100% no one commenting at the time of this comment has tried the tool. It's pretty much Google Trends for Twitter+Reddit+4chan+8kun, which makes it very useful to just see when an idea became popular, etc. Tools like this democratize access to large scale queries. That's an unalloyed good. More people can know when something started being a thing.
I'm glad this exists, and I hope it is spun off so it survives Mozilla's search to preserve revenue¹.
¹ If The Googlords won't just keep them alive the way MSFT kept AAPL alive.
I don't think anybody is criticizing the tool itself. The authors are trying to pitch this as an anti disinformation tool. Which makes it look like one of these Twitter "bot" detection sites used to harass legitimate users. I don't think anybody would have a problem with this if it was marketed as a simple trend tracking tool.
> , a researcher looking into COVID conspiracies can determine when the conspiracy began, who is leading the conversation, and which news stories, blog posts, and other links are appearing most frequently in the online conversation.
Considering what's been happening in Melbourne, where people are being arrested for suggesting a peaceful protest, i think software such as this will only help speed up the polarisation process. The end result will be more police leaning on the necks of people who are only "political" criminals.
I also noticed the word "disinformation" which in itself these days is rather politically polarising. What's wrong in the world where open and balanced conversation must not be allowed?
> "I also noticed the word "disinformation" which in itself these days is rather politically polarising. What's wrong in the world where open and balanced conversation must not be allowed?"
Weaponized Social Media has become a very real, powerful, dangerous and global force. I'm sure there are other materials I could cite, but the recent Netfix film "The Social Dilemma" (esp the 2nd half) paints the picture very clearly.
'Balanced' is a red herring and useless in-and-of itself. Conversation should be a collaboration to find the truth, not a 'balanced' battle between two opponents. Bullshit on the internet doesn't further the goal of finding the truth or arriving at consensus.
One complication might be that "bullshit" and various other rhetorical techniques are often used to dismiss truths that one has no interest in pondering, and this may not always be a conscious and intentional action.
Of course there are obvious problems with this as well ("it takes 10x as much energy to refute bullshit than it does to spew it, etc"), but I think there is value in acknowledging the possibility that all humans aren't nearly as good at discerning truth as they perceive. Most people seem to get agitated rather quickly even at a topic-agnostic abstract discussion about our ability to discern truth.
Most of the bullshit that is circulating on the internet at the moment, for example as it relates to the pandemic say is balls to the wall craziness along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask.
It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here, the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost.
> Most of the bullshit that is circulating on the internet at the moment, for example as it relates to the pandemic say is balls to the wall craziness along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask.
This is an irrelevant straw-man that they trot out whenever anyone criticizes their censorship.
I tried warning people about Coronavirus last December, and was banned for telling the truth. I know people who were in China and saw what was happening first hand. And there was a growing preponderance of video evidence, as well.
Would you have laughed at me when I tried warning you to get a mask last February? Would you have flagged my comment as fake news?
The truth is that corporations like Facebook and Google are not infallible, and we should not outsource truth to them.
Not just are they capable of being wrong by accident, but they also have an agenda, like everyone else.
Last January, the "truth" was that COVID 19 didn't exist. Last March, the "truth" was that it was totally not contagious and that anyone talking about it was racist.
We should be blaming the pandemic on social media companies that suppressed people trying to report on it.
yah, it's total bullshit that masks are thrown around as knight in shining armor akin to the second coming, when we all know they have limited utility for most situations outside of hospitals and care facilities, while the mundane but effective solution of distancing is ignored because it's not conspicuous enough and politicized enough for various factions to wield for their own aims.
> along the lines of bill gates inserting microchips in your brain or 5G infecting you with a virus, or you suffocating from wearing a mask
There is some of this, yes. But then there are also questions regarding financial motives behind vaccines, and the unusual manner in which statistics are reported, and why certain portions of reality shall not be discussed, and so forth and so on. Lots of people assert that these ideas are also "bullshit", but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd (while simultaneously criticizing conspiracy theorists for asserting things without evidence).
> It's not like we're talking about any sophisticated philosophizing here
I don't think philosophers would agree that epistemology is simple - that it often seems to invoke such strong emotions in people suggests that it is anything but. It has a dependency on human cognition, which is fairly well known to be a less than perfect platform in many ways.
> the real danger from misinformation on the internet at the moment is the lowest of lowbrow garbage spread at extremely high velocity at virtually no cost.
This is surely "a" danger, but whether it is "the" (main) danger is necessarily speculative, as it has a dependency on the future, which is unknown.
Really anyone with five braincells. Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible?
Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true.
This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
> Really anyone with five braincells....a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out
Per the HN guidelines: "Don't be snarky...Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
> Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves.
You're clearly not responding to the parent, since they weren't defending that. It would be more interesting if you responded to the not-so-strawman position they actually represented.
> This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
It drives me nuts, too, when people refuse to consider alternative perspectives because the source seems tainted.
> Can someone explain to me why Hackernews and much of the rest of the internet, has descended into this nihilistic relativism where acknowleding even basic, empirical reality has apparently become impossible?
I do it because of the increasingly prevalence of authoritarianism over logic, that too many people seem to no longer be capable of someone disagreeing with them (while they disagree with someone else) without losing their cool.
> Viral diseases aren't spread through radiowaves. That's not a matter of opinion, that's a fact. Of course a significant portion of people might be so scientifically illiterate they cannot figure that out, that doesn't change the fact that it's not true.
I clearly acknowledged (in a separate comment from "Most of the bullshit...) the silly 5G --> covide theory, before proceeding to point out several far less silly ideas that are often considered bullshit. Yet, your comment seems to be written as if you did not notice the distinction I made. I am very curious what mechanism is behind this - was this a cool, calculated, deliberately rhetorical response, or was it more toward the instinctual end of the spectrum? Considering the increasing amount of hostility and polarization that can easily be observed everywhere on social media (or the riots in the streets, burning of buildings, smashing of cars, etc) these don't seem like a "nihilistically relativist" questions to me - the whole mess seems like a pretty big deal. You are welcome to disagree of course, but in doing so I'd prefer if you don't declare reality to be a certain way without providing evidence.
> This constant childish "hey but how do you know that this is true buddy" talk around misinformation and information is really driving me nuts.
This is kind of my point: "...but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd".
If someone disagreeing with your opinion invokes a feeling that they are "childish", and "drives you nuts", perhaps the problem isn't entirely with the other person.
The basis for authoritarianism isn't authority over logic, it's the disregard for truth and expertise in and of itself, that is to say the inability, or unwillingness to distinguish legitimate authority from demagoguery.
What's increasingly prevalent isn't inability to disagree, it's too much disagreement. QAnon's slogan is "question everything". The conspiracy theorist doesn't lack scepticism but trust.
That's the basis for misinformation, a culture in which anything goes, and in which the average consumer of media trusts nobody and is destabilized.
>but if you ask for evidence substantiating that assertion, they often behave as if the notion that assertions should require evidence is absurd
That's not the point. The point of constant questioning is to essentially exhaust any institution. When you tell someone that masks don't kill people and give them some proof, they'll say "but what if I don't trust the health authorities?", then you'll give them a reference to the science and they'll say "but what if I don't trust the scientists" and then you'll explain it again to them and they'll have another reason to disagree. That's what I mean by 'childish', it's literally a never-ending sequence of "but what if's", the same can of course be seen with issues like climate change and so on.
this is on display in the US right now. Political lies are repeated without end that have long been disproved but the mere fact of bringing them up again and again exhausts everyone and creates an atmosphere of insanity, which is the breeding ground for authoritarianism.
I acknowledge that many conspiracy theories are silly and harmful.
Are you able to acknowledge, or consider the possibility, that:
- there are some instances of legitimate questions that are dismissed as "bullshit"?
- sometimes people are extremely certain of the truth of something that is not actually true?
- some things are not known?
- some things that are not known, are falsely reported as being known?
- the world is much more complicated than it seems, or is described by the media?
A disinterested alien from another planet with no foreknowledge of prior events might read your words and form the conclusion that the flaws in this scenario are 100% on the side of those who question the status quo. Do you believe the status quo description of reality is 100% perfect, not one single flaw anywhere within the narrative? The point of these questions is to see if you believe skeptical people have any legitimacy whatsoever, because I am not picking up on that from your words.
This is an example of the problem. There are legimate legal, constitutional, and philosophical concerns about government mandated mask wearing
The problem is anytime anyone wants to have a rational debate about those topics people simply want to dismiss the person as a "crazy person that wants to kill grandma and believes a make will suffocate you"
For example I do not have a problem with a Individual business mandating a mask to shop or enter, but I absolutely believe the government should not (and does not under a textual reading of the US Constitution) have the legal authority to mandate mask wearing or have the authority to issue a criminal penalty should one refuse to obey.
I also do not believe the government has the constitutional authority to pick and choose what business is "essential" and then mandate all business that is not bestowed that title to be shuttered for 6+ months with no compensation by said government (that should be an unconstitutional taking)
Saying these things in modern discourse means I want to kill people and that every COVID Death is my fault somehow simply because I believe government power should be limited even in an "emergency"
Yes, the last sentence in my comment was unnecessarily provocative and I should have left it out because it distracts from my larger point, about which I think we agree. Humans are not good at discerning truth on their own, and we need social institutions that help us collaborate to find it, rather than turn the endeavor into a spectacle.
I can get on board with us needing help to learn how to discern fact from fiction, but considering the amount of people with post-secondary education who seem utterly helpless I don't feel like the universities are the place to turn, I certainly don't trust the government to come up with a trustworthy system (I'm suspicious if such a thing is aligned with their true interests), so I'm not sure how we find our way out of the corner we've painted ourselves into.
And ever present in the background is China, who due to strict control of speech seem to have very few problems like us. Evolution being amoral, I'm a bit worried that their restrictive approach might end up being selected for fitness.
I don't think fact checkers were in any way successful. They have immediately been abused for partisan issues. Not by outright lies, but careful framing evading truth like champions.
The COVID disinformation craze is just embarrassing.
Just in time for the election. What a coincidence.
Strange how every "disinformation" tool or "fact checker" seems like tools of disinformation itself. Also, shouldn't mozilla be working towards becoming independent from google's cash for survival and building a better browser to gain market share? Seems like every time I hear of mozilla, it's for a social issue or political issue.
And why just social media? What about all the disinformation in traditional media? From the pro-trump and anti-trump press, the last four years have been entirely disinformation on both sides.
What about tech focuses on tech and stop playing politics? I guess it's too much to ask of anybody these days.
Since you apparently didn't read the article either, here's an excerpt.
> The SMAT team is also developing publicly-accessible tools for monitoring the U.S. elections, such as interactive network graphs of politicians that help to map things like spheres of influence and partisanship.
So can I drill down into the individual tweets or posts? I would find that useful - and would love to get to the firehose for some NLP style analysis.
I just don't have the bandwidth to download all of reddit and make it searchable ...
EDIT: weirdly searching for "Hacker news" leads to a really odd trend on Twitter - between 2010 and 2013 lots of activity, then a massive drought till 2019 and back up again. Very odd - I cannot think of a cause
As far as Twitter goes, the Twitter streaming importer on Gephi is very powerful, and the software is moderately interoperable; unfortunately the project as a whole is lacking funding/development except for specific modules. You should also look into pushift.io which archives/indexes huge amounts of publicly accessible social media data, and which I think supplies some of the backend infrastructure for this project.
> As a Mozilla Fellow, Bevensee’s host org is the Anti-Defamation League. Bevensee created SMAT alongside a team of five other researchers and technologists. SMAT was created in collaboration with NCRI, Pushshift, Open Collective, and iDramaLab, which provide advisory, tooling, funding, and other resources.
I really think this tool is pretty powerful, but to sniff out botted topics for an active disinformation campaign, won't bots be mostly unverified?
I've used a tool before to view full twitter before for SM analysis, and I bet it cost like $xxxx for the subscription per month or year or whatever the contract was.
This is free. So I appreciate the bang/buck a little extra.
I would like to add that I tried / wanted to use this to track the bot campaign for the fires in Estacada. I feel like I was watching misinformation live on twitter for 'Estacada' and people advocating for the 'antifa starting fires' being led on by some initial spread of F.U.D..
The server code is viewable, but the source data, which is the only part that actually matters, appears to be some elasticsearch server with a url hidden in some environment variables, which I'm not seeing anywhere. So there isn't actually a way to audit if the source data can be reproduced. Open-ish source, I suppose.
I'm glad this exists, and I hope it is spun off so it survives Mozilla's search to preserve revenue¹.
¹ If The Googlords won't just keep them alive the way MSFT kept AAPL alive.