People who scored highly on problematic social media use are more likely to like and share fake news.
See full article...
See full article...
Social media “addicts” more likely to believe fake news
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I love how all of the people out there that claim "the media" is "fake news", all also happen to have the exact same cookie-cutter one-liners and talking points, logical fallacy and all. I think they think all of the influencers/podcasters/"grassroots" websites that they get news from all act independently and aren't just mouthpieces for conservative think tanks.
Upvote
162
(162
/
0)
I'm really looking forward to a week of being semi-"off grid" in northern Minnesota next month. I've been told cell service is non-existent where I will be staying and it's like a 45 minute drive to a small town with maybe cell service and public wi-fi.
Would a person with "PSMU" be able to handle this?
Would a person with "PSMU" be able to handle this?
Upvote
39
(39
/
0)
Addiction is really weird how it works. Like if there's alcohol available, I'm in big, big trouble. But smoking, social media, gambling... doesn't affect me at all. I don't know if it's a brain chemistry thing, genetics, a nature vs nurture thing... No clue.
But, I think the first step like any addiction is recognizing the addiction and being aware that you're afflicted with it. Self recognition is crucial to living a happier life.
But, I think the first step like any addiction is recognizing the addiction and being aware that you're afflicted with it. Self recognition is crucial to living a happier life.
Upvote
103
(103
/
0)
I imagine there's a huge overlap with the users who've done their "research" watching YouTube videos.
Upvote
75
(75
/
0)
I think there are a lot more people with addictive behaviors than is generally accepted at the moment. Of course that addiction could take a lot of different forms and there are positive channels for addiction. Was Mother Teresa addicted to "her tireless dedication to serving the poor and marginalized"? A bit of hyperbole of course, but my point is that how we channel our energy makes an enormous difference. People spending time online could be making the world better.... but that takes more work than riding the conspiracy train. (Or posting comments online... 
)
)
Upvote
57
(58
/
-1)
I suppose if this condition is widespread then it's extremely useful for shithole governments and astroturfing corporations.
But I don't think the epidemic of fake news, at least in the US, is concentrated in the internet or even particularly relevant to it. There are several disturbing studies of people simply not being able to call bullshit on anything.
But I don't think the epidemic of fake news, at least in the US, is concentrated in the internet or even particularly relevant to it. There are several disturbing studies of people simply not being able to call bullshit on anything.
Upvote
27
(28
/
-1)
Upvote
2
(12
/
-10)
conversely, mental health issues can lead you to abusive social media use as well; my social media presence was at its highest when i was struggling with suicidal ideation, depressive episodes and so on. if you're already in a pretty vulnerable mental state, constantly online and severely socially isolated, there's the perfect cocktail for disaster. pair that with the apparent lack of popularity of traditional [news] media within my demographic and the lack of class mobility characteristic of late-stage capitalism... mis/disinformation is an advantageous, profitable business.
Last edited:
Upvote
38
(39
/
-1)
Imagine thinking that a paper mask doesn't reduce the amount of snot and saliva that leaves your face.
Upvote
100
(103
/
-3)
If you want to understand the "do your research" crowd when it comes to vaccines, it's made up heavily of nurses who don't understand what VAERS is, and think it's literally a database of reactions/events caused by vaccines.
To be fair, the confusion probably comes from the fact that they're reporting things like injection site reactions to it, so in their mind, everything in there was literally caused by being given a vaccine. They don't understand how statistics work, and how most of what's in there is stuff that happens to anyone with a large enough sample size, and that the goal is to be able to spot statistically significant differences between the general population and people given vaccines. That's why this "do your research" crowd is made up of snarky nurses who think they know more than the doctors they work for, and think they can make up all of their friends having "vaccine damage" because of all of the "examples" they think they have from VAERS.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
53
(54
/
-1)
Anyone citing VAERS outside of a research paper should have their internet privileges forcibly removed.
Upvote
46
(47
/
-1)
Do people who spend too much time on social media actually care if something is true when they share it? Isn't addiction the goal of Facebook?
Did the study really determine if people are "believing" fake news? Or is it just that people doing too much social media are unable to not share even clearly fake news? Self-reporting about believing what you share -- when sharing gives you a kick -- seems like possibly flawed methodology.
Did the study really determine if people are "believing" fake news? Or is it just that people doing too much social media are unable to not share even clearly fake news? Self-reporting about believing what you share -- when sharing gives you a kick -- seems like possibly flawed methodology.
Upvote
13
(15
/
-2)
I got a different can of worms in my mind - I can't stand being off grid. I don't use social media. Just read Ars and comment. I use internet when I need it, but too lazy to even do that sometimes.
The reason I need to be connected at all times is being afraid of being stranded, lost or unable to get help.
Hell, I rented Iridium GO personal communicator for a week with unlimited slower-than-dial-up data just in case.
Meanwhile some just use the internet to get misinformed. I commented on the Mother's day gift guide that I'd buy my Mom a sub when I can just so she can stop getting lies. She would read Ars. Open minded but her sources are horrendous.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Social media companies know this, play it up, profit from it, and then act like it's not their fault. Governments let them get away with this.
It's long past time to rein these companies in forcefully. The damage both to individuals and also to society as a whole is too great to simply let sociopathic corporate greed rule the day.
It's long past time to rein these companies in forcefully. The damage both to individuals and also to society as a whole is too great to simply let sociopathic corporate greed rule the day.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
So this reminds me of a Reddit comment I recently came across where this guy's depressed friend was sucked into not social media, but conversations with AI. Part of it seemed to be how the AI would never argue and would take the friend's comments as gospel. Now AI is a large part of his world.
Imagine how bad it will be when AI is weaponized to guide people to particular ideologies.
Also realize that certain billionaires are behind some of these AI projects.
Upvote
49
(49
/
0)
I think they even know that they don't fully understand what it is, which is why they're very dodgy about it. It's always "do your own research" as a response when asking them for sources. I've seen this argument play out over facebook/nextdoor countless times. They get borderline defensive when asked for sources, as if sources are some private info that you're not allowed to ask them for. It eventually leaks through though, and then you get to watch them prove that they don't understand what VAERS even is.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
I understand the intent of this final paragraph, but I couldn’t imagine someone with PSMU being able to see they have a problem in the first place.
Regardless, I’m very happy to see such research being done as every little bit helps. The more we study how mis- and disinformation affects us, the more well understand how to combat it.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Just because you're incapable of finding scientific studies that proved n95 masks worked for COVID does not mean the rest of us were not able to find the research? Try harder maybe? Don't give up? Oh, and maybe don't rely on the news to spoon-feed you?
Upvote
21
(23
/
-2)
The Venn diagram between PSMU and users targeted by engagement-maximizing measures is a perfect circle.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
This may be too deep in the pedantic weeds, but just wanted to say that this isn't quite right. The information is being intentionally distributed (in the case of social media or gossip) but the falsity is unknown to the distributor, usually because they can't be assed to verify it.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
I searched every service but missed the mass posting. Was it a flash mob sort of event? Should I recheck YT??
Upvote
-16
(0
/
-16)
Fake news like "making shit up that gullible insecure people will believe."
I mean for fucks same if masks didn't work why are they used by surgeons? Why does your dentist use one? Why do people use them in construction?
If masks don't work, why has 3M been making them for fucking decades? What, it's all part of some ruse? Some massive multi decade scam?
Ooooor maybe people didn't want to believe the conman they voted for was, in fact, stupid. They didn't want to believe they elected an idiot because it would imply that they are an idiot. So they believe whatever the idiot says because it's easy and comfortable. Challenging yourself is hard and people tend to run away from it with cowardice.
So, people who believe masks don't work, I have a revelation for you: it is literally due entirely to your own insecurity. Stop being a coward. Whatever you think your own motivations are, is wrong. You literally do not understand your own thoughts. That's why you get uncomfortable and back out of discussions. You're not as smart as you think and your emotions and insecurity are shining brighter than a lighthouse. We ALL see it.
Upvote
57
(58
/
-1)
Yep, it's the tired old fallacy of assuming modern developments are equal in terms of social effects to older ones.
I get the point they are trying to make but it literally dismisses the arguments. It boils down to arrogantly assuming that people dislike something only because they misunderstand it. These people think these points are clever because, frankly, they dumb, and can't understand that people can understand something but still disagree. They are right, always, everyone else just doesn't have vision.
In reality the critics are seeing far ahead while the true believers think they're visionaries because they're looking 3 feet ahead. Meanwhile everyone else is looking miles ahead.
Upvote
8
(9
/
-1)
I'd hesitate to call using Facebook to remember when distant family members' birthdays are "problematic", but I can see that most people don't use social media in moderation, they either use it way too often or not at all.
The best solution here is to make some sort of Government-controlled managed social site. As a side benefit lots of incidental information will be available to the agencies that could put it to best use.
Upvote
-15
(1
/
-16)
I'm sure if they look they'll find correlations between PSMU and low education, Evangelicalism, voting for Republicans, racism, homophobia and the inability to realize that the leopards will eat anyone's face, including theirs, not just the people they don't like.
Edited for missing word.
Edited for missing word.
Last edited:
Upvote
10
(12
/
-2)
You are soooooo close to understanding psychology and neurology, but you still completely whiffed on the swing. Psychology is challenging because there are so many variables involved. Any behavior starts with genetics, then epigenetic influences, then maternal health/diet/stress during gestation, then childhood environment plus how that interacts with the genetic construction, followed by later events and those interactions. Behavior is a challenging regression equation, but that doesn't mean we aren't making slow progress at figuring out the relationships and causal influences. It's complicated, but maybe a little more effort and some community college courses can set you on a path to understand that which you refuse to. Remember, "tribal instinct" is very much associated with oxytocin driving in-group/out-group behaviors, so taking Bio Psych (aka Neuro 101) would help your thought processes a lot.
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
Scary! My friend and I were talking this the other day, that AI slop is the ultimate addictive replacement for social media.
Users aren't confronted with accounts, interests, pages, or anything other than a endlessly-appeasing servant-friend asking what they want. Arguably it amplifies their biases and they build a cocoon out of their own individualized echo chamber.
Chatbots are already being used on social media by governments both for espionage and to entrap or propagandize to people. There's no reason to believe that what you think isn't already happening. Some of the things Sam Altman said…
Either way I'd like to see a study like this for Chatbots. And I hope your friend gets help.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
The word "problematic" is itself problematic because it obscures what the actual problem is. I dislike seeing it included in an official definition.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
It's a paradox, isn't it? A democracy cannot survive without an informed and engaged citizenry, being informed requires access to as much relevant information as possible, and to protect that access we have freedom of speech, press, and religion. Yet because we can't rely on the government to honestly filter out misinformation, we have no other tools except our own education and critical thinking abilities to counter lies and errors. But since those tools are very unevenly distributed, there can be no societal or institutional method to reliably ensure that misinformation is identified and negated. Thus, we're inundated with falsehoods and democracy founders under their weight.
The very thing that democracy requires to succeed is what leads to its failure.
The very thing that democracy requires to succeed is what leads to its failure.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
And don't forget about the "engaged" part. Millions upon millions of people don't vote because they're convinced that their votes are meaningless, and the average person barely knows anyone in the political system beyond the POTUS and maybe the mayor of the city/town they live in. Otherwise, they might know about a congressperson who was in the news for something, but they otherwise remain willfully ignorant of basically everyone else in the system that more directly affects their daily lives.
And there's no "real" incentive for people to become more engaged. Those who don't vote still feel an unearned sense of righteousness (well I didn't vote for these clowns, so I can't be blamed for the state of things), and those who do vote potentially end up voting for the loser and get to watch the opposition trample all over their ideals. It's less prevalent in democracies with RCV and more than 2 parties that dominate the whole political landscape, but it still means that your vote could potentially do nothing other than show that some people are against those who win.
All that and I don't have any good solutions at hand.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
My sibling says "lamestream media lies". Never consumes any broadcast news from any news agency in any country - only facebook groups. Thinks the 'healthranger' is saving mankind from bad food and bad pharma... sad... at least fox news fail in their do not watch group!
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Imagine thinking... you're asking a lot from that particular poster.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
December this year Australia is banning social media for people under 16. They haven’t finalised details yet but it is in place to go ahead.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)