Misinformation is a broad and difficult topic. It’s very hard to effectively distill it down into pithy and useful statements. Timothy Caulfield tried with The Certainty Illusion, while Jonathan N. Stea gave it a shot with Mind the Science, and I recommend both for different reasons.
There are misinformation games out there that purport to teach people how to avoid it, and Misguided discusses a few in great detail. According to the Bad News website, for example:
“In Bad News, you take on the role of fake news-monger. Drop all pretense of ethics and choose a path that builds your persona as an unscrupulous media magnate. But keep an eye on your ‘followers’ and ‘credibility’ meters. Your task is to get as many followers as you can while slowly building up fake credibility as a news site. But watch out: you lose if you tell obvious lies or disappoint your supporters!”
Sounds like fun!
How does a game like Bad News help people? Misguided goes into detail on scientific research that shows how psychological exposure to misinformation and related disinformation can help to “inoculate” people against it, although Facciani notes this inoculation lasts for only a short period of time, on the order of weeks.
There’s also a technique called “prebunking,” which has shown to be helpful as well. Prebunking works by imagining potential misinformation along with a factual explanation of what makes it misinformation. But again, the “inoculation” might not last long. However, if authorities, leaders, and influencers can spread prebunkings consistently, then it may have a positive effect against misinformation in the long term. Of course, these methods require people to engage with the games and prebunking material in the first place, which is easier said than done.
Misguided also brings up the use of AI in debunking conspiracy theories, and detecting the spread of misinformation in early warning systems. While these are neat ideas and there’s some research out there on them, one thing Facciani doesn’t mention is the potential for an AI misinformation arms race. Some tech companies might decide that left-leaning or right-leaning AI debunkers might actually help their bottom line, putting us right back in the same position where we started: social networks divided into partisan bubbles.
It could be even worse, bifurcating knowledge to the point where ideologues rely on ideologically pure AIs to guide their beliefs and actions. Facciani spends a lot of Misguided explaining the research that shows how identity is such a powerful lens through which humans see reality, so this kind of AI arms race might not be so far-fetched.
As Facciani himself notes, the underlying issue with misinformation is one of trust. How can we trust that the information we’re consuming is true, valid, and accurate? When we so often now get our information from secondhand sources, tracking down the veracity of each and every claim can be just too time-consuming. No one has the time and resources to check every fact, or even just the facts one encounters in a single day. AI probably can’t even do it (at a reasonable cost). Misguided does offer some positive policy changes, though, such as removing the profit motive from certain forms of media.
Ultimately, spends too much time on the easy things to control: individual critical thinking. On one hand, this is good, because the deep dive into the scientific literature on this topic makes it clear that teaching critical thinking has significant limitations. Conversely, it just underlines that putting the onus on individuals is insufficient. Much like climate change, we can’t expect individual consumers to make much of a difference on their own.
AIPT Science is co-presented by AIPT and the New York City Skeptics.
You must be logged in to post a comment.