Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Interesting SCOTUSBlog case study about social media and J Ginsburg's 2019 absence
As they point out, limited data and no claim of statistical significance, but I found it interesting.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/case-study-on-the-ginsburg-conspiracy-theories-in-action/
Case study on the Ginsburg conspiracy theories in action
Posted Fri, March 15th, 2019 11:37 am by Jon Levitan and Andrew Hamm
#WheresRuth. Even as the answer working from home while recovering from cancer surgery was covered by journalists and confirmed by the Supreme Court itself, this hashtag and similar ones populated Twitter in January and February. False allegations about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs status ranged from standard political rumors (e.g., that she planned to announce her retirement soon) to massive conspiracy theories (e.g., that she was in a medically induced coma or that her death was being hidden from the American people). Presumed updates from conspiracy theorists as well as mishaps from media organizations at one point, Fox News erroneously aired, for barely two seconds, an image of Ginsburg with the dates 1933-2019 under her name fueled the theories.
Journalists looked into the conspiracy theories in depth as they were developing, especially after a February 4 appearance by Ginsburg at a concert in Washington in which she was personally seen by multiple reporters of the Supreme Court press corps was rejected by some as fake news, supposedly due to a lack of pictures. After the event one Washington Post reporter, Robert Barnes, experienced something he says was a first in his career: a storm of commentators, many anonymous, swarming his social media accounts and email inbox to tell him that something he saw with his own eyes and reported in The Post did not actually happen.
At SCOTUSblog, we organized a small experiment intended to produce an illustration of how proponents of conspiracy theories respond to evidence disproving their ideas. We were curious to see how different individuals on Twitter who had participated in spreading misinformation about Ginsburg responded when asked directly to correct themselves and inform their followers of the truth. We expected to meet some resistance (and we did), but we saw it as a valuable opportunity to demonstrate the process in action. Our data are limited and we dont profess statistical significance; what follows is more of a case study.
Procedure
Through January and February, we tracked 82 Twitter accounts with over 10,000 followers that tweeted claims or insinuations (including questions) about Ginsburgs death or incapacity. The account with the most followers was that of actor James Woods (@RealJamesWoods), who at the time had 1.95 million followers and who tweeted on January 29, among other similar messages: As citizens we have a right to a fully seated United States Supreme Court. The fact that #RuthBaderGinsberg [sic] is literally missing in action is troubling. Considerations of her personal well-being aside (we wish her good health), Americans need to be apprised of her viability. This may seem like a simple inquiry, but it ignores the Supreme Courts direct statements. An example of a more nefarious tweet comes from one user with 250,000 followers, who on February 8 tweeted a link to a YouTube video and the message: WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS TRUTH ABOUT RUTH BADER GINSBURG HEALTH according to unconfirmed sources Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in a medically induced coma. Theyll keep her alive until the 2020 election if necessary.
[...]
Posted Fri, March 15th, 2019 11:37 am by Jon Levitan and Andrew Hamm
#WheresRuth. Even as the answer working from home while recovering from cancer surgery was covered by journalists and confirmed by the Supreme Court itself, this hashtag and similar ones populated Twitter in January and February. False allegations about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs status ranged from standard political rumors (e.g., that she planned to announce her retirement soon) to massive conspiracy theories (e.g., that she was in a medically induced coma or that her death was being hidden from the American people). Presumed updates from conspiracy theorists as well as mishaps from media organizations at one point, Fox News erroneously aired, for barely two seconds, an image of Ginsburg with the dates 1933-2019 under her name fueled the theories.
Journalists looked into the conspiracy theories in depth as they were developing, especially after a February 4 appearance by Ginsburg at a concert in Washington in which she was personally seen by multiple reporters of the Supreme Court press corps was rejected by some as fake news, supposedly due to a lack of pictures. After the event one Washington Post reporter, Robert Barnes, experienced something he says was a first in his career: a storm of commentators, many anonymous, swarming his social media accounts and email inbox to tell him that something he saw with his own eyes and reported in The Post did not actually happen.
At SCOTUSblog, we organized a small experiment intended to produce an illustration of how proponents of conspiracy theories respond to evidence disproving their ideas. We were curious to see how different individuals on Twitter who had participated in spreading misinformation about Ginsburg responded when asked directly to correct themselves and inform their followers of the truth. We expected to meet some resistance (and we did), but we saw it as a valuable opportunity to demonstrate the process in action. Our data are limited and we dont profess statistical significance; what follows is more of a case study.
Procedure
Through January and February, we tracked 82 Twitter accounts with over 10,000 followers that tweeted claims or insinuations (including questions) about Ginsburgs death or incapacity. The account with the most followers was that of actor James Woods (@RealJamesWoods), who at the time had 1.95 million followers and who tweeted on January 29, among other similar messages: As citizens we have a right to a fully seated United States Supreme Court. The fact that #RuthBaderGinsberg [sic] is literally missing in action is troubling. Considerations of her personal well-being aside (we wish her good health), Americans need to be apprised of her viability. This may seem like a simple inquiry, but it ignores the Supreme Courts direct statements. An example of a more nefarious tweet comes from one user with 250,000 followers, who on February 8 tweeted a link to a YouTube video and the message: WHISTLEBLOWER REVEALS TRUTH ABOUT RUTH BADER GINSBURG HEALTH according to unconfirmed sources Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in a medically induced coma. Theyll keep her alive until the 2020 election if necessary.
[...]
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 746 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Interesting SCOTUSBlog case study about social media and J Ginsburg's 2019 absence (Original Post)
sl8
Jul 2020
OP
"... we organized a small experiment intended to produce an illustration of how proponents
chia
Jul 2020
#1
chia
(2,244 posts)1. "... we organized a small experiment intended to produce an illustration of how proponents
of conspiracy theories respond to evidence disproving their ideas."
We limited our search to accounts with more than 10,000 followers because we wanted to see how popular users who are, presumably, concerned about their reputation and image would react when confronted with the fact that conspiracy theories they pushed had been refuted. Only 16 percent publicly acknowledged Ginsburgs return. Those who did not (80 percent of the accounts we tracked) have chosen to ignore or actively dispute evidence of her return to the court. (As explained, 4 percent of the tracked accounts were removed from consideration.)
Human nature (and history) repeating itself. Leon Festinger was a social scientist who studied a doomsday cult in the 50s whose predicted apocalypse never materialized:
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
But mans resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view."
― Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails: A Social & Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World
Nitram
(22,822 posts)3. I believe some people just consider it too humiliating to admit they are wrong and just dig in
farther the more the evidence goes against them. I believe Trump is a good example of that. Another case is those who know from the beginning they are repeating misinformation and do it for fun, or worse, to give their party an advantage of some sort.
CatLady78
(1,041 posts)2. Interesting read-bookmarked.nt