Ask HN: How do you deal with lies on the internet?

Also backing out of stupid places quickly is great. I.e. don't confuse a post on Twitter from someone you trust with the responses to that post. It's going to be almost completely trash if the original poster is even semi-known. They exist in the same area, so need active mental separation.

My approach is slow thinking. I really don't have to form an opinion quickly on most things. If ever. I read for enjoyment. Something makes it hard to write propaganda that's actually interesting and enjoyable to read.

I've shut down the "engagement" media, even if I agree with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events

It’s not perfect, but Wikipedia does a good job of being neutral and sticking with facts.

On forums like HN, Facebook and Reddit, I rarely bother with correcting people. The sites are not tailored towards factual information, they’re tailored towards engagement. And dis-information is more engaging (people argue about it) than straight facts.

My solution for this at the moment is the Media Bias Fact Check extension. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/appsextensions/

MBFC has a good breakdown of where any given news source gets their funding, as well as previous articles posted from a particular news source and if they are considered to be reasonably fair, slanted, or provably incorrect.

Really though, this level of exposure to domain reputation needs to be built directly into the address bar of every major browser. People should see flashing red red lights when visiting any domain with a bad reputation. This would also go a long way towards tackling many forms of phishing as well.

Obviously giving this power to some central authority would be bad. I've been donating regularly to MBFC, but I'm not sure how well that scales. What we eventually need is a crowd-sourced domain reputation database. There's a few ways to do this, and really we need the browser support first, and the built in agility to let users point to alternative trust databases. This sort of thing is badly needed, soon.

That's my approach - it takes a lot of credibility for me to believe anything I find on the Internet. Critical thinking has become a critical skill as it's really the only means of sniffing out the truth. If something smells a little fishy, it's probably a fish.

Another comment mentioned Wikipedia, and I'll add it can be also useful here, as it's an easy way to verify if a common factoid on a matter origins from a legitimate source.

Even the good guys are lying.

I've been watching foreign news (Sky News, while I'm American), to avoid both our own biases, and the inevitable chatter about American politics. Sky isn't perfect, but at least if they're being deceptive, it probably won't be targeted at me.

I also like the Reddit live thread and a Twitter account @EnglishUkraine, keeping in mind that they both will have bad information sometimes given how quickly they report everything.

Normally, I just don't read the news. Pretty much at all. It takes a pandemic, or an invasion to get my attention. It's a conscious choice that I believe is beneficial to my health.

I haven't heard this phrase for a while. I learned Scooby-Doo and my dad explained what it meant to me when I was like 5. "Only believe half of what you read and nothing that you see." We've been fabricating news since the beginning of time. It's just more apparent now. The internet didn't start it. It just made it more apparent since more people are in the propaganda game now.

Often it's difficult to get good measurements on phenomena (eg on a specific battle in a war before the advent of freely searchable, practically real-time satellite imagery) which may mean you have to seek out reports from first-hand witnesses/participants/victims. In those cases, I advise searching for source documents from first-hand sources/legitimate researchers and available source footage, and if you can authenticate the material, you can use it to guide formation of an understanding. There's a lot of uncertainty in this and it takes time, but if you really want to know an answer you have to put the time in.

Obviously it isn't viable for you to dig into every single thing, so I'd say my shorthand method is to lean towards experts who have access to source data/data generating processes of interest and read their papers.

Regarding trusting news sources: all news sources misinterpret some things, but not to the same degree. The editors and journalists are the real QA mechanisms, so use the past accuracy of the company and the journalist in determining the baseline amount of uncertainty you should have in any specific piece of reporting.

On a more serious note: just (try to) ignore that sh1t. Every minute spent thinking/feeling about someone else's agenda is a minute not spent on life. Seriously, the magpies in the trees in front of my house are more interesting than any news channel, politician, youtuber, or whatever.

Search for 'no contact' or 'grey rock' with your favorite search engine. I think it can help a lot of people in a lot of situations, just as it helped me. Pro tip: it's not only applicable to the situations it was intended for.

Have a good day y'all! I'm going to watch some magpies.

In particular, do not rely on news media that aim to be _the first_ to report. Being first comes at the cost of being thorough and balanced.

Consume your news from multiple sources across political, cultural, and social spectrums. Know where each source comes from, and who is paying for it. Familiarize yourself with what are generally considered "objective" sources as well. So, in the instance of the Russia/Ukraine war, I've been using wikipedia, because it more or less states the facts of events as they happen, without too much bias. So I can make my own opinions. And since it is open-source, everything there faces tons of scrutiny.

My understanding is that, for many years now, the AP has been an organization for journalists to publish news in a neutral-enough way that it could be republished by other outlets with whatever context/framing/spin it wants.

A lot of the time, when you read a news story in politically-motivated new source, they're just taking AP stories and then adapting them to a narrative that better fits their audience.

So from this, you can have X's truth being based to a certain degree on Y's statement, which may be his(Y's, that is) actual observation or a relayed observation from another person, say Z.

By observing different opinions carefully and in good will you can map and sort of create a tree of observations.The closer you want to get to the actual truth, the closer you would want to get to the leafs of the tree.(Obviously you always have to keep a reference of the thing you want to know, otherwise you get into detailed observations that don't answer your question).

Now obviously the actual issue is when one's legitimate observation is misrepresented as truth, even in good will, by that person.Therefore, there's no best strategy because you need to focus on both depth and collecting a breadth of observations/statements.Think of it as a multipartite graph(in the case of "objective" truth), or a tree(this would be more akin to pure subjective observations).

Ignorance is "fine" as long as you don't claim the truth.Also pay attention to people claiming to know the absolutes or authoritative fact-checkers, most wise people never claim to know much of anything besides their own observations.

If you are just trying to keep yourself informed, I like NPR or BBC news websites to scan headlines. Lately I feel like the goal of being updated on "current events" is a waste of time but I keep getting pulled in.

Now when reading anything in financial news, it is basically opinion unless there are numbers there. Things like sentiment about investors and headlines like "stocks tumbled today because of XYZ..." People don't know the intent of any action on the stock market because you don't know who is doing what, unless it comes out of SEC financial disclosures. There are a lot of quarterly and annual cycles that happen with large amounts of activity because of index fund re-balancing, options expiring, etc. [0] and it feels like financial news tries to dumb everything down for some reason.

[0] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp

no need to know everything

for the things that matter [to you] read broadly and infer… hope for the best

And so, I worship God with prayer. goodness and truth is being worshiped by doing so, literally.

It at the very least helps reorganise what's important in life.

On top of this, you need to be aware of the tendencies in constructing media narratives and assess whether they are showing in whatever you are reading. "Cui bono?" and all that. The techniques and patterns haven't changed much and you can read works by e.g. Chomsky to develop a critical sense for what you should look out for.

As others have said, follow the money. The Ukraine story is obviously not a simple good, handsome actor PM vs. evil, Soviet spy dictator. So why is it being painted this way? And what might the real story be? You want a media source that is providing historical context, ideally along with on the ground information from people who are engaged with events at a local level, and also does not hide its ideological position and motive in sharing the story. You won't have the full story after this obviously but it's better than narratives with unmotivated claims depending on cherry-picked sources and undisclosed financing.

I actually find that the far left media can usually provide the greatest insight into a situation, you just have to take the ideology with a grain of salt. They are advancing an agenda but don't try to hide it and their information comes from networks of people engaged in local communities and struggles and who follow relevant political and economic ties very closely. Here is a long interview with a Ukrainian anarchist that can give way more detail on the situation than any paid journalist could hope to:

https://crimethinc.com/2022/02/03/ukraine-between-two-fires-...

Is it okay to tell lies in order to maintain social harmony or advance an agenda? Your leaders do it. Your bosses do it. Social media does it. And if you're a parent, you probably do it.

Personally, I try to avoid the news, social media, and do everything within my control to create a "low information diet" where the only inputs are high quality and carefully curated. I value thought-out content. That means it takes many months or years to put together, not 240 characters of a hot take from something seen online.

Being a veteran of the internet, I don't trust any mainstream sources. Seeing first-hand how fast certain popular content can be censored, I no longer value any aggregate sites as of like 2012. Also they are scary in terms of groupthink.

Where ignorance is bliss, Tis folly to be wise.

Videogames footage has been used, old footage from years ago as well. The western media even used footage of Ukraine soldiers committing crimes of war, branding them as Russian soldiers, in the general indifference.

You have to understand, that as of now the western media have entered the war propaganda mode. If you want to inform yourself neutrally you can't trust anyone media alone.

I watch the Russia Today (RT) streams on YouTube. It's good to have a differing point of view. I don't take everything they say as granted, neither I so that with western media. There are also a few western youtube channels trying to do objective reporting on the conflict, my favorite one is S2 Underground.

In many situation, this means realizing that you have little control most things (which is depressing), and then take the logical step of not following the news altogether.

This becomes a lot trickier when the news is in you "center of concern" (I'm trying to find the best translation for "center of emmerdement".)

For example, regarding COVID-19: you have zero effect on whether the next strain of the virus will mutate in the bloodstream of some farraway foreigner, even if they were lucky enough to get all the vaccines and treatments and everything.

Yet, when the variant will hit, you'll be hit too, and you'll get the restrictions and lockdowns, and anti-restrictions protests, and anti-vaxxers point of view, and fringe medical advice that might not end up being fringy at all, etc...

Should you care ? Should you not care ?

Also, elections. We have the luxury of letting candidates explain the same world in completely opposite terms - and we have to choose which one is less wrong. Or less lying.

In the end, I suppose the only thing in your control is to let time expose the most blatant liars, avoid trusting them too much ; and, most importantly, DO NOT LIE TOO MUCH yoursefl.

This might involves keeping eyes opened, eyebrows raised, and mouth shut. Not a very popular stance - but, hey, they're neo-stoicians, not tiktok influencers.

We haven't yet reached this degree of sophistication.

Figure out what you really want and need to know first, then look around for the (typically small and chronically underfunded) groups who are tracking and affecting those issues and values.

And if you start fighting against the tide of incorrect information, remember the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle[0]: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it."

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law

And it's best not to read the comment section. To the extent commenters are human at all, they may be paid influencers. And if they are not, people's natural tendency is to repeat the most viral information, which is often incorrect or things that cause outrage in favor of some ideological viewpoint.

Good. Sorting out the objective truth of a situation has always been hard. The internet is not some sort of magical genie that changes this inescapable fact.

The biggest problem comes from your own biases. If people are involved you will end up with a bunch of objective truths, many at odds with one another. You have to understand these truths in superposition.

With things developing quickly like the war in Ukraine, I think you really need to keep your emotions at a distance. You have all sorts of propagandists and scammers literally or figuratively “monetizing” your attention and concern.

This is where I really have come to hate online news. The dopamine rush of doom scrolling and cable news is so much worse than newspapers were.

You can start by reminding your self that what you're about to read was shown to you so someone else can get more money and power.

Don't pay too much attention to headlines, most of the time they are misleading, discount any articles with “sources say”, “experts say”, all of that nonsense. Only pay attention to actual sources that you can verify.

Always check the sources once found, don't take anyone's word for it. In this instance it might be worth watching the countries' leader's speeches in full, from Putin, to Zelenskyy.

Sit back, and wait (unless you're actually in the middle of the conflict, in which case you won't need the news to tell you). Most things take weeks, if not months, and years to come out.

Use critical thinking to process things, and remember if it's in the news it's likely completely unique, and won't affect your real life anyway.

If war is coming to your country you will know without switching the telly on, if there is a pandemic you will know because many people will be dropping all around you.

You stop consuming it. You actually do not need to be informed on every topic at every moment. There are people who do this professionally - it’s a full time job and even they get misinformed.

You cannot voraciously consume this stuff while also being immune to propaganda. You’re actually more vulnerable to it the more you consume. Ignorance in this case can actually work in your favor.

Rule 1. Be anonymous, see rule 2

Rule 2. Everything is a scam

Rule 3. Everyone is lying, see rule 2.

Same with Covid, Trump, etc prior. I don't personally need to know this stuff in realtime and I'd probably mentally unravel if I tried to keep up with it all

Hackernews is REALLY noisy.

Precisely that is the result that the masterminds behind the "firehose of lies" and the propaganda want. Distrust in media, distrust in government makes it easier for the enemy (no matter if it is Russia, China or domestic) to act. And the fact that way too many people do not have the adequate time (because they have to work two jobs or way beyond reasonable overtime) or the skills (more than half the US are barely literate [1]) to properly judge news on their authenticity makes things only worse.

The word democracy has demos at its core: the populace that forms the society. And the less people trust democratic processes like elections or an independent and fair justice system and the more people withdraw from taking part in democratic society as a result of all of that, the worse the eventual outcome is. The best condition for authoritarian rulers to rise is when the majority of people doesn't care or doesn't recognize the looming danger.

[1]: https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/08/whats-the-latest-u-s-liter...

Don't know how to properly deal with information that requires my immediate action though (buy a product / not buy a product; invest in bitcoins / not invest in bitcoins; get a vaccine / not get a vaccine, etc.).

This is what the people sewing misinformation in the first place want. You can act their pawn and ignore the world around you, leading to making underinformed choices at the polls, at the newsstand or wherever, or you can trust your own bullshit detector.

It's hard to have this conversation when you just write off every source of information. Most of the established news sources get the facts correct, and from there, it's a matter of ignoring the analysis/opinion sections. AP and Reuters are two trustworthy sources that pretty much stick to the facts. Most of the top 25% of this chart is pretty good, TBH: https://adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/?utm_source=HomePage_St...

Also, keep in mind, humans write these stories. Getting one thing wrong here or there is not an indictment of that writer or their publication, if it's handled properly by printing a correct or retraction.

American readers here may be able to suggest suitable US newspapers.

Yes, weighing various sources for a contentious issue is a good thing, but you can't do that for everything. And drinking bits of news from the fire-hose of social media means you have to weigh every nuance and distrust every sender. Good journalism does this for you; just be aware of where any medium stands and what its reputation is (i.e., don't expect the Daily Mail to provide you with a solid analysis of Putin's war).

Being Dutch, I am a subscriber to a Dutch newspaper (NRC; the other quality national newspaper is De Volkskrant) on paper in the weekends and digitally the rest of the week, and supplement this with a yearly contribution for The Guardian, which I visit for a non-Dutch view of certain topics (I found this valuable for the topic of Brexit).

Then I try to use my brain to think what the article is saying. I see the claims the article makes, and ask questions to verify and counter those claims. Just to give a hypothetical example:

"New vaccine developed for Covid-19 promising 100% effectiveness! Will we finally be living without Covid-19?"

I'll go like:

- Hmm, a bit clickbaity title. Should have some asterisk marks attached to it.

- The 100% effectiveness claim. Is it based on a research paper?

- If yes, is it peer-reviewed?

- If it is peer-reviewed, where is it published? Is it a source that has high reputation for being trustable?

- If yes, did they do randomized control trials?

- If yes, what's the sample size? Is it large enough to be credible?

And so on.

From here, the content actually might go beyond my level of expertise and knowledge (I am not a virologist, so I am not technically qualified to verify the claims or smell a rat if there is one), but much of the time, many claims will fail to live up to these simple questions that are very basic. The more "no"s I get from these questions, the lower it gets on my credibility list, and if it drops beyond a certain point, I conclude it's fake and move on. If it stays high up there multiple times, I tend to believe it to be "possibly true".

Note that I don't assign anything as "facts" that easily.

The thing I keep in mind is this: there is zero point in "keeping up-to-date" with news unless I am willing to analyze the content to the best of my abilities and draw conclusions from them. If anything, just gobbling up whatever news comes out is harmful to mental health. I don't want to be turned into an "information zombie" who doesn't ask questions.

Also, it's completely fine NOT to try to read every news. Like, I don't know anything about American football (sorry!) so analyzing tier lists for teams is something highly interesting for many, but is not something I'd prefer to give time to.

And now is, in my opinion, a great time to do this analysis. The world is in chaos, and these times brings out the worst in people. So now we get to see things that we wouldn't see in the best of times, and who knows, maybe the data we internalize on how people react might come handy at some point in the future. :)

Follow the money.

You used to be able to rely more on coincidence counting - meaning more sources saying the same thing means its more likely to be true. That has way less weight when one tweet gets shared, articles written about it, then people tweet the articles, and it comes full circle. You can manifest "facts" easily. And most news reports the same original source. But it's still useful if you can triangulate with multiple high-quality sources, or sources of conflicting persuasion. NBC reporting X is worth 1 unit. NBC, ABC, CNN reporting X is still just 1 unit. But CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, and AP all reporting X is worth 2-3 units. There should be a logarithmic curve to your confidence. Any situation could flip on its head.

Think like a Bayesian. Every statement should have some prior probability of being correct, near 50/50. Increase the weight if the source is good, it jives with other things you are confident in; decrease it if the sources is bad or it doesn't sit right. De-rate "shocking" information - it tends to outspeed quality but nuanced info.

Knowing who to distrust is often more useful than knowing who to trust. It's often easier to infer as well. Create a mental "trustworthiness score". You start by identifying low quality reporting or straight up lies. This drops a sources' score. Other news from that source is also likely to be bad. Other sources that cluster near this source are also likely to be bad.

All media can be faked (manually or with AI), but at this time, deepfakes have some glaring limitations, and most fakes are in fact "cheapfakes" of the lowest possible effort. Why spend time photoshopping when you can just slap a misleading caption on an old photo?

The information firehose - tweets, shares, comments sections - can be useful for cutting edge info and building the big picture, but wielding it is an art. Most is gossip. Often the most popular/liked opinion is simply wrong, but also often, the truth is there deeper in the thread, but buried. Bullshitting is easy, but speaking facts is hard and time consuming. Look for "rich"/"deep" comments that show someone doing their homework.

I'm loathe to recommend any particular sources (you should develop your own), but I'm partial to the OSINT groups like Bellingcat. AP and Reuters are decent for "mainstream" media.