Scan barcode
hauteclere's review against another edition
5.0
With a strong emphasis on science, it explores and explains how information travels through social networks, and what influences its movement. It shows how such networks can fail to spread the best information spontaneously, or worse under the influence of individuals trying to spread bad information. Using familiar examples it points to the key influence of trust and reputation. Some recommendations are made on how to avoid bad outcomes.
The book is well written with informative diagrams of the models - easy to understand for someone not steeped in the logic and philosophy of science which is the field of the authors.
The book is well written with informative diagrams of the models - easy to understand for someone not steeped in the logic and philosophy of science which is the field of the authors.
linguisticali's review against another edition
informative
fast-paced
4.5
Chilling and very interesting. I thought this was well presented and accessible.
tylercritchfield's review against another edition
3.0
Really interesting read - not meant to entertain and was a little heavy on philosophy for my liking, but I liked their straightforwardness. It's given me a lot to think about. I think the spread of misinformation and what we can do to help prevent it, will only be a larger and larger issue as time goes on. Here are some interesting thoughts from the book:
- "Many people think of individual scientific studies as providing proof, or confirmation, of a hypothesis. But the probabilistic nature of evidence means that real science is far from this ideal. Any one study can go wrong..." (meaning we shouldn't base our beliefs on any single study - this is used to the advantage of those trying to sway opinion: there is always something that can support a false narrative, but if we look at studies collectively we can better see the truth.)
- "Merely creating the appearance of controversy is often all the propogandist needs to do."
- "When friends, family members, colleagues, and especially strangers disagree with our views, it is easy to attribute this disagreement to the failures of those people: they are ignorant of the facts, too emotional to properly evaluate the situation, or too stupid. But what if that is not what's going on? Or at least, what if ignorance and emotion are only part of the story - and perhaps not the most important part?" (They later explain that a lot of disagreement depends on who and where we get our news; none of us actually know the facts, we are merely taking what the media gives us, and we usually choose to intake media that gives us what we want and distrust other sources.)
- "...social influence was used to push people to more extreme versions of the views they already held." Often the goal of spreading fake news is this polarization, and we give into it so easily.
* Also, I recommend ignoring the footnotes. I tried keeping up with them but that made it so much harder to get through. They are mostly sources anyway.
- "Many people think of individual scientific studies as providing proof, or confirmation, of a hypothesis. But the probabilistic nature of evidence means that real science is far from this ideal. Any one study can go wrong..." (meaning we shouldn't base our beliefs on any single study - this is used to the advantage of those trying to sway opinion: there is always something that can support a false narrative, but if we look at studies collectively we can better see the truth.)
- "Merely creating the appearance of controversy is often all the propogandist needs to do."
- "When friends, family members, colleagues, and especially strangers disagree with our views, it is easy to attribute this disagreement to the failures of those people: they are ignorant of the facts, too emotional to properly evaluate the situation, or too stupid. But what if that is not what's going on? Or at least, what if ignorance and emotion are only part of the story - and perhaps not the most important part?" (They later explain that a lot of disagreement depends on who and where we get our news; none of us actually know the facts, we are merely taking what the media gives us, and we usually choose to intake media that gives us what we want and distrust other sources.)
- "...social influence was used to push people to more extreme versions of the views they already held." Often the goal of spreading fake news is this polarization, and we give into it so easily.
* Also, I recommend ignoring the footnotes. I tried keeping up with them but that made it so much harder to get through. They are mostly sources anyway.
lilkstew's review against another edition
4.0
Interesting! I don’t think that the points about misinformation were necessarily unique or anything, but the examples were great, and the models were very neat. I appreciated the suggestions for journalists.