How bad info seeps into public discourse (recent example from SSF) [THREAD CLOSED] (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

I am really struggling with something that happened yesterday in the SSF. I am not sure where this topic can be discussed on these boards. I don't consider this a political topic per se even though the central topic involves New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell. To me, the proper topic of conversation is "How do we come to believe the things we believe ... and learn the things we learn, day to day, minute to minute?"

Sure, many know by now the concept of "information bubbles" and how people these days -- especially online -- tend to more easily find and give attention to info that supports their current viewpoints, while overlooking or just plain avoiding exposure to info that challenges their viewpoints. A lot of this is due to personal choices made concerning information consumption.

Anyway, I looked at this thread yesterday (now closed):

Jeff Duncan: Mayor Cantrell May Allow Fans this Sunday [THREAD CLOSED]

NOLA.com defending Cantrellhttps://www.nola.com/opinions/will_sutton/article_0a542250-1226-11eb-a3f8-379d19cd154f.htmlI came across that article as well. There's a narrative being pushed that she is not allowing fans in the dome so that Mardi Gras can happen in 2021.

saintsreport.com

In that thread, the idea was dropped early on that some journalist(s) wrote somewhere that Latoya Cantrell has been attending Saints games. As discussion about this proposition unfolded, it turned out that people who reported reading this could not remember where they saw it or who wrote it or anything specific. It was described as if it came within a wash of information through which it was difficult to recall discrete bits.

I have been trying to figure out what happened there. I have searched up and down for any kind mention of Cantrell's whereabouts during the 2020 home Saints games. Nothing via Google or Google News or Yahoo or Bing. Nothing on The TP/Advocate, The Sun-Herald, The Lens, Gambit, or any other local paper big or small. Same with local TV and radio station websites. Nothing on Twitter, not even comments on other people's tweets. Nothing on TigerDroppings or other fan sites.

I mean, just nothing at all.

I can't help thinking that a bit of info like that (Cantrell attended a 2020 Saints game) would be "up on the surface" of the general churn of online information, and thus would be readily found with not so much effort. But there was nothing. Still, those who first brought this up in the SSF post linked above insisted that there WAS something, they just couldn't come up with it in the moment ... or else didn't care to pursue it further for reasons unclear to me.

So ... what happened here? We know that people will tweet things on Twitter, then try to "erase" it by deleting their tweet (which always seems to get found out). Is something similar happening with "lower tier news" articles? I don't mean on TP/Advocate, or WWL, or anything major ... but at the "some guy's blog" level of "journalism"? Will people hungry for clicks post something sensational and unsubstantiated, leave it up for a short while (30 min or so) and then delete it from their page? And since it's not Twitter, there's less chance that someone did a retweet or a screen capture or otherwise memorialized the sensational/unsubstantiated bit so it never comes back and bites the "journalist" in the butt?

 

[St. Widge]

I am really struggling with something that happened yesterday in the SSF. I am not sure where this topic can be discussed on these boards. I don't consider this a political topic per se even though the central topic involves New Orleans Mayor Latoya Cantrell. To me, the proper topic of conversation is "How do we come to believe the things we believe ... and learn the things we learn, day to day, minute to minute?"

Sure, many know by now the concept of "information bubbles" and how people these days -- especially online -- tend to more easily find and give attention to info that supports their current viewpoints, while overlooking or just plain avoiding exposure to info that challenges their viewpoints. A lot of this is due to personal choices made concerning information consumption.

Anyway, I looked at this thread yesterday (now closed):

Jeff Duncan: Mayor Cantrell May Allow Fans this Sunday [THREAD CLOSED]

NOLA.com defending Cantrellhttps://www.nola.com/opinions/will_sutton/article_0a542250-1226-11eb-a3f8-379d19cd154f.htmlI came across that article as well. There's a narrative being pushed that she is not allowing fans in the dome so that Mardi Gras can happen in 2021.

saintsreport.com

In that thread, the idea was dropped early on that some journalist(s) wrote somewhere that Latoya Cantrell has been attending Saints games. As discussion about this proposition unfolded, it turned out that people who reported reading this could not remember where they saw it or who wrote it or anything specific. It was described as if it came within a wash of information through which it was difficult to recall discrete bits.

I have been trying to figure out what happened there. I have searched up and down for any kind mention of Cantrell's whereabouts during the 2020 home Saints games. Nothing via Google or Google News or Yahoo or Bing. Nothing on The TP/Advocate, The Sun-Herald, The Lens, Gambit, or any other local paper big or small. Same with local TV and radio station websites. Nothing on Twitter, not even comments on other people's tweets. Nothing on TigerDroppings or other fan sites.

I mean, just nothing at all.

I can't help thinking that a bit of info like that (Cantrell attended a 2020 Saints game) would be "up on the surface" of the general churn of online information, and thus would be readily found with not so much effort. But there was nothing. Still, those who first brought this up in the SSF post linked above insisted that there WAS something, they just couldn't come up with it in the moment ... or else didn't care to pursue it further for reasons unclear to me.

So ... what happened here? We know that people will tweet things on Twitter, then try to "erase" it by deleting their tweet (which always seems to get found out). Is something similar happening with "lower tier news" articles? I don't mean on TP/Advocate, or WWL, or anything major ... but at the "some guy's blog" level of "journalism"? Will people hungry for clicks post something sensational and unsubstantiated, leave it up for a short while (30 min or so) and then delete it from their page? And since it's not Twitter, there's less chance that someone did a retweet or a screen capture or otherwise memorialized the sensational/unsubstantiated bit so it never comes back and bites the "journalist" in the butt?

It's an interesting topic in general and on this topic in particular. In this specific instance, I think that this "information" about Mayor Cantrell came from word of mouth around the City. It's one of those things that actually existed before Social Media and because New Orleans isn't really that big of a city when it comes to people who know the people in power, it's a small group. I have no idea if it's true that she attended games or not. But, I'm sure the people who said it heard it from someone they trust either knows people that knows people or is a person who knows.

But, it's the kind of thing that in the age of social media has a life of it's own and can grow beyond what it could in the past. And this type of thing usually starts of social media, Facebook, etc. these days more than it does as the word on the street. But, I think it's a old phenomenon that has just grown geometrically with the growth of social media and the internet. The Global Village if you will.

(On a side note, it's entirely possible the Mayor was at the games in order to monitor how the Saints were handling things so as to make an informed decision on whether to let fans in the stands or not.)

 

[Doug B]

Does Facebook, generally, reside outside of reach of Google's (and others') search engines? Occasionally, a Facebook page will come up in a general search. But it's not like if you Google "New Orleans Saints" you'll get every personal-account Facebook post that mentions them.

Maybe a larger portion of the Internet works this way than I imagined. The "deep Web" and/or "dark Web" are spoken about from time to time -- this is maybe more like "the nether Web" where search engines cannot reach.

 

[jboss]

That's really drawn out for what's basically just asking what a rumor is.

 

[Doug B]

That's really drawn out for what's basically just asking what a rumor is.

Well, it's more about why people cling to the rumor, even when they themselves can't vet the rumored info.

EDIT: Plus, in that thread, the initial info drop was not treated as a rumor -- it was treated as hard, corroborated fact that "some local journalist on some site wrote about." And then some "why does it matter?" towards the end when pressed -- as if the distinction between rumor and fact were fundamentally unimportant.

 

[HoustonGold]

It's called Fake News.

 

[St. Widge]

That's really drawn out for what's basically just asking what a rumor is.

Not really. There are many books about topics like this and it ties into the concepts of the Global Village, Existentialism, and Language Analysis. But, I'm going to guess that none of that would be interesting to you.

I don't think this is about what a rumor is. It's about how do we decide what is and isn't true in the age of social media and the internet. It's an old topic with a long history in philosophical circles. But, the addition of the internet and social media has changed the discussion and maybe changed the conclusions.

 

[Doug B]

It's called Fake News.

Not merely fake ... but also temporary, right? Unsearchable? People who buy into it can't remember anything about where they read it?

 

[HoustonGold]

Not merely fake ... but also temporary, right? Unsearchable? People who buy into it can't remember anything about where they read it?

Gossip?

 

[Doug B]

Gossip?

I guess an online version of the same. The weird thing is not being able to find the online gossip later on.

 

[St. Widge]

Does Facebook, generally, reside outside of reach of Google's (and others') search engines? Occasionally, a Facebook page will come up in a general search. But it's not like if you Google "New Orleans Saints" you'll get every personal-account Facebook post that mentions them.

Maybe a larger portion of the Internet works this way than I imagined. The "deep Web" and/or "dark Web" are spoken about from time to time -- this is maybe more like "the nether Web" where search engines cannot reach.

I think Google uses algorithm that at least in part uses your search history to provide you with the hits you get early in the list. I never have Facebook come up in any Google searches I do. But, I also never use Facebook other than to check a private message that someone sends me or to either accept or reject a friend request every 6 months or so. So, I suspect my lack of Facebook hits has to do with my lack of use of Facebook and how that fits into the Google search algorithm, but some of the more knowledgeable tech guys like buzd, zeetes, etc. would know better than me.

I think this stuff is touched upon in that Nextflix documentary that was being talked about a while back "The Social Dilemma."

 

[HoustonGold]

I guess an online version of the same. The weird thing is not being able to find the online gossip later on.

If you can’t find it then it is not true. The person realizes it was not true and deleted the source. Last thing the source needs is to be sued by Mayor for something that did not happen . In the end it was Fake News. Clickbait. I hate those clickbait articles too.

 

[St. Widge]

If you can’t find it then it is not true. The person realizes it was not true and deleted the source. Last thing the source needs is to be sued by Mayor. In the end it was Fake News.

So, you are saying that if you can't find a source for something then it's not true?

 

[antipop]

it reminds me of that game you played in 4th grade where the teacher whispers something to one student they pass it on to the next....by the time it reaches the last student, it's morphed into something unrecognizable from the original statement...

basically, people are usually terrible at recalling events or conversations exactly how they happen and often just fill in gaps with nonsense...often times, the nonsense gets a life of it's own

i am not talking about the particulars of the thread on the SSF...just a generalization of how unreliable anecdotal evidence can be

i also could just be talking out of my arse

 

[St. Widge]

i also could just be talking out of my arse

Could be?