Why am I writing about this? Answer in my previous post.
@insaneworks/i-had-no-intention-to-continue-my-memes-posts-but
In this post there's also a link to one of my posts that got several comments from a really obvious troll and that is the one I will use as the obvious example. Perhaps you've already had an encounter with this one here in Hive? If you haven't and don't want to see what he wrote, reading it isn't in any way important to understand this post, but if you are curious, click on the link above, scroll to the part where there's the screen capture of his first long comment and there you also can find the link to the comment.
Usually when encountering trolls or otherwise repulsive comments, I ignore them and move on. But I have to admit that I was curious to see what would happen if I would answer. Aaaaaaand I kinda also wasn't over memes so I used the answers to him as an excuse to share more memes. But let's not tell that to anyone. Official reason is: I did it for scientific reasons. Yes. That's it.
Trolls among us, what is their agenda?
Gone are the days when usually the only agenda an internet troll had was to entertain themselves by making someone else feel bad. Payroll trolls weren't a thing. Don't get me wrong, there are still old fashioned trolls out there too and of course propaganda and provoking someone, be it an individual, a group or a country, is a really old invention, but nowadays trolling, propaganda and spreading disinformation has reached a whole new level because it's so easy to share information and anyone can do it.
How to recognize trolling?
None of these are 100% ways to determine who's a troll and who's not, these are just tools to evaluate things as whole. Sometimes people just have bad days, are unable to say or write properly what they mean, are bad at discussing because they perhaps never stop and think before they speak or are simply obnoxious by choice.
Try to remember a discussion where you more or less disagreed with the one you were talking with but where you also know your opponent isn't a troll. Reflect it with these following points:
Intentional fallacy
- Diverting the argument to unrelated issues with a red herring (Ignoratio elenchi)
- Insulting someone's character (argumentum ad hominem)
- Assuming the conclusion of an argument, a kind of circular reasoning, also called "begging the question" (petitio principii)
- Making jumps in logic (non sequitur)
- Identifying a false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc)
- Asserting that everyone agrees (argumentum ad populum, bandwagoning)
- Creating a false dilemma (either-or fallacy) in which the situation is oversimplified, also called false dichotomy
- Selectively using facts (card stacking)
- Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy)
- Generalizing quickly and sloppily (hasty generalization)
- Using an argument's connections to other concepts or people to support or refute it, also called "guilt by association" (association fallacy)
- Claiming that a lack of proof counts as proof (appeal to ignorance)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy
Let's face it, we've all been guilty of at least one of these, especially in the heat of an argument, when angry and hurt. But that doesn't make you or the other person a troll. Perhaps only an intentional provoker or just some of the things I've already mentioned above. But then again if you can tick some of these or perhaps even most, it's a clear warning sign that you're talking with an internet troll or a person intentionally trying to provoke you.
The comment I've linked in my previous post is a very clear example. I stopped reading after the first lines because he thought it was a good thing to start with a slur. I did glance the long comment a bit when scrolling down and the pictures in the comment, unfortunately I've seen them before and I knew where it all was going. Very clear signs of trolling.
So trolls use those exact fallacies as noted above, but what I've noticed is that the most obvious trolls certainly have few favourite means:
(A recap to the most popular fallacies used.)
- Provoking: slurs.
- Monologues: long comments as a way to destabilize the minds of those who are not that familiar with media criticism, tend to think that if there's enough text, it is more true or are prone to believe in conspiracy theories or just gossips.
- Propaganda and misleading: providing "facts" that are not mentioned in any mainstream media. Taking the fact you've provided and explaining how that proves the opposite, proves nothing or is the wrong fact needed. Green is red, grey areas are black and white.
- Prove me wrong: the troll claims something and tries to lure you in to answering and digging up opposite facts. If you don't, the troll claims that not answering is the proof as you didn't find any opposite facts.
- Growing fear: painting horror scenarios and spreading conspiracy theories to make people panic.
- Pretexts: to diminish for example a war crime the people they are defending did, the troll turns the conversation to monstrosities the opposite side have done elsewhere.
- No it isn't. (This one is my favourite.) You say something and there comes the troll and just states: "No it isn't". Case closed.
Of course again there are also people who do this unintentionally. If someone is afraid of an attack, they spread the fear of an attack without thinking that it actually benefits the one trying to divide people.
Why information war?
Why are any wars fought? Money, power, control. Spreading lies, false facts and propaganda divides people, leads ones focus away from more serious issues and provides a very simple but usually wrong or inadequate answer to a complex issue. Populism. Who wouldn't want to have an easy, only one answer to a problem that usually takes time to be solved or multiple solutions to fix it?
Information war is so much easier than just sending troops to occupy countries or kill to people. It's easier to deny what you've done in the digital world. And it's also used to hide the truth by blaming someone else. To destabilize the government by misleading the people believing that the threat is somewhere else than the actual attacker. Another county or internal threat. There are still plenty of people who are quite naive and believe almost anything. Headlines like: "This is what the government doesn't want you to know" sounds like a conspiracy theory likers dream. And: "The untold truth about this politician/leader/celeb" is simply a must click thing for a gossip lover. Or then again might also be a lure.
How to recognize disinformation?
Sometimes it's really easy. Experience and education. You already know things and because you know why the facts are true, it is be impossible to persuade you to change your mind.
Sometimes it's impossible. Person A blames person B and person B blames person A. No other evidence. Word against word.
But when you do have evidence, it's all about quantities and who is proven to be trustworthy. If you want to know the truth, gather as much evidence from independent sources as you can. And it's not about how many times the same message has been shared in social media, it's about the original sources. How many people have witnessed it with their own eyes? How many photos or videos there are from different angles? Has someone already fact checked the information?
I did a search for "most unbiased media in the world" and here's what I found:
Reuters, BBC News, ABC News, Pew Research, The Advocate, Bloomberg, NPR (National Public Radio), Wall Street Journal, The Hill, Financial Times, LA Times, PBS, Al Jazeera, CBS News, Fortune, The Real News, Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, The Associated Press, The Guardian, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
At this point a troll would say: "bad mainstream media, it's all part of a conspiracy, false facts, this is just what they want you to see!"
Well, there are such things like journalism ethics and standards and although some news agencies may be slightly tilted to the left or some to the right, there are people supervising the integrity of the media. Besides, I did just say that you should always check the facts from several original sources.
Here's a useful twitter account:
https://twitter.com/hoaxeye
"Hoax fighter and fact finder. Main tools: reverse image search and coffee."
I simply have to link you one mainstream media more, funded by the Finnish government, meaning the Finnish people, by taxes.
YLE news in English: https://yle.fi/news
In Swedish because it's the second official language: https://svenska.yle.fi
And now also in Russian: https://yle.fi/novosti
YLE has just started to provide more news in Russian, because of the Ukrainian war and I hear several other media in other countries have also done the same thing, which is awesome!
But what if there's only one source available?
- Consider the Source - Click away from the story to investigate the site, its mission and its contact info.
- Read Beyond - Headlines can be outrageous in an effort to get clicks. What's the whole story?
- Check the Author - Do a quick search on the author. Are they credible? Are they real?
- Supporting Sources? - Click on those links. Determine if the info given actually supports the story.
- Check the Date - Reposting old news stories doesn't mean they're relevant to current events.
- Is it a Joke? - If it is too outlandish, it might be satire. Research the site and author to be sure.
- Check your Biases - Consider if your own beliefs could affect your judgment.
- Ask the Experts - Ask a librarian or consult a fact-checking site.
https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evaluate_news/infographic
I usually also look at the overall appearance of the site. How does it look like? It's layout and the writing style. Again these is not a 100% full proof ways to determine true or not, but can give you a good idea of the credibility of the site and the info.
If the info is in a site that looks like a media site, check out the other news too. Do they seem credible? Is there info on those news in any other site? Are the headlines clickbaits or is the reporting sensational?
If it's a personal blog I search for info about the person and again look at the overall writing style, provided sources and additional info. Again you can't determine 100% if the person is writing facts or false because for instance dyslexia, so confusing writing style doesn't necessarily mean that they would be lying, or if the writer has a PhD degree or is a CEO of some big company, it doesn't mean that they are speaking the truth.
If you do find any info of the financiers and do want to dig deeper, I suggest to follow the money because that sometimes works for others too, not only corrupt politicians.
How to prevent spreading disinformation?
Think before you share the text or news. You don't want to be a useful idiot. Think before you openly react to it. If you know the news is fake, you can either walk away and not get caught up in a meaningless fight with a troll or you can debunk the trolls claims. If you're not the debunking type, you can how ever comment the troll, not because you believe you can change the trolls mind but by leaving a comment tell others who may find themselves in the same news comment section, blog or tweet thread. Comment that the person spreading the disinformation is wrong and provide facts. That may prevent someone else sharing the false news.
What else can I do?
- Support those fighting disinformation.
- Expose trolls, inform others.
- Say your opinion out loud when you see someone trolled or bullied.
- Support all those who are attacked by trolls.
- Do not feed the troll. Don't end up getting mad or going to the direction the troll is leading you to.
In Hive we have this neat tool that's called downvoting. I haven't used it that much, but in this case I think I will. First of all because of one really obvious reason: spamming. So many of the comments I got were exactly that. Spam. But second of all also because of bad behavior. I'm not that sensitive that it would hurt me in any way if someone calls me names but for the reasons I listed above, I think it's time to show support for the ones the troll bullies and harasses in the Team Ukraine. I certainly can do that much.
My version:
In information war, truth is the only thing worth fighting for.
CC BY-SA
I made this art 2016 and updated it by removing few truth texts. You can see the original here @insaneworks/the-truth and also the original photos it was made off. A toy soldier and macro sized flowers.