Noteworthy News

[Angrboda]

Labelling Trump’s lies as ‘disputed’ on X makes supporters believe them more, study finds

Labelling tweets featuring false claims about election fraud as “disputed” does little to nothing to change Trump voters’ pre-existing beliefs, and it may make them more likely to believe the lies, according to a new study.

The study, authored by John Blanchar, an assistant professor from the University of Minnesota, Duluth, and Catherine Norris, an associate professor from Swarthmore College, looked at data from a sampling of 1,072 Americans surveyed in December of 2020. The researchers published a peer-reviewed paper on their findings this month in the Harvard Kennedy School’s Misinformation Review.

“These ‘disputed’ tags are meant to alert a reader to false/misinformation, so it’s shocking to find that they may have the opposite effect,” Norris said.

Participants were shown four tweets from Donald Trump that made false claims about election fraud and told to rank them from one to seven based on their truthfulness. A control group saw the tweets without “disputed” tags; the experimental group viewed them with the label. Before and after seeing the tweets, the subjects were also asked to rank their views on election fraud overall.

The study found that Trump voters who were initially skeptical about claims of widespread fraud were more likely to rate lies as true when a “disputed” label appeared next to Trump’s tweets. The findings meanwhile showed Biden voters’ beliefs were largely unaffected by the “disputed” tags. Third-party voters or non-voters were slightly less likely to believe the false claims after reading the four tweets with the tags.

Blanchar and Norris had expected in their study that the disputed tags would produce little change in Trump voters with high levels of political knowledge, given that previous research had shown politically engaged people can dismiss corrective efforts in favor of their own counterarguments. The researchers did not predict the opposite possibility: corrective as confirmation. The knowledgable Trump voters surveyed were so resistant to corrections that the factchecking labels actually reinforced their belief in misinformation.

“Surprisingly, those Trump voters with higher political knowledge actually strengthened their belief in election misinformation when exposed to disputed tags, compared to a control condition without tags,” Blanchar said. “Instead of having no impact, the tags seemed counterproductive, reinforcing misinformation among this group.”

Previous studies and research from disinformation experts have argued that directly challenging conspiracy theorists’ beliefs can be counterproductive, leading them to withdraw or double down on their convictions. While Blanchar and Norris state in the study that their findings do not necessarily prove this backfire effect is universal – since the sample size of Trump voters in the study was relatively low – they are more confident that disputed tags are less effective the more politically knowledgable Trump voters become.

[Thumpalumpacus]

On the other hand, supporting Trump's claims will also deepen the belief of his followers as well, I suspect. The point of labeling them "disputed" is not to change the minds of Trumpians, but to let undecideds know that there's possibly bullshit in here.

The 40% who will vote for Trump, I already understand that nothing will change their minds. The aim must be to cordon off the sepsis so it doesn't kill the body politic.

[Belacqua]

Israel's genocide on Gaza has nearly reached the one-year mark. They have killed at least 30,000 children. I'm told that the US can do nothing about this.

In unrelated news, during his visit to the US this week Netanyahu confirmed that he will be receiving another $8,700,000,000 in military aid.

[Ivan Denisovich]

On the other hand, supporting Trump's claims will also deepen the belief of his followers as well, I suspect. The point of labeling them "disputed" is not to change the minds of Trumpians, but to let undecideds know that there's possibly bullshit in here.

The 40% who will vote for Trump, I already understand that nothing will change their minds. The aim must be to cordon off the sepsis so it doesn't kill the body politic.

"Disputed" seems strangely soft however. "False" would be better I think, though probably it wouldn't do much of a difference.

[Thumpalumpacus]

On the other hand, supporting Trump's claims will also deepen the belief of his followers as well, I suspect. The point of labeling them "disputed" is not to change the minds of Trumpians, but to let undecideds know that there's possibly bullshit in here.

The 40% who will vote for Trump, I already understand that nothing will change their minds. The aim must be to cordon off the sepsis so it doesn't kill the body politic.

"Disputed" seems strangely soft however. "False" would be better I think, though probably it wouldn't do much of a difference.

I agree. Bullshit is bullshit and should be addressed as such.

[Fake Messiah]

Zucky has entered the $200 billion club although his salary is lower even than of a street bum.

I guess companies around the world find it harder and harder to find places where to run ads and Facebook is one of the few remaining places.

Mark Zuckerberg is now in an exclusive club with only two other members: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos

It’s one thing to be a billionaire. Only 2,781 members of the world’s population, which is nearing 8 billion people, have reached that status. And even fewer people have a multibillion-dollar net worth, with a select few reaching the coveted $100 billion position.

But now there’s an even more illustrious camp: the $200 billion club. And only three of tech’s biggest leaders have reached that summit: Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, and now, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

Zuckerberg, however, not only just broke into the $200 billion club—he’s also the biggest winner on the list having accumulated dozens of billions in wealth this year.

Zuckerberg’s wealth has ballooned by an incredible $72.2 billion this year, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, bringing his total net worth to $200 billion.

While Zuckerberg, who founded Facebook 20 years ago, only takes a $1 salary, he makes up for it in “other compensation” and his massive stake in Meta. He’s the largest shareholder of Facebook’s parent company, owning about 345.5 million shares, according to Meta’s April proxy statement. Plus, he took home $24.4 million in “other compensation” this year. Much of that other compensation goes toward protecting Zuckerberg, much as with other high-profile CEOs.

https://fortune.com/2024/09/24/mark-zuck...eff-bezos/

[Silver]

Australia and three further countries are taking Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice for gender discrimination, over its oppressive laws against women.

Pink News

[brewer]

Australia and three further countries are taking Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice for gender discrimination, over its oppressive laws against women.

Pink News

Good luck with that.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Australia and three further countries are taking Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice for gender discrimination, over its oppressive laws against women.

Pink News

Good luck with that.

Yeah, that’ll help. *vdws*

Boru

[Silver]

Good luck with that.

Yeah, that’ll help. *vdws*

Boru

VDWS