For now, I was just thinking we could talk about the false information you\u2019re posting.<\/strong> You know, the false information and propaganda that is being spread via social media with the goal of polarizing (dividing) people? You know, like:<\/p>\n We\u2019re all part of\u2014and sometimes complicit in\u2014a pretty toxic digital information environment. When we spread false information because it suits our worldview rather than meets our expectations for our own honesty, we are helping to polarize (create divisions and animosity between people).<\/strong><\/p>\n You may not be intending to spread polarizing information\u2014and if you aren\u2019t, that\u2019s great. I have some helpful tips below that you can use to check yourself before reposting something that may be false information intended to polarize.<\/p>\n If you don\u2019t care that you\u2019re spreading false information and propaganda (\u201cI don\u2019t care if it\u2019s true, this is how I feel\u201d or \u201cYeah! This will show those libtards!\u201d) I may not have much help for you. But I\u2019d ask you to consider that A LOT of the propaganda you\u2019re sharing is being created by people in other countries who have the goal of destabilizing our country by making us hate one another. When we spread false information and propaganda on purpose (or even accidentally), we\u2019re doing their work for them. WE<\/strong> are making America fall apart and lose its power in the world. If you\u2019re cool with being part of that destabilization because the disinformation fits your worldview, well OK then.<\/p>\n If you\u2019re not cool with that\u2014if you think maybe destabilizing and weakening America doesn\u2019t fit with your patriotism\u2014I ask that you consider some helpful steps you can follow to keep from spreading false information. My friend Mike Caulfield calls these four moves and a habit<\/strong><\/a>. The four moves are:<\/p>\n 1. Check for previous work<\/strong> I\u2019ll come back to those moves with some examples in a minute. The habit is: Check your emotions<\/a>.<\/strong> THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT EVEN IF YOU NEVER USE THE FOUR MOVES. Here\u2019s why, according to Mike<\/a>: \u201cWhen you feel strong emotion \u2014 happiness, anger, pride, vindication \u2014 and that emotion pushes you to share a \u2018fact\u2019 with others, STOP. Above all, it\u2019s these things that you must fact-check. Why? Because you\u2019re already likely to check things you know are important to get right, and you\u2019re predisposed to analyze things that put you an intellectual frame of mind. But things that make you angry or overjoyed, well\u2026our record as humans are not good with these things.\u201d<\/p>\n So, instead of clicking that Share button because you\u2019re feeling an emotional reaction, check your emotions, then follow the four moves to do some very quick fact-checking. If you do those things, I feel confident that you\u2019ll share less false information and propaganda.<\/p>\n I\u2019m going to walk through the moves with two examples; we\u2019ll start with the meme above about the high school student in Oklahoma.<\/p>\n First move: Check for previous work.<\/strong> This means seeing if anyone else has written about this event or issue and what they have to say about it. Often, the thing you want to share doesn\u2019t provide a lot of additional context, like in the example above. Who was the boy? What was the name of the school? What did other people involved in the incident say?<\/p>\n A good move is to take as much contextual information as you can and search for results on fact-checking sites like Politifact and Snopes (here’s a list of sites<\/a>). You can use search terms that will help bring up results on fact-checking sites. So for the example above, I used these search terms:<\/p>\n jimmy coyne grandson beat up protest school Oklahoma site:factcheck.org site:snopes.com site:politifact.com site:www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/fact-checker\/<\/p>\n Here are the results<\/a>.<\/p>\n So, it looks like Snopes has already started assessing the claim and are saying it\u2019s unproven. If you take a closer look, you\u2019ll see that Snopes uses a process to verify information that includes going to local news sources, like ABC8 Tulsa, to see what they\u2019re reporting. In cases where you\u2019re wanting to share something about a local event, this may be a good move. That\u2019s called going upstream, and it\u2019s our next move.<\/p>\n Second move: Go upstream.<\/strong> This means going to the original source and evaluating the credibility of that story. In our example, that doesn\u2019t mean trying to find Jerry Coyne, but instead, going to local news sources that would have reported on this incident first, presumably. We can later evaluate the credibility of the organization\/person that posted the thing we wanted to share (who is THE NEWLY PRESS anyway?) but not yet. Right now, we\u2019re trying to get to the most trustworthy information available. With our example, here are the local articles associated with this topic that we were able to find:<\/p>\n News on 6: Glenpool student arrested after school walkout<\/a><\/p>\n ABC8 Tulsa: Glenpool student arrested, another hospitalized after walkout leads to fight<\/a><\/p>\n TulsaWorld: Glenpool High School student arrested, another injured during dispute over national walkout<\/a><\/p>\n Based on local news sources, it seems our initial post is looking pretty sketchy. Yes, an incident happened, but there is no information that supports the idea that someone’s grandson was beaten for not<\/strong> participating in the walkout. To the contrary, the ABC8 Tulsa article indicates that the person beaten up was supporting\/participating in the walkout.<\/p>\n In today\u2019s digital information environment, you might see a lot of content shared across multiple sites (sponsored content, copied content) that isn\u2019t actually written or produced by the source that is sharing the content. That\u2019s something to be aware of as you go upstream and look for the most reliable source for the content. I\u2019m going to link to Mike\u2019s various helpful pages on tracking content upstream<\/a> and move us along to the next move.<\/p>\n Third move: Read laterally.<\/strong> If you’re still unsure about your source, read laterally. According to Mike<\/a>, \u201cWhen confronted with a new site, [people] poke around the site, and try to find out what the site says about itself, by going to the ‘about page’, clicking around in onsite author biographies, or scrolling up or down the page. This makes no sense. If the site is untrustworthy, then what the site says about itself is most likely untrustworthy as well\u2026Lateral readers don\u2019t spend time on the page or site until they\u2019ve first gotten their bearings by looking at what other sites and resources say about the source at which they are looking.\u201d<\/p>\n As you read laterally to see how credible the source is, ask: Does my source have a process for verifying facts and ensuring accuracy? Does my source have expertise in the topic being reported? And what aims or reputational incentives does this source have?<\/p>\n The Newly Press does not have a lot written about it, aside from their own words \u201cWe support President Trump!\u201d. Now you might say, \u201cI support President Trump, so that source is good enough for me.\u201d Based on what we\u2019ve learned about Russian interference in our elections in 2016, I\u2019d caution you to consider the possibility (and I\u2019m not saying this is the case, I\u2019m just asking you to consider the possibility) that The Newly Press is run by a Russian outfit aimed at destabilizing the U.S. Doing a little extra legwork before sharing something from them might help you not do their work for them.<\/p>\n When I do a WHOIS search<\/a> for more information about thenewlypress.com website, which appears to be defunct, I learn that the domain registration information has been made private and that the domain was registered on September 5, 2017. So, in terms of learning about the organization that is posting this information, we\u2019re not getting much. Most trustworthy sites are pretty clear about their backers, and have a track record of connection to other trustworthy sites. This doesn\u2019t seem to be the case with The Newly Press, and it doesn\u2019t check any of the boxes of what is a trustworthy news source.<\/a><\/p>\n Fourth move: Circle back.<\/strong> So by now I\u2019m feeling like the image\/meme above isn\u2019t really worth sharing. But maybe you want to keep working on it. The fourth move in the process is to circle back and try other strategies to get at your questions about the information and source. Maybe see if their Twitter feed has more information. Maybe check out the WayBack Machine to see what the site was posting when it was functional. Maybe try some different search terms.<\/p>\n OK\u2026that was fun right? And, I hope, the process gave you a chance to think critically about what you share in social media.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s run through this one more time, with another example pulled from a Facebook post.<\/p>\n Whew! We definitely need to check our emotions first, right?! This post is designed to make us react emotionally.<\/p>\n First move: Check for previous work.<\/strong> Here are the search terms I used: democrats want to ban national anthem site:factcheck.org site:snopes.com site:politifact.com site:www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/fact-checker\/ There were no results associated with that search. You have to be careful with a generic search (i.e., a search not focused on fact-checking sites) because you\u2019ll end up finding the sites that perpetuate the possibly-false information. For example, when I didn’t focus my search on fact-checking and reliable sources, here is what my search pulled up:<\/p>\n Notice the absence of credible and known news sources? Me, too.<\/p>\n I decided to search on Snopes to see if I could find a related story that might have been the genesis of this meme. I found the article: Does the California NAACP want to replace the national anthem<\/a>?<\/p>\n This story was verified as true by Snopes, but Snopes checkers noted that the proposed state legislation brought forward by the California chapter of the NAACP had no legislative sponsors. That means, no legislator, Republican or Democrat, sponsored the bill. So I thought I\u2019d circle back<\/strong> to what was shared and follow a different thread. The meme states \u201cBan national anthem, says Rep. Davis (D)\u201d so I started searching for the source for that quote. Turns out, that\u2019s not a quote from Rep. Davis (D), but we\u2019ll get to that in a minute.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/redpincushion.us\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Screen-Shot-2018-03-20-at-2.10.51-PM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n 2. Go upstream to the source<\/strong>
\n 3. Read laterally<\/strong>
\n 4. Circle back<\/strong><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/redpincushion.us\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Screen-Shot-2018-03-21-at-4.40.02-PM.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/redpincushion.us\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/Screen-Shot-2018-03-22-at-9.57.00-AM-926x1024.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n