New study by @brendannyhan.bsky.social, @jasonreifler.bsky.social & colleagues demonstrates that prebunking election fraud rumors — by warning about anticipated false claims & filling conceptual gaps that those claims exploit — helps to reduce belief in falsehoods: www.science.org/content/arti...
The blackshirt newsmedia in the UK prefer to stand up rumours and disinformation rather than challenge it, let alone prebunk it. Right now, they're busy trying to foment protest and rioting - truth be damned.
I wish we could have tested this in 2004. There was some significant prebuttals being communicated in case Trump lost.
📌
Be careful of the trap. Whatever they howl loudly about, they are either doing or intend to do themselves. Widespread voter fraud is surely something maga intends to implement as soon as they deem it safe.
It's almost like pointing out lies & liars promotes the truth 🤔
This paper — which arrives at a time when the field that coalesced around the study of online misinformation is reflecting upon its failures, the limitations of its models and operationalizations, and the efficacy of adversarial efforts to undermine the work — shows that some interventions DO WORK.
The long-time focus on facts & fact-checking definitely has its limitations (which our team has called out extensively). Turns out that frames as just as or more important than facts. But that doesn't mean that it isn't important to keep working to surface the truth. It's just not enough on its own.
My advice for journalists & election officials: “Think thru possible rumors that might emerge in upcoming elections, identify the misunderstandings those rumors rely upon, & develop [and] deploy prebunking messaging that helps fill in conceptual gaps these rumors & intentional falsehoods exploit.”
My sense of what might work best is carefully crafted prebunking messaging (based on what we already know about election integrity rumors and the common misunderstandings/confusions they rely upon) combined with rapid corrections when rumors emerge, ideally resonating w/ earlier prebunks.
I like this idea of prebunking with credible information about election integrity. It repurposes and counters the "prediscrediting" (<- is there a name?) approach that seems to go unchecked by those intentionally spreading disinformation.
I am loving these anticipatory terms like “prebunking” and now “prediscrediting” that seek to get ahead of the nonsense. It shouldn’t be necessary but more power to you ( or, anticipating, y’all)!
Yeah because once people are in bubbles it's hard to get them out. We see that with poles now. The next question is probably how do you get people to go against election fraud and sometimes you got to speak their language too. Eventually we'll have to get people out of bubbles... somehow
Interesting I wonder if it can stop the stirring up of hatred against certain figures too
I’m taking a poll: Has anyone heard even one democrat talk about running a preemptive disinformation inoculation campaign? www.science.org/content/arti...
Interesting research on ‘inoculation’ ideas. One problem is finding ‘credible’ models — as when McConnell voiced support of R-loss results. As Maga virus spreads, fewer such ‘credible carriers’ exist; major ‘leaders’ are infected, and ‘lesser’ partisans are tossed out of the in-group orbit.
This is the problem with the left. They do a study on what PR machinery works best. Meanwhile the right just builds it, tests it (b/c yes testing is a whole lot better than yet another scientific study) and runs it.
📌
📌