitter took out accounts spreading misinformation and linked to astroturfing and QAnon (didn't get it all, though)
Substack seems to be attracting a certain set of writers who are arrogant, self-righteous, offended by social justice efforts, and/or just looking for a fight. This thread is about one small part of this pattern: editing, and what contempt for editing says about someone (1/x)
Substack is a platform that lets writers publish what they want, unedited. I get the attraction. It can be painful to hear from an editor that, say, your introduction takes too long to get to the point or your metaphor doesn’t track or your logic has holes in it (2/x)
A good editor identifies the parts that are confusing or unsupported or insensitive and helps fix them. Sure, there are bad editors, but in most cases writers and editors can reach an agreement about structure and language that works well for the editor’s publication (3/x)
One of the many invisible good deeds people deserve more credit for is not kicking down, especially on Twitter, even when it’s tempting. I recently got kicked at by someone with 11x more followers than me, let’s call him Yatt Mglasias. <thread>
I tweeted out a lovely story by some desert ecologists about how movies often present deserts as wastelands, but they’re actually really interesting and rich. The story was pegged to Dune, and my tweet (I realized belatedly) could be read to mean that I didn't understand Dune.
I got dunked on by a few people who hadn’t read the article. Then Yatt tweeted a snide tweet to his half-million followers. Predictably, legions of Yatt fans are now sending me elaborate, misogynistic messages about how stupid I am.
One of the biggest barriers to progress is the fact that most of the people who have succeeded in a given field and have the power to change things think the system works ~just~ ~fine~ the way it is. 1/x
You help run a medical school and you had to spend years of your training sleep deprived? Well, so should new trainees. 2/x
Your have won an award and now your organization wants to change the contributions it recognizes with its awards? Nonsense. The awards recognize the exact right types of accomplishments! 3/x