In today’s polarized political climate, researchers who combat mistruths have come under attack and been labelled as unelected arbiters of truth. But the fight against misinformation is valid, warranted and urgently required.
In today’s polarized political climate, researchers who combat mistruths have come under attack and been labelled as unelected arbiters of truth. But the fight against misinformation is valid, warranted and urgently required.
Around four billion people have the opportunity to cast their votes in a series of major elections this year. However, the threat to democratic integrity posed by misinformation and disinformation looms large. An effective democracy relies on evidence-based discourse and informed citizens. Concern about the expected blizzard of election-related misinformation is warranted, given the capacity of false information to boost polarization and undermine trust in electoral processes1–3.
Specifically, there is widespread worry about malign influence on voters, be it through conventional propaganda (including warmongering and xenophobic disinformation), unsubstantiated claims about candidates or AI-generated deepfakes (digitally altered visual media). Anti-democratic agents might also attack the electoral process directly, as was, for instance, seen in Spain in July last year, when malicious foreign actors set up an imitation of the Regional Government of Madrid’s website just before an election to falsely claim that terrorists planned to attack polling stations.
Egregious clickbait hed. I don’t care the source, “than you might think” works psychologically on, well, more levels than you might think.
Throughout this election, and honestly, past it wouldn’t be bad, wherever you are in the world, this phrase should be a red flag that you’ve run headlong into bullshit.
That aside, Nature, are you OK? Journal articles tend to have as theses shit that isn’t somehow both obvious and vacuously true then not backed up by the passive voice, the gold standard for scientific literature. “The beaker was observed …”
One of the most important things in democracy is accuracy and transparency of information. That’s literally the reason why the media is being taken over by corpos all over the world.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Egregious clickbait hed. I don’t care the source, “than you might think” works psychologically on, well, more levels than you might think.
Throughout this election, and honestly, past it wouldn’t be bad, wherever you are in the world, this phrase should be a red flag that you’ve run headlong into bullshit.
That aside, Nature, are you OK? Journal articles tend to have as theses shit that isn’t somehow both obvious and vacuously true then not backed up by the passive voice, the gold standard for scientific literature. “The beaker was observed …”
This is from their opinion section. Research articles are separate.
…are you okay?
One of the most important things in democracy is accuracy and transparency of information. That’s literally the reason why the media is being taken over by corpos all over the world.
I mean our parents’ biggest generational task was to mitigate nuclear war. Our generation’s biggest task is to mitigate misinformation.