Leaderboard

You are reading me correct. I'm not saying the use of their data could be used to argue the opposing idea. I'm saying that research is the same and can be built in the same way for any argument. I'm also saying that Facebook is simply a medium to convey some message to other people. If the study was to state that Social Media allows for the speed of misinformation to be done quicker and therefore it is a dangerous then I get that. I'm also saying that Social Media allows for the speed of information to spread in a way that benefits people as well. It seems to me that you are intent on validating the negative aspects of social media. That's fine and it can be validated. I tend to think about the positive aspects and I look at those. I get to see the growth of my old basketball players into adults. I have connected with my father's family, which is amazing since he didn't raise me. Social media has made the world smaller and for me and the people that I see on my Facebook or Twitter they are doing incredible things and positive things. This does not mean that I don't see the negative. I just don't spend as much time speaking on the negative aspects unless it is in regard to business.

I hear you Cynqiue. As a Black person in America, I'd be the first person to admit, that it is really hard not to believe a lot of the craziness flying around the internet. So when people are convinced that vaccines cause Autism I get it-- we all know about the Tuskegee "experiments." As we watch wealth inequality grow and witness first hand Black people be shot for no good reason, who would not believe in the Illuminati or some other cabal of white folks trying to control the world and rid it of Black people? Our course I could go on an on from climate change denial, to your typical internet hoax, to George Bush blowing up the World Trade Center, all the Jews staying home, no airplane debris at the pentagon, and thousands of Muslims cheering while the towers fell... Why wouldn't people believe this?

Well, I noticed that the headline of your post reads: Misinformation On Line: One of the Main Treats to Humanity. I assume you meant "Threats", not "Treats" - unless this is a Freudian slip clueing us to your subconscious belief that online misinformation is a treat because "ignorance is bliss". It's also ironic that the absence of one letter in a word can distort the context in which it appears, so it's important to correct typos and proof read to maintain credibility in regard to being detailed-oriented. I can only speak for myself, Troy, so to me there was nothing shockingly revealing about these articles to a person like me, a natural born skeptic who's been around a long time, and who questions everything. On line, if anything sounds too fishy, I go to Snopes.com and get the lowdown. I've always dismissed conspiracy theories and I take infomercials promising miracle cures with a grain of salt. On social media I consider the source of articles and videos and check to see if they are from "Onion" or a liberal or conservative publication I recognize. I even click on the icons of suspected trolls and go to their homepage, where you can often spot red flags about their impartiality. This is one of the reasons I've never taken seriously what the Hillary Haters post about her because they are contrived half-truths. As a long time reader of the Tabloids like The Enquirer, I know how headlines are sensationalized, and this also applies to The Net where articles and videos never live up to their hype, and memes are just scatter shots. So my cynicism keeps me on guard. Furthermore, "online misconception" is not a subject I'm passionate about because, as was noted, rumors and urban myths and gossip have always been around; the net, as also noted, just spreads them faster. I still have a little faith in people having common sense and that they are not totally bamboozled. I think they choose to gravitate toward what piques their curiosity rather than what challenges their logic because they seek an escape from the real world. As for FaceBook, it may not be a portrait of black culture, but it is a snapshot of it.

Perhaps it is wishful thinking on my part, but time will tell Bruh--and you heard it here first

@Cynique, lets just say that the article reminded me of our conversation, and forget any of the ideas I attributed to you. However, I'll address what you just wrote. I do not think Facebook reflects Black culture in the least. At best it is a caricature of it. I agree everyone "fronts" on Facebook--more so that they would in real life. In terms of faking opinions regarding the election, what do you think about the impact of trolls, which the research paper discussed? People consume information created by trolls in the same fashion that they consume real news. People use troll generated information to substantiate a beliefs--even if they are exposed to real information. In my mind, the question is not really about the opinions of folks, but how those opinions are arrived at and how Facebook serves to reinforces their opinion whether they are based in truth or not; or whether they are fronting or not. These articles explain this research more clearly, in layman's terms. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/q-a-walter-quattrociocchi-digital-wildfires/ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118093 @CD Burns, sure social Facebook helps spread false information more quickly, a propaganda is nothing new. But if I understand you correctly, it sounds like you are suggesting that someone, using the same data, could have easily written a paper with opposing information? It also sounds like you are dismissing the impact of social media, essentially saying that any impact is only marginally different than what we've experienced in the past. Am I reading you correctly?