Anúncios
Amanda Ruggeri claims digital literacy specialists developed the “Sift” tool to identify bogus news and deceptive social media postings
Misinformation is common on social media. And in some topics much more so. Research shows that two-thirds of the most popular vaccination YouTube videos are misleading. An increase of erroneous anti-vaccination information online coincides with a drop in vaccination coverage, particularly among youngsters. That has caused greater measles epidemics than in prior years.
In 2021, US National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt said, “Misinformation is worse than an epidemic,” alluding to the COVID-19 pandemic. “It spreads at the speed of light throughout the globe and can prove deadly when it reinforces misplaced personal bias against all trustworthy evidence.”
Avoiding manipulation
In today’s information overload (and disinformation), trusting people may be hard. Amanda Ruggeri discusses wise, mindful noise management in her piece. It provides practical guidance, innovative ideas, and evidence-based solutions for becoming a smarter, more discriminating critical thinker using psychology, social science, and media literacy.
Misinformation spreads quicker than factual information for several reasons, according to study. People are more inclined to disseminate a claim that validates their pre-existing ideas, regardless of its truth. This cognitive bias may explain why humans distribute more disinformation than machines. About 15% of news sharers distribute up to 40% bogus news, according to one research.
Though depressing, there’s a silver lining. Since people spread so much misinformation, we can make the most difference by being more attentive of what we “like”, share, and amplify.
Awareness of our human fallibilities, such as our tendency to believe what we desire, is a helpful first step in avoiding disinformation. Even being more introspective might “inoculate” us against bogus news, research finds.
It’s not our only option. Researchers have uncovered numerous basic, tangible ways we may (and should) use to validate a claim before sharing or repeating it.
The Sift technique is one of my favorites. Its four simple stages were developed by computer literacy specialist Mike Caulfield.
1. S = Stop
Urgency is one of the worst elements of contemporary life. Due to constant phone usage and professional pressures, too many of us appear to be moving at an alarming pace.
Online, where news cycles and content are fast-paced and passionate, may make us feel “urgent”. Immediacy doesn’t help us spot falsehoods. Research shows that depending on our “gut” emotions is more likely to mislead us than reflecting.
The Sift method’s initial phase breaks this pattern. Stop. Keep the post private. Avoid commenting. Continue forward.
2. I stands for… Check the source
Social media posts appear without attribution all the time. Maybe a buddy shared them. Maybe the algorithm sent them to us. We may have followed the originator purposely without researching them.
Discover this now. Who made this post? Search the web off-platform. Be cautious to visit a trustworthy website since search results might be deceptive. Wikipedia is a surprising first stop for fact-checkers. It’s not flawless, but its crowd-sourced articles on famous individuals or organizations regularly address disputes and political biases.
While investigating, ask:
Are the creators of media outlets trusted and committed to verifiable, independent journalism?
If a person, what’s their subject matter expertise? What financial, political, or personal prejudices are involved?
The objective of an organization or business? They promote or sell what? They get financing from where? Which political views do they manifest?
After your investigation (which might take a few minutes), ask yourself the most important question: Would you still trust this creator’s knowledge if they were stating something you disagreed with?
3. F represents… Find better coverage
If you still doubt the source’s trustworthiness after the previous step, explore further. Check if a reliable news outlet or fact-checking agency has covered and confirmed the allegation.
Unsurprisingly, Google offers the greatest tools for this. There’s Google, and Google News if you want to check whether news sources reported anything.
However, I occasionally prefer Google Fact Check, which searches just fact-checking sites. Google doesn’t review the fact-checking sites it includes, so you’ll need to do a little more effort to verify your results. I prefer to check whether an outlet has joined Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network, which you can find here.
Find out where a picture appears online with a reverse image search tool. Google offers one, but I favor TinEye and Yandex. Get a screenshot of the video and use it for your image search.
Your goal? Check for trustworthy sources claiming to have validated the same facts.
4. T represents… Link the assertion to its genesis.
If you’re utilizing the tools above, you’ll often do this while attempting to discover greater coverage. This notion is different. You want to know the claim’s genesis.
For instance, a respected media site may have republished a claim from another source. The original tale should be linked, so always go there, but if not, you may need to look for it.
Importantly, you want to know whether something is accurate and if it was taken out of context. Does the social media post’s description of a picture match its title, context, and location? Was anything cut out or taken out of context in a speaker’s quote, or does their whole interview or speech suggest they misspoke?
Taking these procedures before sharing a claim may seem burdensome. However, a few minutes may spare you shame and prevent you from spreading disinformation that may even kill.
Today, anybody may claim on social media. Anyone may reshare that assertion and make it viral. Each of us must ensure that everything we publish, like, and share is truthful.
