|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Huaxia Rui believes that a “healthy information environment is the cornerstone of a functional democracy.” That’s why, he says, misinformation online poses a grave challenge to our society.
When Twitter, now known as X, launched Community Notes in 2021, many critics decried the crowdsourced fact-checking system, which relies on users’ annotations to flag potentially misleading content. They said the platform was surrendering to those flooding social media with misinformation.
Not so fast, says Rui, Xerox Professor of Computer and Information Systems at the University of Rochester’s Simon Business School. A recent study he conducted with fellow researchers from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and the University of Virginia found that “crowd-checking” in fact does work. Their findings, published in the journal Information Systems Research, indicate that when a community note about potentially false or misleading information appears beneath a post, the author of the post is more likely to retract it.
The researchers analyzed more than 250,000 posts on X. They found that publicly displayed Community Notes not only increase the probability of post retractions but also accelerate the retraction process. (X uses an algorithm-based “helpfulness” rating system to determine which notes appear publicly.)
A year ago, Meta rolled out its own crowdsourced fact-checking system, shutting down its in-house team of fact-checkers. In Rui’s view, crowd-checking should not replace traditional fact-checking by trained professionals. Instead, he says, the two approaches should go hand in hand.
“Traditional fact-checking is done by well-trained professionals who have a lot to offer,” he says, “while non-professionals are more susceptible to biases.”
Traditional fact-checking, however, has a scalability problem. It can’t keep pace with the explosive spread of questionable posts.
“There are just too many misleading claims floating around these days, and they spread too fast, especially on social media, and there are just not enough professional (traditional) fact-checkers to check everything,” Rui says.
Why does crowd-checking work? Rui and his fellow researchers say its effectiveness is “primarily driven by the author’s reputational concern and perceived social pressure.” For many posting on social media, having their credibility questioned matters.
Gaining the upper hand over misinformation will remain a challenge, but Rui says he’s hopeful, adding: “This is a battle we must win.”
The Beacon posed a few questions to Rui. His answers are below.
ROCHESTER BEACON: Briefly, how do you define crowd-checking, or peer-based fact-checking, and do you see it as a replacement for traditional fact-checking?
HUAXIA RUI: We coined the term crowd-checking to refer to the growing practice of fact-checking by non-professionals, rather than by traditional fact-checkers.
While I am excited about its potential, I don’t think it is a replacement for traditional fact-checking. Traditional fact-checking is done by well-trained professionals who have a lot to offer while non-professionals are more susceptible to biases.
To make the two approaches complement each other, I would encourage fact-checking organizations to help train those who contribute to crowd-checking.
ROCHESTER BEACON: What are the chief shortcomings of traditional fact-checking and how does crowd-checking address those?
RUI: The biggest problem of traditional fact-checking is (the lack of) scalability. There are just too many misleading claims floating around these days, and they spread too fast, especially on social media, and there are just not enough professional (traditional) fact-checkers to check everything. I’ve heard criticisms that traditional fact-checkers are more likely to check claims from one side over another. But the root cause of this “selection bias” is the lack of manpower. Crowd-checking, on the other hand, can potentially mobilize an army of “crowd fact-checkers” to match the scale of misinformation spreaders, and with proper design, the resulting equilibrium should bring more objectivity and trust to our society.
ROCHESTER BEACON: You believe that voluntary retraction by the author is a better option than removal by the online platform. Why?
RUI: It’s human nature. Everyone believes they are right, and nobody wants to be censored. Even if it appears to work in the short run, forcible removal would only result in polarization in the long run.
Voluntary retraction, as a conscious decision by the author, is civil and benign because the author has a choice to remove or not remove content, and most importantly, the opportunity to self-reflect, which I believe is essential to reduce extremism. Of course, posts that clearly pose a threat to public safety should still be removed by online platforms.
ROCHESTER BEACON: You have termed misinformation “a grave challenge of our time.” Many people fear it’s a losing battle. Are you more optimistic?
RUI: I can relate to that frustration. But what is the alternative? This is a battle we must win. I am still hopeful because, deep down, I believe the vast majority of people are decent human beings with good intentions.
In recent decades, the speed of technological and social change has outpaced the speed of our ability to adapt and understand. But with more innovations and experimentations, we may design an information “immune system” for our society that detects and neutralizes misinformation at scale. A healthy information environment is the cornerstone of a functional democracy. We must keep trying.
Paul Ericson is Rochester Beacon executive editor.
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected]
It’s so sad to see microbes politicized. They are equal-opportunity noxious agents and don’t really care if you are Republican, Democrat, Independent or a down-to-earth anarchist. They will kill you just the same! The issue is that we have EXPERTS whose opinions are cast aside based on which social media has gotten to you. As a physician who trained at a time when many children died or were maimed by vaccine-preventable infections because we didn’t have the vaccines at that time, I fear that social media and criminals like RFK, Jr. will bring these diseases back and harm our children.
Getting an updated vaccine as the disease changes and progresses and immunity to the current version wanes certainly does continue to improve immunity because the thing you WERE immune to is no longer the thing being spread. Since viruses like COVID literally change structure in a matter of 6 to 12 months continuing to vaccinate is highly recommended and continues to carry fewer risks than getting the disease. An ongoing vaccine regime is advised even if you have already been vaccinated or had the disease previously. Since most people have no idea what version they may have contracted naturally and most have no idea about how immunity works arguing against vaccination just feeds the anti vax frenzy – causing deaths. As someone who masked regularly, vaxed regularly and avoided COVID for 4 years until I inadvisable went to a crowded event unmasked (and contracted a weakened mild case of a variant a vax had not been released for yet) and as a former microbiology lab instructor at the college level I certainly do understand how immunity works natural or otherwise. I also understand how propaganda works to undermine fact.
In terms of vaccinations and children it is less risky with a brand new outbreak to vax than not until you understand the risk. Anyone who has had children knows that 90 percent of the diseases THEY get come home with kids from school, not in their every day interactions. As such school closings and vaccinating children is also advised.
I can get natural immunity by catching measles. Doesn’t mean I want to get it that way.
A wonderful theory. But totally blown out of the water by three facts: 1) the trolls (both professional and paid, and amateur and just plain stupid) who post so much of the misinformation can’t be shamed into removing their lies, 2) it’s no secret that social media is a swamp of misinformation. So any non-troll going there looking for The Truth is too naive to be educatable. I submit that far more people use social media to garner affirmation of their existing biases and beliefs then use it to uncover facts. And 3) there is no way to differentiate between unbiased fact-checkers and trolls claiming to be fact-checkers with the result that “fact-checked” information is no more trustworthy than the usual stream of misinformation.
I dunno, sounds fishy.
I’m gonna ask some friends about this…
Anecdotally – NO. I have fact checked hundreds if not thousands of linked in and reddit posts – and literally zero of them have been retracted despite posting linked articles and references to disprove it. (I got off both X and Facebook after they began using stupid bots – which are significantly worse at fact checking or moderating than humans – and to protest the oligarchs running them)
When the fact in question is something technical this might work. When it has to do with anything belief or politics oriented the best you can hope for is that some OTHER reader will question the initial OP statement and challenge their own thinking. But the OP? Pretty much never admits they are wrong or retracts their statement. And we already know from platforms like Facebook that using “reader votes” to purge posts just leads to “bias bullying” where legit posts are taken down because enough people that disagree without proof report them.
More often than not OPs resort to attacking the person who posted the facts rather than arguing the facts themselves. I don’t know the mechanics behind this “study” but as a social media active user I question the validity. The author assumes that people are civil and benign. That is not the case.
Also, today’s social media is being abused by those with the dollars to do so by creating false accounts then spreading propaganda. That must be handled at the core platform level. No amount of arguing will convince a sentiment bot (and if you don’t think there are tons of those out there you have wool over your eyes) that it is wrong.
It’s disappointing that Rui doesn’t recognize that professional fact-checkers also have bias problems. This was most prominently a problem during the Covid pandemic, when the professional fact-checkers assisted censoring true information about natural immunity, the low risk to children, the damage to learning from remote schooling, and other facts and plausible opinions (like the lab leak theory) that went against the approved official line. Crowd-checking no doubt also has problems with bias, but the fact that people from multiple perspectives can participate, and that posts that have community notes aren’t blocked, reduces the likelihood that bias on the part of the fact-checkers (professional or volunteer) prevents the truth from being known.
Looks at above disinformation. Let’s see if this will cause them to retract it. We had thousands and thousands of deaths from COVID. But it is absolutely proven we’d have had hundreds of thousands more if not for the pandemic preventative measures including vaccines, masks and quarantines . “Natural” immunity carries with it the penalty of many more people dying. Not temporarily inconvenienced. Nor have a delayed education or have to wear a mask to protect themselves and others as literally well over a century of medical practice has proven. Dead. Unrecoverable. COVID and other vaccines have a few risks. But not nearly as many as those that the diseases themselves carry. I prefer kids set back in their education over dead ones, orphans or the who will grow up without grandparents. So given those facts are you ready to retract your statement? No? I rest my case..
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsif/article/21/212/20230666/90614/Reconciling-the-efficacy-and-effectiveness-of
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/10/1590?utm_source=copilot.com
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2827170
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2827170
Having been provided with these facts I look forward to your retraction.
Maybe you don’t understand what natural immunity means. It doesn’t mean immunity without getting either the disease or the vaccine. It means immunity from further infection after having the disease once. The fact is that “Natural and vaccine-induced immunity are equivalent for the protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection” (title of https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10198735/; see also https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/natural-immunity-vs-vaccine-induced-immunity-to-covid-19, https://jme.bmj.com/content/48/6/371, etc.). If you haven’t gotten Covid, you should absolutely get the vaccine, because then you get protected without getting sick. But the vaccine mandates required people to get vaccinated even if they had already gotten Covid, in which case the vaccine offered essentially no additional protection. This shouldn’t have been surprising; it’s the situation with most viral diseases, all the way up to smallpox and other highly deadly viruses.
That is factual; I look forward to your retraction of your fallacious attack.
I didn’t discuss masking, which is the focus of the articles you linked to. However, there is a wide range of effectiveness depending on the type of mask and how they’re used. That kind of nuanced discussion, along with the problems caused by masking, particularly for young children, is the kind of thing that was censored by the professional fact-checkers and their associates.