Thread by @joelrunyon

One of the under-discussed issues the fact-checking industry is the Cobra Effect.

The industry is actually proliferating the issue they're attempting to solve.

This is on display with twitter's current curated "moment" right here. 🧵

twitter.com/i/events/15843…

The Cobra Effect is one example of perverse incentives where the "solution" to a problem actually become an industry of their own and eventually makes the problem worse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_…

Back to "fact checking,"

Reading through today's curated "moment":

How many of these "fact checks" are of stories / theories you've actually heard before?

twitter.com/i/events/15843…

Many 'very-online' people, myself included would say zero.

Let's take a look.

Take this one.

This person is clearly talking about the current political moment, not the literal grammatical breakdown of the constitution

They willfully misinterpret their statement so they can #factcheck it.

Why?

https://twitter.com/snopes/status/1588170190105329665

Another one.

Inventive angle but who is asking this question and how is this fact check related to the elections?

Who's making their voting decision based on this?

https://twitter.com/snopes/status/1587649122558935041

Joe Biden singing baby shark. #factchecked

Again, why does this matter?

https://twitter.com/tiffkhsu/status/1588536289217122305

(and yes, these are all direct examples from the "curated" twitter moment featured in today's sidebar)

Sidebar:

I did manage to find the Biden-baby-shark video and it's funny

tiktok.com/@jarrod_2021/v…

I would bet actually increases his Q score if anything.

But again - why does this need to be #factchecked (it doesn't).

Back to the common thread:

The majority of the fact checks are either of things no one is actually taking serious or statements the fact checkers are willfully misconstruing for the sole purpose of #factchecking them.

It's like piling up a bunch of easy points debunking layup "claims" that no one ever took seriously in the first place.

This creates a lot of "work" for the #factcheckers and the sheer number of #factchecks they do in a year validates their necessary existence, right?

(hell, maybe they should even get a raise!)

However, very inconveniently those same fact-checkers miss completely or don't even address big 3, 5 or 10-pointers that deserve an actual investigation

(You know what these are without me even typing them).

In other terms, they're focused on "quantity" of fact checks over "quality" fact checks that matter.

This kills their reputation.

This ends with fact checkers are not only amplifying weird, strange theories that no one has heard of and no one takes seriously but they've also damaged their reputation so bad that...

...they're actually less-likely to convince people who'd believe these theories in the first place.

They have a negative authority multiplier if you will.

Their #factchecking actually makes it *more* likely people will believe these otherwise crazy theories.

This spurs on less trust in the media and encourage more fringe ideas as the "mainstream" splinters as it becomes less reliable at reflecting reality.

A possible solution is less overall fact checking..

Early internet was full of crazy talk, insane people and funny doctored videos. It was part of the fun. No one took them seriously.

You knew the internet wasn't real life, so it actually ratcheted down the stakes.

If your thesis is that online has to reflect real life 1:1, you're going to go madder and madder as you realize that it's a muddied reflection of reality - not the real thing and covering it in fact-checks isn't going to help the situation.

Sure - lots of people will still fall for some stuff - but I think most people's BS detectors are better calibrated than we give them credit for.

Unfortunately, right now - those detectors are currently going off on #factcheckers the most.