- Reaction score
- 1,724
The internet has been a huge boon for the accessibility of information. There are very few barriers to consuming classic literature or detailed scientific analyses or catalogues of news reports. There is also an exorbitant amount of garbage information, of course, and an entire universe of people who say stuff that they think will get people to click links that will earn themselves money.
While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.
The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.
This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.
“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing them.”
Later, they summarize the process, “When individuals search online about misinformation, they are more likely to be exposed to lower-quality information than when individuals search about true news” and “those who are exposed to low-quality information are more likely to believe false/misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.” Look for info; see bad info; accept the bad info.
While confidence in American institutions has been in decline for some time, it’s not hard to imagine how the economic incentives of the internet contribute. There is an outsize appetite for derogatory, counterintuitive or anti-institutional assessments of the world around us. This is in part because alleged scandals are interesting and in part because Americans like to view themselves as independent analysts of the world around us.
The result is that there is both a supply and a demand for nonsense or appealingly framed errors. Americans who have little trust in the system can easily find something to reinforce their skepticism. They often do.
This month, Nieman Lab’s Josh Benton reported on research released last year that showed how people “doing their own research” on the internet often led them to gain more confidence in untrue information. The paper, titled “Online searches to evaluate misinformation can increase its perceived veracity,” was written by researchers from the University of Central Florida, New York University and Stanford. Their conclusions were straightforward.
“Although conventional wisdom suggests that searching online when evaluating misinformation would reduce belief in it, there is little empirical evidence to evaluate this claim,” the authors wrote. Instead, they continued: “We present consistent evidence that online search to evaluate the truthfulness of false news articles actually increases the probability of believing them.”
Later, they summarize the process, “When individuals search online about misinformation, they are more likely to be exposed to lower-quality information than when individuals search about true news” and “those who are exposed to low-quality information are more likely to believe false/misleading news stories to be true relative to those who are not.” Look for info; see bad info; accept the bad info.
Last edited by a moderator:
