There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine

Scientists show how ‘doing your own research’ leads to believing conspiracies — This effect arises because of the quality of information churned out by Google’s search engine::Researchers found that people searching misinformation online risk falling into “data voids” that increase belief in conspiracies.

unreasonabro ,

Google’s IPO literally ruined the entire society. Don’t be evil!™

Emerald ,

I know it won’t fix the problem, but I highly recommend using less biased search engines like DuckDuckGo

Ibex0 ,

I blame social media more than Google. Looking at you, Elon.

chitak166 ,

Twitter users choose to stay there.

Lemminary ,

“I have no choice, I have no other options” lol I can hear it in my sleep

SupraMario ,

Twitter was shit before musk bought it.

Ibex0 ,

Sure, agreed, but what’s his plan to fix this? Where’s the progress? I see plenty of Qanon and bigots (and whatever you don’t like) stinking up the place.

SupraMario ,

The issue with Twitter is people who think they’ve got a platform to speak loudly. When you have a platform like that, it’s inherently going to be shit, no matter who runs it.

Ibex0 ,

Partly agree, but, like, anybody acting with a modicum of seriousness could do better. Of course it will never be perfect, or even great, but improvement is possible.

bramblepatchmystery ,

The biggest issue is that true information is behind paywalls while the lies are handed out for free.

Americans have an almost Pavlovian response to news at this point, where they fundamentally can not trust a source of information until that source suggests the reader begin taking erection medication.

Ibex0 ,

true information is behind paywalls

Yup, no paywalls on right-wing garbage.

chitak166 ,

Yeah, it’s funny how leftists care about societal problems until it fucks with their wallets.

I guess that’s one thing the left and right can always unite on: greed.

Lemminary ,

leftists care about societal problems until it fucks with their wallets.

Please elaborate

ComradePorkRoll ,

Capitalists. You’re talking about capitalists. Democrats are still capitalists, therefore they are not “leftist.” You cannot be a capitalist and a leftist.

HiddenLayer5 , (edited )

Leftists have been decrying the cost barrier to high quality information preventing people from easily accessing it for ages. SciHub is founded by and run mostly by leftists for example, and leftists tend to be very pro-piracy in general.

uriel238 ,
@uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

Yes. Let me Google that for you is no longer enough, a combination of search engine enshittification, state disinformation efforts by Russia and China, propaganda efforts by plutocrats, The Heritage Foundation and religious ministries and the removal of critical thinking trainig from public education in the US. Also mass politicization where the shoes worn by a candy mascot is grounds for outrage.

It seems to have lead to an era of the deep dive podcast where hosts cite sources. But its our responsibility to confirm those sourses when able.

vonbaronhans ,

Curious, but was there ever a time when critical thinking was taught in US public schools above and beyond what is being taught in public schools now?

US public schools are getting underfunded, of course, but curricula themselves have probably improved over time?

I honestly don’t really even know how to begin researching this particular line of inquiry, and I have a background in social science research.

ASeriesOfPoorChoices ,

It’s a complex answer, I think.

Yes, some curricula has definitely improved. And yes, there has been a concerted influence by disingenuous agents. And there has been a departure of skilled educators due to pay and treatment, allowing significantly less skilled, able or genuine teachers to enter the field.

So, while you could say “X is better”, that can mean very little if there is no one to teach it (willingly). So, to answer your first question: yes.

Water1053 ,

The modern day “do your own research means find whatever supports your confirmation bias”. However, I feel like there’s a lot of discouragement against a healthy skepticism as well, which is… not healthy either.

go_go_gadget ,

For every opinion that exists there’s someone on social media who will dedicate paragraphs to telling you why that opinion is stupid and you’re a bad person for having it.

bmsok , (edited )

SEO and Ai have been very heavy influincers in the degradation of journalistic integrity and reporting facts *while dumbing things down for clicks.

It led directly to a more radicalized and less informed public.

The vast majority of people think that the first answer on Google is still correct. That simply isn’t true anymore because people started to game the system and Google let them do it to gain a shitloat of ad money.

It’s disgusting that they don’t have the morals to rein things in.

Zeth0s , (edited )

Title makes no sense. Researchers did “their own research”. Experts and non experts do “their own research”. Simply there are people who knows how to do it and to draw meaningful conclusions from sources and data, and people who don’t.

idiocracy ,

good point.

and not only drawing meaningful conclusions but also validating the data is correct in the first place.

nicetomeetyouIMVEGAN ,

It’s a reference to an attitude that is prevalent in conspiracy fantasy circles. It’s a deflection of ownership of ideas to lend them more credibility, it’s not actually about researching anything. There is no discussion about research conclusions or facts. there is discussion, but it’s the exact opposite of research, it looks like, what questions give the right answers and how to connect the conclusions to the data. What they mean by saying ‘research’ isn’t what it actually means. Conspiracy fantasy wants you to stumble upon coincidences to lure you into their worldview.

aesthelete ,

While conventional wisdom holds that researching the veracity of fake news would reduce belief in misinformation, a study published on Wednesday in Nature has found that using online search engines to vet conspiracies can actually increase the chance that someone will believe it. The researchers point to a known problem in search called “data voids.” Sometimes, there’s not a lot of high-quality information to counter misleading headlines or surrounding fringe theories. So, when someone sees an article online about an “engineered famine” due to COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccines, and conducts an unsophisticated search based on those keywords, they may find articles that reaffirm their bias.

This is interesting and something I hadn’t really thought about before. The Internet’s conspiracy circles are becoming a giant, weapons-grade “gish gallop”. The difference is that nobody is even arguing with the original conspiracy theorist so nobody even gets a chance to counter any of the arguments until they’ve become mainstream enough for those wishing to counter to be made aware of them.

Maggoty ,

A lot of those data voids are the result of the academic publishing industry too.

voluble ,

Excellent point.

aesthelete ,

There’s another thing I hadn’t thought much about, but did see a bit during COVID lockdowns. People would stumble upon some paper published by whomever that was on a seemingly reputable domain, and without knowing anything about the subject claim that it proved things it didn’t and then reference those papers as proof.

Then they’d post on their own blog(s) run up some SEO, and boom, you got the beginning of a rabbit hole.

SuddenDownpour ,

As time goes on, Google further prioritizes results from far right think tanks, as they are paying for better visibility. Unless you are specifically searching through Google Scholar, trusting the first results of any given search has increasingly become a coin flip.

mydude ,

I remember a time when “doing their own research” was just “read”… Yes I read, please stop shaming me for it…

ipkpjersi ,

Also, the people “doing their own research” often aren’t intelligent enough to know what is real versus what is made-up garbage, and are gullible enough to believe whatever they happen to read.

samus12345 ,
@samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

Whatever they read that reaffirms their biases, especially.

sukhmel ,

So “doin research” = “throwing away anything contradicting to your views”. Makes sense ¯_(ツ)_/¯

clearleaf ,

Was this written by the actual soyjak?

ComradeKhoumrag ,
@ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub avatar

As mod of conspiracy_theories, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s bullshit

If you listened to the mainstream media, the last few years you’d think the economy was booming. If you did your own research and listen to experts like Adam Taggart or Wealthion, fractures in the housing market were apparent for almost a year before the mainstream media started reporting that

We grew up being told we fight for freedom when really we fight for a fascist apartheid ethnostate in the middle east

We grew up being told Weed was worse than alcohol

We grew up being told if you didn’t go to college, you couldn’t get a job, while cost of tuition and textbooks outpaced inflation

The media doesn’t exist to inform people. Whether your left or right wing I think that’s something everyone can agree on. From a political science standpoint, the media exists to create an agenda. Often times, that includes misinforming people.

Can doing your own research get you into some conspiracy theories? Sure. The problem with that is everyone’s conspiring, even the mainstream media

GeneralVincent ,

I agree (and I think the article agrees in part too) with much of what you’re saying. But the issue with your comment is this;

If you did your own research and listen to experts like Adam Taggart or Wealthion

You’re assuming doing your own research will lead to the correct and educated experts (Adam Taggart or Wealthion in this example). The study this article is based on really is just saying “do your own research” is leaving it up to your search engine. And everyone uses Google. Google isn’t designed to show you research, it’s designed to show you what you want to know.

ComradeKhoumrag ,
@ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub avatar

Google didn’t lead me to those channels, but still the point stands, trust is eventually delegated to individuals and that is always a security flaw.

All I meant was, the same is still true with the mainstream media

aesthelete ,

As mod of conspiracy_theories, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s bullshit

Ok, so it’s bullshit.

Can doing your own research get you into some conspiracy theories? Sure.

So, I guess it’s not bullshit? Alright then.

LOL

lilsolar ,
@lilsolar@sh.itjust.works avatar

The OC gave solid points regarding their stance, and you “debunked” him in the most childish way possible by name-calling like a 3yr old.

Stay loyal to the foil

aesthelete ,

What name did I call this poster?

ComradeKhoumrag ,
@ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub avatar

It’s not a contradiction if I elaborate on what’s bullshit. The framing of that article associates people who do their own research as conspiracy theorists. I was pointing out (and gave plenty of evidence) that listening to the mainstream media to form your decisions would be just as deluding as accepting any other conspiracy theory as true.

This is not to say the article itself is necessarily wrong , but if the alternative to doing your own research is trusting the mainstream media, then either way you’re digesting a false narrative.

Actually, if all you did was trust CNN or Fox news, I would probably think that person was less credible than a conspiracy theorist, but of course they would depend on which conspiracies

aesthelete ,

You reacted to “the framing” of the article seemingly without reading it, but even with that you reacted to that framing differently at the start and end of your post which made it superficially incoherent.

I largely agree that the media plays a large role in setting a narrative and coloring stories to fit that narrative, but that isn’t what the article is discussing at all.

I think your dispute (because it’s largely with “the framing” and not the content) is largely semantic in nature (as are most of the rabbles that got roused by the title of this article in this thread), but the reality is that the article’s content contains the specific steps they took and found to be reproducible, and the findings of those studies are largely consistent with the framing everyone here has such a problem with.

b1tstremist0 ,

This entirely depends on how limited your perspective is. A limited perspective leads to more negative actions and an open perspective leads to more affirmative actions. ‘Organized Groups’, who influence others to think like them and believe what they believe, are results of negation.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •