It seems to me that the hypothesis that somehow social media is generating more misinformation than before is an exercise in ignoring all human history before 2004 ish. People were always misinformed, how do you explain the whole 20th century otherwise.

The dose makes the poison. Almost everything in life is about 'how much' not 'is or isn't'.

The vectors we have to spread misinformation nowadays are far more powerful and readily available than ever before. What was once a (literal) walk from one village to the next is now an express line straight into the brains of thousands to millions.

It's easier to destroy truth and reality than it ever has been.

Where is the evidence for this hypothesis that it’s easier than ever before ? Communists, Nazis had absolutely no trouble destroying truth. History is full of this.

Your argument of "we've overcome similar things before" was dealt with in the documentary: this is always adapting to hook you in better, it benefits from massive social pressure and it's fueled by billions of $. So actually we've never overcome anything like this before and no one had such power before to spread misinformation.

One could argue that there's plenty of other reliable news sources, but for many reasons the trust in official news sources is collapsing. One reason is that social media has flooded the world with so much content that it's hard to figure out what's factual and what not.

No, it hasn’t been dealt with. My point is prior to 2004 there was enormous amount of disinformation in the world that had no trouble spreading quickly. The documentary presented no evidence that somehow people are now misinformed more than they had been in the past. Social media is one way to spread both information and misinformation but it’s not the only way and it’s not clear that its net effect is that people are misinformed more than before. I remember the world before iPhones and Facebook and I’d say average person in that world was totally misinformed about many things.

> I remember the world before iPhones and Facebook and I’d say average person in that world was totally misinformed about many things.

Not nearly as misinformed as during the communist/nazi eras you mentioned above.

There are studies showing how conspiracy theories travel vs scientific information - what would count as evidence?

I think the poster above is suggesting that whatever conditions led to worldwide tensions (and world war) may be resurfacing now. Not that these tensions always existed to this degree. Just that they have before, and are again now.

I get the point.

In my experience I can safely say that Social Media impact on our information ecosystem is a huge step change from anything we have seen before, to the point that it is effectively new.

That the current problems build on human neuronal frailties that have existed since the dawn of time, is also true.

So it is natural this conversational junction will come up repeatedly in future conversations.

How do we answer it and settle the issue comprehensively? Hence the question.

IMO we can all see how the spread of misinformation is unproductive and benefits only a few stakeholders. So I have confidence that some way or another we will figure out a solution. It will be a new solution, unlike things we've experienced in the past, and it will also be similar to the past in that we will overcome it.

You are right, people were misinformed from the dawn of history. But never before in history has the real information been so available.

If you believed that pharaoh was a God, well there was no way to know otherwise. Not only you didn't know how to read, but if you did, all the writing did confirm he was, in fact, a God.

Today, information about counter arguments is available for any claim. If it sounds suspicious, you can use the discretion of your mobile device and look up 2 or 3 different opinions. You can read the study. You can listen to experts in the field. You can do all that before the king finishes his speech.

If the truth sounds suspicious, you can look that up to, and find plenty of counter arguments with pseudo or self proclaimed authorities.

Flat earthers don't just read one article and suddenly they believe it. They spend a lot of time going down rabbit holes reading and watching all sorts of stuff.

There's good information out there, but there's also a swamp of bullshit pretending not to be that you have to wade through.

And not only do flat earthers not read reputable sources to soberly reflect on the matter, but often the truth or falsehood of their preferred conspiracy theory is not really the point. A lot of people are getting into Flat Earth, QAnon, or 5G-causes-whatever because those forums offer them a sense of community that satisfies their emotional needs. Perpetuating the conspiracy theory is just the ritual they must perform to keep the group vibe going, but in itself the conspiracy isn’t all that really important (as destructive as its side-effects are for the rest of the world).

I think the challenge for defeating those theories is providing the poor, undereducated and marginalized a more wholesome way to spend their time among other people. That is a hard challenge when community centers and churches are no longer a significant thing in many locations, and now the COVID lockdown means even less real-life socializing.

I agree with much of your post, except this:

> I think the challenge for defeating those theories is providing the poor, undereducated and marginalized a more wholesome way to spend their time among other people.

Why do you think it's the poor who buy into these theories? I live in a relatively well to do neighborhood (not in the US) and I've seen plenty of anti-5G banners hanging from balconies, there are plenty of anti vaxxers, plenty of people who think COVID19 is a hoax, and I know some people tangentially related to flat earthers (via some new age beliefs). These are all educated people.

> Why do you think it's the poor who buy into these theories?

It is not solely the poor and uneducated who buy into these theories. However, for several extreme movements in recent years, sociologists have noted that they mainly tend to attract people who are socially marginalized in some way. While the educated and even some elected politicians can become visible proponents of the given conspiracy theory, they are arising on top of a mass of less privileged supporters.

How is it that sociologists know these things about anons?

This is an important point. It reminds me of pyramid schemes (essential oils etc.) which can be found among the affluent.

These conspiracies don’t start with much, but if one gains a bit of traction there’s suddenly a bunch of “influencers” peddling it for more influence (fuck society, I need those subs and likes!... right?). More influence, more ad dollars. Next thing you know a 4chan meme is political propaganda on the national stage.

I really don’t think this is hard to follow. Anyone who’s been in tech or marketing for a while either knows this, or they’re incentivized to pretend they don’t.

People were always misinformed, but now misinformers operate at web scale. Thus, more misinformation.

Information is also operating at web scale, so it’s not obvious that the net effect is more misinformed population than before.

> Many of us here on HN don't even have an face/insta/twi/tube account. We've known about this for years.

No. HN does not get it at all. You never see coherent explanations on HN.

This movie got it pretty well. Far better than HN.

I think people on HN can see there are problems with Social Media, they are smarter than the general population, and technical, so know alternatives.

They see the smoke and can act correctly be they don't get the problem at all.