Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

N8CCRG t1_iw7jslw wrote

Reply to comment by OrbitalATK in People who post stories marked false by Snopes on Reddit fall into five groups: Reason to Disagree, Changed Belief, Steadfast Non-Standard Belief, Sharing to Debunk, and Sharing for Humor. Reducing misinformation requires different approaches for each group. by asbruckman

> not really enough information is provided for many of the descriptions to actually determine the validity of the story

You're saying you think Snopes is wrong to label at least some of those stories as fact-checked to be found false?

12

OrbitalATK t1_iw7jxlz wrote

> You're saying you think Snopes is wrong to label at least some of those stories as fact-checked to be found false?

Some of them, not at all- they are clearly false. Not enough information is provided from quite a few of them to actually determine what the story even is.

−11

N8CCRG t1_iw7lzek wrote

I've found when there's not enough information Snopes is very good at pointing out there's not enough information. It sounds like you disagree with that?

Do you not trust the OP who said "the specific stories in the study were not borderline—they were provably wrong"?

17

OrbitalATK t1_iw7n5s4 wrote

> I've found when there's not enough information Snopes is very good at pointing out there's not enough information. It sounds like you disagree with that?

Sure, Snopes can provide decent information on a topic, but making a blanket statement of that always been the case has not been my experience utilizing them. Therefore, as the authors do not provide the actual Snopes sources, no, I cannot make the conclusion that the individual stories on Snopes sufficiently explained the topic.

> Do you not trust the OP who said "the specific stories in the study were not borderline—they were provably wrong"?

I believe the authors should provide the stories that were shared, instead for providing vague snippets for many of them (while some others were certainly false). A potential solution, which I mentioned before, would instead be conducting interviews on individuals who shared the same provably false story (for example, vaccine misinformation).

−5

asbruckman OP t1_iw7tjkd wrote

It’s a nice idea. But all the people who shared X is an identifiable group? And also, not enough folks share the same story to make a study.

16

OrbitalATK t1_iw7u5m6 wrote

> But all the people who shared X is an identifiable group?

I guess if the goal was to understand why they posted misinformation, and then see what the reaction would be to presenting the user with information that is the case.

> And also, not enough folks share the same story to make a study.

I've certainly seen articles (with misinformation) posted hundreds of times (the 'other discussion' page is quite helpful at finding that). I bet you could find at least 21 individuals for that (since that was the sample size here).

−5