Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[Mannahnin]

But... I also think that the very structure leads to argument as well. Most of us have heard some variation of Cunningham's Law- "The best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question; it's to post the wrong answer."

However, most people don't realize that this was coined in the '80s.... and was about Usenet.

I think that there are a confluence of factors- the most obvious is that people are less likely to engage to say, "You're right!" Sure, some do ... but seeing something wrong ... on the internet ... that really motivates people to actually write something. I think that this is a common experience; you see a person post something that you agree with, and you might (if it is offered) give a "like," but you are probably less motivated to say, "Snarf. I noticed that, as always, you are correct. BRAVO!"

On the other hand, when you see something wrong, you just can't help yourself.

More recently, spammers monetizing social media have taken advantage of this to farm Engagement for profit. Deliberately post wrong stuff to draw eyeballs, clicks, and comments responding.

 

[Alzrius]

More recently, spammers monetizing social media have taken advantage of this to farm Engagement for profit. Deliberately post wrong stuff to draw eyeballs, clicks, and comments responding.

Most online media does this nowadays. It's called rage-baiting.

 

[Ryujin]

Most online media does this nowadays. It's called rage-baiting.

Talk Radio has done this for decades

 

[Mannahnin]

Most online media does this nowadays. It's called rage-baiting.

Talk Radio has done this for decades

I'm not talking about that. Although that has been a hobbyhorse of mine for many years. How talk radio and the advent of 24/7 cable news, incentivized by the profit motive for ad revenue, exacerbated fear and anger and people's negative misconceptions about the world. And how clickbait headlines online are a successor phenomenon.

I'm talking about something a little more subtle, which isn't even driven to prompt anger or outrage. But instead the practice of deliberately getting an obvious factual detail or two wrong in an otherwise innocuous post, to elicit engagement in the form of responses correcting the error(s).

 

[Staffan]

View attachment 382316

I did not see that coming. And neither did they, apparently.

 

[trappedslider]

I'm talking about something a little more subtle, which isn't even driven to prompt anger or outrage. But instead the practice of deliberately getting an obvious factual detail or two wrong in an otherwise innocuous post, to elicit engagement in the form of responses correcting the error(s).

1. ask question
2. make another account that gives wrong answer
3. wait for others to correct the wrong answer.

 

[Deset Gled]

1. ask question
2. make another account that gives wrong answer
3. wait for others to correct the wrong answer.

On the one hand, it's funny to think about this on the scale of an internet message board.

On the other hand, it's scary to think that national major media outlets will do this, and sometimes get so invested in the wrong answer that it starts to get reported as the truth.

 

[Scribe]

On the other hand, it's scary to think that national major media outlets will do this, and sometimes get so invested in the wrong answer that it starts to get reported as the truth.

At this stage of our societal development, all news media is a joke. It shouldnt take review of 3+ sources to get to the kernel of what the actual event and impact was.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

{snipped comic}

Since I just pointed out the issue, I will try to push against the structural problem.

I love this comic so very much! I thought about analyzing why, but you know what they say about dissecting a joke ... it makes an ass out of you and me.

Hmmm....

 

[Richards]

Hey, Snarf, did you hear about the new character coming to Sesame Street?

Introducing: Big Bard!

Johnathan