541
Fact-checking reduces the circulation of misinformation – we should not get rid of it (cepr.org)
submitted 9 months ago* by to c/science@lemmy.world
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

TLDR: It reduces the virality of misinformation by ~8% and increases article deletion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (16 children)

My only issue is that even facts can be spun. If there's going to be fact checkers, they themselves need to be routinely checked and their biases listed.

Also OP, I've checked your post history and can see a fair few news articles about conflicts over the world but zero mention of Gaza in any of them - is that your bias?

Edit: Yeah, I've now been shown some decent enough confirmation that OP is a Zionist and promotes disinformation. Case in point, agenda driven fact checking is an issue and we cannot trust random sources who proclaim to be such.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 13 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    What in the whatabotism is this? There are scholars and posters that can focus on specific regions. I have deep knowledge about Sahel, Syria, and Ukraine, and I have posted credible articles about said regions and INDOPAC. I can talk about misinformation by a number of actors surrounding the Gaza war but I am not as proficient in the topic as some of my acquaintances are and in general I don't like to believe popular vote based forums are conducive to any kind of appropriate discussion on the topic. I don't understand the anti-scientific combativeness in your attitude, do all scientists have to cover all topics? I can also see your comment history but I think this is not the place for such a discussion. I do believe in highlighting Africa as a region that is deeply ignored despite JNIM and ISWAP causing more that 10x the deaths of all other terrorism in the world combined, Sudan war, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    It's a visceral reaction to .world and "fact checkers". Your account is concerning in that you present yourself as a fact checker, yet we have no idea what your motives are.

    I am not anti-scientific, I am anti-gatekeeper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Your account is concerning in that you present yourself as a fact checker, yet we have no idea what your motives are.

    It's funny you should bring that up deceptichum...

    Seriously, could your usernames possibly be more on the nose? This feels like a setup.

    I feel like I should definitely ignore both of your posts and let the article speak for itself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    There are many competing fact checkers. Compare their fact checking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    If we have to manually fact check the fact checkers ourselves, it defeats the purpose of them in the first place.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    If we have to manually fact check the fact checkers ourselves, it defeats the purpose of them in the first place.

    what follows from this statement is that you should be skeptical of everything you read or hear

    and yes, you should. does that take more work? yes, it does. especially under a technochristofascist authoritarian government who tells you that anyone considered "expert in their field" is not to be trusted since they advocate for vaccines while we [the government in charge of running the country], for some reason...don't.

    does everything about this fucking suck? also yes, it does. what else do we have? between being skeptical of fact-checkers and eliminating fact-checkers (the direction the party is pushing you towards), sorry, i choose fact-check the fact-checkers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 9 months ago* (1 child)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    My solution would be to teach people to be skeptical, how to recognise biases, and how to fact check on their own.

    you're talking about critical thinking, which is also under vicious attack by the GOP, but yes, i agree: when the fact-checkers belong to the very people who are spreading not-facts, then what do you have?

    does this mean we should dismiss fact-checking as a thing people should do? because--make no mistake-- the end goal here is for you to have the mindset that "whatever dear leader says is absolute truth, and anything else is fake news"

    you can literally see this in trump supporters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    This assumes that there is an objective and 100% contextualized truth, which is never the case. Getting a free frogurt seems unquestionably a boon, until you learn it's cursed and contains potassium benzoate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent