丁香园AV

There鈥檚 no 鈥業鈥� in misinformation.

You got it, didn鈥檛 you? The joke. Clever, right?

I thought so too.

In deliberation over how to introduce my area of research within the realm of misinformation/disinformation/fake news/alternative facts--whatever your term du jour is that speak to the siege of modern politics--what I settled on was this quote: There鈥檚 no 鈥業鈥� in misinformation. For this quip goes beyond just a witty aphorism. It epitomizes the kind of brash, extrospective thinking that lays the foundation so conducive to misinformation and disinformation. It also speaks to the dismissive and divisive principles that thrive within participatory online spaces. There鈥檚 no 鈥業鈥� in the word because, the idea goes, you are not responsible for the obfuscation going on; it鈥檚 them.

Well, not so fast. What I ask of you, reader, is to openly embrace the fact that there is undeniably an 鈥業鈥� in misinformation. It鈥檚 designation as 2018鈥檚 --alongside 2017鈥檚 nomination of 鈥樷�� and 2016鈥檚 鈥樷��-- spells out just how pervasive, invasive, and affective falsehoods have become in the digitized era. Our interdependence on new media ensures this. Though false information has a long history spanning since the beginnings of political propaganda and , what differs now is the ease at which they rapidly disseminate through online discourse. It is the communicative practices and structural politics of our social networking platforms which form the milieu for dis/misinformation to flourish. And in doing so, exploit our own psychological mechanisms for self-preservation that engender censure rather than constructive discussion and critical reflection. Here鈥檚 my main point: It鈥檚 not just them. It鈥檚 not just you either. It鈥檚 us.

At 丁香园AV, I am investigating how online communication practices instigate the proliferation of fake news as part of the School of Communication鈥檚 course on new media. In doing so, one thing that鈥檚 become exceedingly clear is the role of psychological processes, emotion and affect. While it鈥檚 comforting to imagine that our capacity for reasoning is what we employ when tasked with finding truth or reaching understandings, psychologists have pinpointed countless cognitive shortcuts like  biases alongside  that colour our perceptions in order to help us reach decisions faster. Respectively, these biases promote us to only accept information we have already decided is true, to primarily trust those belonging to our own ingroups (dare I say, political party), and to neglect viewing ourselves as subjective to bias in the same way that we view others. On top of that comes countless empirical evidence demonstrating how misinformation takes hold. One notable example is Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber鈥檚 seminal  showing that the primary purpose of reasoning is argumentative: in debating, we typically reason to support a predetermined verdict, not to discern truth. This maps onto Dr. Dan Kahan鈥檚 research on , another psychological construct that describes individuals鈥� unconscious tendency to shape their methods of cognitive processing--sensory perceptions, assessment of sources and credibility-- with some end goal in mind. Our willingness to perform the mental gymnastics required to protect our worldviews and minimize  has been observed across   spanning many governmental affiliations and subject matters. Too often, debates and arguments tend to increase polarization between individuals rather than nurture mutual understanding. What that means for us in our current political climate is this: when confronted with spurious news designed to push our buttons through partisan and political operatives, our critical faculties are already fighting an uphill battle.

Now take this logic and log on with it.

Platforms are motivated to provide every opportunity for users to interact with those in their digital circles, as well as the ability to react to global phenomena and 鈥渘ews鈥� content, thanks to their - to aggregate eyeballs. They galvanize our desire to contribute to the online imaginary of the , and in doing so provide the structural imperative to like/dislike, reply, repost, and generate constant digital commentary. This would be enough on its own to cause antagonism--as inevitably what makes us uniquely sentient is our consciousness, convictions, and constructs of identity that come preloaded with aforementioned affective biases--but add in digital disinformation and the discordance only increases. A  by MIT researchers found fake news travels faster than real ones, in part because of the novelty factor but also because of the anger and disgust-inducing affective qualities which encourage us to respond and retort. And whether you鈥檙e supporting or dissenting online, your reaction only further reinforces the circulation.

Unwinding the different causes and conditions for our disinformation age is a heavy undertaking. There are many diverse yet delicately interconnected aspects which warrant more than just a technological patch or a presidential change to address. Alongside the structure of social networks and their intensification of false narratives comes the psychological sentiments and social factors, the inflammatory appeals to affect, the us-vs-them mentality arising from our own biases. And while it鈥檚 easy to pin the blame on someone else (after all, we鈥檙e cognitively designed to do so), I encourage you to take a moment to reflect on how you engage in online discourse. Are you quick to react? Have you chosen a side? Do you always seek out the truth? Other considerations for mitigating this post-factual era include fostering ambient and ongoing , and making a concerted effort to expose yourself to multiple viewpoints. We can only be in charge of the change within ourselves, and that means owning the 鈥業鈥� within misinformation. Because on the bright side... there鈥檚 also an 鈥業鈥� in informed.