How people get misled

You should have have your shields up when viewing anything online - from both new and traditional media

I’ve seen an extraordinary amount of blatantly false information the last week, even by the mainstream media (they’ve of course been doing this for awhile). What’s surprising is so many people continue to be susceptible to it, from all forms of media traditional and new, in the volume they do. In the best of scenarios a very small percent is inevitable. Definitely not where we’re at.

The sheer volume of information today makes it difficult for many to separate truth from fiction. Social media, podcasts, traditional outlets, and now AI all compete for attention, each with their own biases and incentives. The result is an environment where half-truths, out-of-context clips, and outright fabrications travel faster than careful reporting or thoughtful analysis. And because people are busy, distracted, and often emotionally invested, clearly terrible (or simply false) ideas spread with alarming ease. All this is compounded worse by the fact many do not share a common understanding of base reality and morality that should be common across Western civilization.

Anyway, I thought I’d put down some ways I’ve seen people accept or share things they probably wouldn’t if they took just a bit of extra time. This even happens from those I know are otherwise intelligent. Although if it’s a recurring pattern, I start to question if they’re really as smart as I once thought.

They view clips without context. Context is important. And clip farmers are quite adept at taking a part of a clip and positioning it in a way that carries a different meaning than if you were to view the full thing. This has been ongoing for years - again, the short form video apps are poison. From these clips, quotes and screengrabs are made and passed around which carry the same falsehoods. Honestly I hate short form video for many reasons but this one especially, you frequently have to see the full video to get the story. Just stop watching these, and mute, unfollow or block people who share this stuff to purposefully obfuscate the truth and score points.

They think podcasts and streamers are doing journalism. It’s great if you enjoy podcasts or streamers, but most of this is simply opinion. A guy with a microphone talking for two hours isn’t magically delivering truth. He’s giving you one perspective, and it’s typically biased. You should probably understand the biases of all your favorite podcasters (I’m certain smart people do) and hopefully spend most of your time with those who have a bias for reality.

They confuse virality with truth. The most shared post is often the most emotional or extreme, not necessarily the most accurate. Rage spreads faster than nuance. Lots of things go viral that if you spend a moment looking deeper into them you’ll see they aren’t real.

They mistake repetition for evidence. Similar to the last point, hearing something over and over doesn’t make it true. The human brain is wired to trust familiarity, so if a lie is repeated enough it starts to feel real. This is why propaganda works, and why you have to stay skeptical even of things you’ve heard “everywhere.”

They assume traditional media always gets it right. Legacy outlets like newspapers and TV networks love to position themselves as the antidote to misinformation, but they’re often just as guilty of it. In the rush to be first, they publish shaky details, rely on anonymous sources, or repeat each other’s mistakes. Retractions come later, usually buried where no one sees them. By then, the first (wrong) version of the story has already taken root. A case can easily be made in many instances this is purposeful.

They over-trust headlines. Headlines are written to grab attention, not give you the whole story. Sometimes they even contradict the actual article if you bother to read past the first paragraph. If your worldview is built out of headlines and push notifications, you’re living in a house of cards. Note I think it’s fine to use a headline by itself to start a discussion if it’s something anodyne or obvious clickbait and you don’t want to share the whole story and give the site traffic. Just don’t do it to fuel political blood feuds.

They dismiss information purely because it’s from someone not on their political team (I’ve written on this). Truth shouldn’t be political. And I honestly think a sign of intelligence is being able to understand the other side’s view, and seeing that on some issues different sides simply hold a different philosophy. We have debate so everyone can consider where consensus should be. Note when one side won’t even discuss an issue or tries to make the topic off limits, it’s clear they know they can’t win the debate on the popular stage.

They get information purely from AI. This is going to be increasingly large of a problem. But AI is frequently just guessing. Talk to it about a subject you know really well, you’ll see plenty of issues. It is interesting if you press it on something you know is false, it eventually admits it wasn’t right.

They genuinely believe extremist propaganda like “50% of the country wants you dead.” This is obviously untrue. If you let the algos or media convince you the other side is evil you have been psyop’d. Of course there are evil people but the majority of your fellow citizens aren’t. If you think this ask yourself why you do (nearly always traces back to media/pundits not interactions with your neighbors or at the grocery store). If you can’t consider it, maybe it’s time for a vacation or digital detox. Get some help.

They mistake satire or parody for real news. The internet has blurred the lines so much that obvious jokes now circulate as fact. People share Onion/Babylon Bee articles or out-of-context memes and commentary from parody accounts without realizing they were meant to be humor. Once detached from their original source, they look like “evidence.”

They wholesale believe “misinformation researchers.” I’m putting that in quotes, because it turns out many of these people are no better than propagandists. Some even openly show a disdain for the truth, calling it inconvenient or something in the way of “progress.” Again you should look at the claims of these people as much as anyone else (if COVID didn’t provide enough examples, I don’t know what will). They are frequently the most guilty, because some are pursuing activism or institutional agendas, not reality. Many were even told to do this in college.

citation of chart page 15 from this report via Harvard - of course this might not matter, some might not factor in their personal politics, but others have been actively doing this (I would personally like to see more balance here regardless)

They assume silence equals proof. Just because a person, institution, or news outlet doesn’t immediately address something doesn’t mean it’s true. Sometimes they’re verifying. Sometimes they don’t think it’s worth reporting on (we can have a whole separate discussion about the ongoing omission of certain stories). Sometimes the story is still developing. But in the information vacuum, people project certainty onto silence.

They don’t know much of the division online is stoked by foreign adversaries and bots. There are sophisticated networks of bots, spammers and agitators actively trying to get America to fight itself. There has been plenty of research on this, but it’s obvious when you notice many of the so called “pro America” accounts are not even based in America. I still don’t know why there is no crackdown on this, every social media site should force users to show location based on originating IP or some other identifying information showing country of origin.

They think screenshots are ironclad. Screenshots are the laziest form of “evidence” and also the easiest to fake. Cropped, edited, Photoshopped, or completely fabricated, yet they still circulate like gospel. If you never trace a screenshot back to an original source, you’re at the mercy of whoever doctored it.

They follow partisan hacks. There’s a huge group of professional propogandists and activists who wake up every day and spin reality to one side. Some of these people even have popular shows, because their audiences also see politics and life as a tribal blood sport. Anyway they’re all deeply miserable humans and normal people know they’re not credible. If you do follow them you’re making your life worse on purpose. Just unsubscribe and mute/block.

They think Wikipedia or Reddit are automatically credible. I don’t know why people seem to think anything on these products is real just because it has upvotes or ranks highly in Google. They have an incredibly heavy bias and are places anyone can update. There’s close to zero oversight on information quality. People lock threads and mods delete comments when things aren’t going their way. They are heavily infiltrated by propaganda networks who want to influence people in a hurry. On Wikipedia in particular I’ve seen so many poorly referenced items, the entire operation is no better than Joe’s blog to me at this point - it might be useful on certain anodyne definitional things, sure, but not without scrutiny on politically-charged topics, historic figures, etc.

They fall for credentialism. Someone with a fancy title, blue checkmark, or letters after their name says something, and you assume it’s unimpeachable. But experts are wrong all the time. They have biases, conflicts of interest, or sometimes they’re heavily invested in promoting a certain worldview. Authority isn’t always the same as accuracy.

They don’t see follow-up links, because people have stopped using them. In the internet age we have the opportunity to have appropriated linked citations (to full videos, articles, quotes, sources) and no one should have to see something unfairly clipped. But large tech companies continue to break an unwritten contract with the world and won’t show our links, or severely throttle posts which contain links. A case can easily be made this is harming our information environments. As stated before, you aren’t upset enough about the war on hyperlinks.

They let aesthetics sway them. A slick graphic, professional video edit, or well-designed chart can make nonsense look authoritative. Presentation can hijack credibility, if it looks polished, because many people are uninformed enough about the world to assume it’s researched if it looks nice (even if it’s total fiction).

They confuse speed with accuracy. The fastest take is rarely the truest. Media outlets and influencers rush to be “first,” but early reporting almost always gets key details wrong as I stated in another point. The corrections trickle out later, quietly, after the viral wave has already cemented the initial falsehood in people’s minds.

This is just a short list. There’s much more of course. And if you ever do share something inaccurate (usually the internet will correct you) delete it and if necessary share an apology/correction. But don’t double down on a lie, it’s not that hard if you aren’t part of a cult and aren’t just confirmation-biasing every piece of information you come across to fit a thesis you feel you need to defend. Sadly, many people simply can’t help themselves.

Everyone gets things wrong once on occasion, but it’s worth it to try and get stuff right. And the best, most trusted people take their time, are thoughtful and ultimately having good filters and information processing skills to be accurate often enough to gain trust. You would much rather be in this group than one of the people no one believes because they’ve torched their reputation by trying to “be first” or simply paint narratives or whatnot. They might have a lot of followers, but are written off by anyone important because they act impulsively. Basically they’re seen as a sideshow (no brand will sponsor them, no one will quote them for real stories, etc).

Having open debate matters. Hashing out ideas matters. Trying to lie about or personally attack others, or worse rooting for things like death or violence of those we disagree with is the sign of a sick civilization as Rob Henderson points out. We shouldn’t be chilled from sharing what we think in a civil way. But we should all always proceed as honest as we can.

Seek truth and comment where appropriate through the lens of something your calm, collected self would stand by and you’d want your peers, kids, employer and ultimately history to see.