Q: Will Phone Cheating Spoil Pub Quizzes? A: Avoid These Questionable Practices

Who is the elder, Gary Numan or Gary Oldman? If you know the answer (which you can find below), you’re likely among the many Brits participating in weekly pub quizzes.

As a nation passionate about trivia, it was no surprise that we reacted promptly to the news: Manchester quizmaster reveals team cheating. One wonders, what special place in hell awaits quiz players who sneak a peek at their phones under the table?

According to the BBC, a “huge investigation” followed after the landlord of Barking Dog in Urmston disclosed that cheaters were whispering questions into his smartphone, although he chose not to identify them.

Some quizmasters argue that this behavior is increasingly tarnishing one of the nation’s beloved pastimes.

Quizmaster David Hartley, 33, from Staffordshire, expressed: “I definitely believe there’s increased use of smartwatches, in particular. Even without a phone in hand, there are still ways to cheat.”

He has been running quizzes at four venues for nearly a decade and instituted a ban on devices about two years ago. “If you’re just on your phone, it takes the fun away from the quiz master,” he remarked.

David Moyes, landlord and quizmaster at Cambridge’s Alma School, mentioned he had to expel a group of students who won suspiciously. He became wary after a weak team suddenly played a “joker” that doubled their points when they accurately answered all questions.

“There was no concrete proof. But later, one of them returned and handed over some money, admitting, ‘Oh, we cheated,'” Moyes recounted.

“The guilt was so overwhelming that he must have felt compelled to return his share. The others didn’t, so he probably slept more soundly than the rest.”


To combat cheating, some pubs are employing high-tech solutions, like smartphone quizzes where participants input their answers directly. If you stray from the dedicated quiz app, you’ll lose points.

The SpeedQuizzing app aims to deter “cheaters and scammers” by allowing just 10 seconds to submit answers per question, in an effort to revive what it calls a “once proud British tradition”.

Others prefer traditional measures. Marcus Berkman, who has competed over 200 times and now crafts quizzes, noted that the quizzes at Prince of Wales, in Highgate, north London, were tightening enforcement against cheating.

“We are very strict with cheaters, so no one cheats,” he insisted. “The regulars would rather endure anything than cheat.”

“Sometimes we remind players: ‘We’re testing what you know, not what you can look up,’ and participants typically cooperate.”

The exact origins of the pub quiz remain somewhat unclear, but it gained traction in the 1970s, thanks to Sharon Burns and Tom Porter. Burns & Porter provided ready-made quizzes to attract patrons on quieter nights.


Today, pub quizzes in Britain continue to be a serious affair; just like the great British pastime of drinking, getting answers right also matters. A recent study by brewer Greene King revealed that 70% of people frequently take part in pub quizzes, with nearly one in ten doing so weekly.

Quizmasters often wish to return to the simpler days of Burns and Porter, yet they can find solace knowing that their predecessors faced similar cheating troubles.

Gail Taylor, for instance, responded to an inquiry from the Guardian this week, sharing a tale from her youth in a Sheffield pub during the 1980s.

Taylor explained how she rigged a basic eavesdropping device under a table to transmit questions to a friend with an encyclopedia stationed in a van outside.

The Guardian could not independently confirm her account, but she stands by it. “Things always went awry,” Taylor recounted. “If the signal failed, we’d scribble down questions and dash to the van with two pints and a list. Then someone else would retrieve the answers. No one seemed to grasp what we were doing.”

Reflecting on this caper over 30 years later, Taylor feels no regret. “Back then, we didn’t have Google, so we couldn’t win anything anyway,” she adds. “I have no guilt about it, and I would do the same tomorrow if given the chance.”

Answer: Gary Numan He is 13 days older than Gary Oldman.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Google Granted Special Status by Watchdog to Enforce Changes in UK Search Practices

Google is encountering mandatory changes in its search operations within the UK, following the competition regulator’s decision to grant the company special status and impose stricter regulations.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has confirmed that Google holds a “strategic market position” (SMS) in both search and search advertising. This classification indicates that the company wields sufficient market power to necessitate a unique regulatory framework.

The regulator now has the authority to mandate alterations in how Google conducts business in these sectors, as per new digital legislation. This announcement on Friday marks the first time a tech company has been recognized with an SMS designation.

The CMA has already indicated several potential changes, such as providing internet users with the option to select a different search service through a “choice screen.” This could include AI-driven competitors like Perplexity and ChatGPT among the available options.


The CMA is also looking to ensure equitable ranking of search results and to provide publishers with greater control over the usage of their content, including responses generated by AI. Features such as AI Overview and AI Mode powered by Google’s AI are also included under the SMS classification.

The CMA clarified that its ruling does not imply any wrongdoing and that no immediate actions will be enforced. However, this year it intends to initiate discussions regarding potential alterations to Google’s operations.

Will Hayter, executive director of digital markets at the CMA, asserted that enhancing competition in realms like search and search advertising—which involves advertisers paying to appear in users’ search results—could foster new business opportunities and stimulate investment throughout the UK economy.

He stated: “Over 90% of searches in the UK are executed on Google’s platform, underscoring Google’s continued strategic role in search and search advertising.” He added, “In response to the feedback we received post our proposed decision, we have today designated Google’s search service with a strategic market position.”

Oliver Bethel, Google’s senior director of competition, expressed concerns that this decision might jeopardize UK users’ access to emerging products and services.

He commented: “Several of the intervention ideas proposed in this process could hinder innovation and growth in the UK, potentially delaying product introductions at a time when AI-based advancements are rapidly progressing.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

Tom Smith, a competition lawyer at Geradin Partners and former CMA legal director, noted that there is a substantial case against Google.

He remarked: “There exists a clear basis for eliminating some of the market distortions caused by Google’s monopolistic stance. This has already been addressed in the US and EU. Today’s ruling empowers the CMA to take similar action.”

In a separate inquiry, the CMA is evaluating whether Google’s and Apple’s mobile platforms should be classified as SMS-enabled under the newly established digital regulatory framework outlined in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

Source: www.theguardian.com

AI Startup Mask Files Lawsuit Against OpenAI and Apple for Anti-Competitive Practices

Elon Musk’s AI startup, Xai, has initiated legal action against OpenAI and Apple, accusing them of anti-competitive practices. This lawsuit, submitted on Monday in a Texas court, alleges a “conspiracy to monopolize the smartphone and generative AI chatbot market.”

Earlier this month, Musk had hinted at legal action against Apple and OpenAI, criticizing ChatGPT and claiming that other AI companies faced barriers to reaching the top of the App Store. Musk’s Xai has developed a chatbot called Grok.

The lawsuit challenges a significant collaboration between Apple and OpenAI. That partnership was announced last year, allowing Apple to integrate OpenAI’s AI functionality into its operating system. Musk’s legal action aims to disrupt one of Apple’s major ventures into AI and OpenAI’s standout partnership, accusing them of “restricting the market.”

According to the complaint, “The defendants have engaged in unlawful agreements and conspiracies to exploit Apple’s monopoly in the US smartphone industry while upholding OpenAI’s dominance in generative AI chatbots.” They are also seeking “billions in damages.”

OpenAI has dismissed Musk’s claims, characterizing the lawsuit as part of his ongoing vendetta against the company. An OpenAI representative stated, “This latest filing is indicative of Musk’s persistent pattern of harassment.”

Apple has not yet responded to inquiries for comment.

This lawsuit marks a new chapter in the longstanding feud between Musk and Altman. The two tech titans co-founded OpenAI in 2015 but have increasingly drifted apart, frequently engaging in legal disputes.

Musk departed from OpenAI after expressing interest in taking control of the organization in 2018, subsequently launching several lawsuits concerning its transition to a for-profit model. Altman and OpenAI have consistently rebuffed Musk’s criticisms, portraying him as a vindictive former associate.

“It’s unfortunate to see this from those we’ve held in high regard. He urged us to push our limits, but when we indicated we might fail, he formed competitor companies and made significant strides towards OpenAI’s mission without him.”

Tensions between Altman and Musk escalated earlier this month following Musk’s accusations directed at Apple. Musk claimed that Apple was manipulating App Store rankings to disadvantage other AI competitors, prompting a public exchange of challenges between the two tech leaders.

“It’s an unexpected assertion given that Elon claims to manipulate X for personal gain while undermining individuals he opposes,” Altman wrote in response to Musk’s claims about Apple’s favoritism toward OpenAI.

Currently, OpenAI is concentrating on a $500 million valuation, poised to become the most valuable private entity at $350 billion, surpassing Musk’s SpaceX, which holds the current title.

Quick Guide

Please contact us about this story






show


The best public interest journalism relies on direct accounts from people of knowledge.

If you have anything to share about this subject, please contact us confidentially using the following methods:

Secure Messages in Guardian App

The Guardian app has a tool for sending tips about stories. Messages are end-to-end encrypted and hidden within the routine activity that all Guardian mobile apps conduct, ensuring observers cannot identify your communication with us.

If you don’t already have the Guardian app, please download it (iOS/Android) and navigate to the menu. Select Secure Messaging.

SecureDrop, Instant Messenger, Email, Phone, Posting

If it’s safe for you to utilize the TOR network without being monitored, you can send messages and documents to the Guardian via our SecureDrop platform.

Lastly, our guide at theguardian.com/tips outlines several secure contact methods and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each.


Illustration: Guardian Design / Rich Cousins

Thank you for your feedback.


Source: www.theguardian.com

Exploring How Homona Lady’s Burial Practices Redefine Humanity

From an early age, the inevitability and finality of death profoundly shape our lives. Our capacity to comprehend the sorrow of our eventual end, as well as the loss of connection, is a fundamental aspect of what it means to be human. These understandings have fostered iconic rituals that are deeply embedded in human culture.

Historically, we have presumed that Homo sapiens is the only human species aware of the mortality inherent in living beings. However, as detailed in “What Ancient Humans Thought When They Began Burying the Dead,” archaeologists are challenging the notion that a significant emotional response to death is uniquely ours.

A particularly provocative assertion is that ancient humans, vastly different from us, established the death ritual. But evidence points to Homo naledi, an ancient human from southern Africa, whose brain was only one-third the size of ours and who lived at least 245,000 years ago. It remains unclear what drove these early humans to develop a culture surrounding death; one intriguing, though speculative, theory posits they did so to help younger members of their community cope with the loss of others.

Many controversies surround claims regarding H. naledi and their burial practices, primarily concerning the evidence’s quality. Nevertheless, since the mid-20th century, researchers have worked to bridge the behavioral gap between our species and others, propelled by studies revealing that many animals lead emotionally complex lives. Some even create their own rituals when encountering death within their communities. This adds weight to the argument that our ancestors may have developed their own cultural practices surrounding death as far back as 500,000 years ago, suggesting that H. naledi might also have established a burial tradition.

Archaeologists question whether a profound response to death is exclusively our domain.

A striking reflection of melancholy regarding H. naledi suggests that they may have aided the younger generation in confronting the weight of loss. This consideration brings into question our understanding of what it means to be human, and whether our ancestors were as unique as we assume in processing the concept of loss.

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

As Watchdog Acts, Google May Be Required to Alter UK Search Practices

Google may be compelled to implement a range of modifications in its search operations, including allowing internet users to select alternative services, following suggestions from the UK’s competition regulator to strengthen regulations on the company.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is set to classify the leading search engine as having “strategic market status,” a designation that empowers regulators to impose stricter controls on major tech firms deemed to hold substantial market influence.

The CMA expressed its intention to introduce tailored regulatory measures for U.S. companies, which may include offering users a “selection screen” to ensure a fair ranking of search results, thereby gaining more oversight on content usage, including AI-generated responses.


Should the CMA finalize its decision in October, Google will be the first company subjected to new regulatory powers established this year.

CMA CEO Sarah Cardell highlighted that this announcement signifies a “major milestone” in the newly enacted regulatory framework stemming from recent digital market, competition, and consumer legislation.

Cardell remarked, “These proportionate measures will create greater opportunities for UK businesses and consumers, providing them with more choices and control over their engagement with Google’s search services, as well as fostering innovation within the UK’s tech industry and the economy at large.”

Google has stated that this move could significantly impact businesses and consumers in the UK.

Skip past newsletter promotions

“We are worried that the breadth of CMA’s considerations is excessive and unfocused, and that various interventions are being contemplated prior to the collection of sufficient evidence,” stated Oliver Bethell, senior director at Google.

Source: www.theguardian.com

FCC Chairman calls for investigations into Disney’s diversity, equity, and inclusion practices

The Federal Communications Commission chair said Friday that he has launched an investigation into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion program in his latest attempt under the Trump administration to stop such efforts.

In a letter to Disney’s CEO Robert Iger, chairman Brendan Kerr said the company’s program to increase job diversity and promote racial-based affinity groups appears to violate equal employment opportunities regulations.

“Disney wants to ensure that virtually all discriminatory initiatives will be completed, not just the name,” Kerr said in a letter sent Thursday. “In another case, Disney’s actions – whether they’re ongoing or recently terminated, we want to determine whether they’re always in compliance with applicable FCC rules.”

A Disney spokesman said the company is reviewing the FCC letter. “We look forward to being involved with the committee to answer that question.”

Veteran Republican regulator Kerr began his tenure as FCC chair in January by launching a drastic campaign to scrutinize the media, sought to eradicate left-leaning bias and policy allegations that were corned by the president.

Last month he began a similar diversity and inclusion investigation into Comcast, the parent company of NBCuniversal. Kerr also said the agency’s merger reviews will include a survey of the company’s DEI program.

The investigation continues Presidential Order Trump was banned from “illegal and immoral” DEI programs in the federal government on his first day. A day later, Kerr announced that he would be closing his promotion of diversity and equity in the FCC’s strategic planning, budget and economic reporting.

It is unclear whether the FCC, which normally serves as a cable television watchdog, distributing licenses to broadcast television and radio stations, has the power to punish media companies for its diversity initiative. Kerr argues that a wide range of “public interest” standards can be applied to scrutiny companies such as Disney, which owns ABC and ESPN, and Disney, such as television stations around the country.

FCC experts said Kerr’s investigation could be challenged in court.

“It’s about bullying and threats,” said Andrew Schwartzman, a senior advisor to the Benton Institute for Broadband Society. Kerr’s most powerful tool is his vote on the committee to approve mergers and acquisitions, he said.

Trump nominated Kerr has launched an investigation since he chaired several news outlets, including PBS and NPR, accused him of left-leaning political bias. He investigated an interview that CBS’s “60 minutes” was conducted with former vice president Kamala Harris and released an investigation by San Francisco radio station KCBS regarding reports of immigration enforcement measures.

Kerr publicly agreed to the administration’s promise to cut regulations significantly, chase big technology, and punish television networks for political bias. Kerr is restructuring independent bodies, expanding its duties and using it as a political weapon of rights, Telecommunications lawyers and analysts said.

Brooks Burns Contributed with a report from Los Angeles.

Source: www.nytimes.com

The reasons behind the islanders’ dolphin hunting practices

The call of the conch shell evoked dolphin hunters from their beds. Under the moonlight, six men shuffled into the village church.

There the priest led them in a whispering prayer. The tide was high that day. The salt water was pooled in part of the village on Fanarey Island, part of the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific.

They paddled out into wooden canoes before the first light, cutting through the darkness until they were miles away from the coast. After a few hours of scans, we saw one of the hunters, Leslie Hughi, slashing open the glassy water. He raised a 10-foot-long bamboo stick with a cloth tied to the end, warning others of his discovery. He then called his wife. He had found a dolphin. The hunt begins.

These men are among the last dolphin hunters in the Solomon Islands. Some critics say the massacre is cruel and unnecessary. But for some 130 residents of Fanarei, traditional hunts have taken on a new urgency as climate change threatens their homes. They say they need dolphins for their valuable teeth, used as local currency to buy land in the highlands and escape the sinking home.

Each tooth is worth three Solomon Islands dollars (about $0.36) (price set by the Chief of Fanarei), and a single dolphin hunt, which costs about $200, can bring tens of thousands of dollars, more than any other economic activity on the island.

“We regret killing the dolphin, but we really have no other option,” Fugi said. He mentioned that he would be willing to give up the hunt if there was an alternative way to secure his family’s future.

Crops can no longer be grown on about a third of the wana rays in New York City’s Central Park. Once fertile land has been ruined by erosion of salt water. The government promotes seaweed farming as a source of income, while overseas conservation groups provide cash to end the hunt. However, the ocean is both an existential threat and the most profitable resource for villagers. Government research suggests that the island could be underwater by the end of the century.

“For lowland islands like us, I witness with my own eyes how rising oceans affect our lives,” said Principal Wilson Fee, Fanaray.

… (continue for remaining content)

Source: www.nytimes.com

The importance of AI companies adopting the practices of quantum computing research

David Parker/Science Photo Library

What is the difference between artificial intelligence and quantum computing? One is sci-fi sound technology that has long been committed to revolutionizing our world, providing researchers can sort out some technical wrinkles, such as the tendency to cause errors. In fact, the other one is too.

Still, AI seems breathless and inevitably inevitable, but the average person has no experience with quantum computing. Is this important?

Practitioners in both fields certainly commit the crime of hyping their products, but part of the problem with quantum advocates is that the current generation of quantum computers are essentially useless. With a special report on the state of the industry (see “Quantum Computers Finally Arrived, Will They Be Useful?”), races are intended to build machines that can actually do useful calculations. Currently underway. This is not possible on a regular computer.

There is no clear use case to prevent high-tech giants from forcing AI into the software they use every day, but the subtle nature of this hardware makes quantum computing the masses more difficult. It is much more difficult to bring in the same way. You probably won’t own a personal quantum computer. Instead, the industry is targeting businesses and governments.

Practitioners in both AI and quantum computing fields are guilty of hyping their products

Perhaps that’s why quantum computer builders seem to keep their feet on science, drumming business while publishing peer-reviewed research. It appears that the major AI companies have all those who have given up on publishing. Why are you troubled when you can simply charge a monthly fee to use your technology, whether it actually works or not?

The quantum approach is correct. When you are committed to technology that transforms research, industry and society, explaining how it works in the most open way possible is the only way to persuade people to believe in the hype. .

It may not be flashy, but in the long run it’s not style, it’s substance. So, I will definitely aim to revolutionize the world, but please show me your work.

topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

UK industry rules find video game company in violation for loot box practices

The UK government’s mandate for technology companies to self-regulate gambling-style loot boxes in video games has come under scrutiny as some developers, who were involved in creating industry guidelines, failed to comply with their own rules.

In the last six months, three companies, including major developer Electronic Arts (EA), faced charges from the advertising regulator for not disclosing the presence of loot boxes in their games as stipulated in the guidelines they helped establish.

Experts who filed the complaint noted numerous other breaches but only reported a few to highlight the issue to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Loot boxes are game features that allow players to spend real or virtual currency to unlock digital envelopes with random rewards like character outfits or weapons.

Despite concerns about the gambling-like risks associated with loot boxes, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport announced in July 2022 that loot boxes would not be classified as gambling products.

Nadine Dorries, the then culture secretary, expressed concerns about regulating loot boxes due to potential unintended consequences.

Instead of direct regulation, the government established a “technical working group” which included video game and tech companies and introduced 11 principles related to loot boxes in August 2023.

One of the guidelines requires clear disclosure of paid loot boxes in game promotions.

Leon Hsiao, an expert on loot box regulation, found that the majority of game ads he analyzed violated the group’s disclosure rules despite being members of the Loot Box Working Group.

Several games, including those from EA, Hutch, and Jagex, were subject to complaints upheld by the ASA for inadequate disclosure of loot boxes.

While EA and Jagex cited human error and lack of space for disclosures, Hatch claimed misunderstanding of the advertising guidelines.

Hsiao stressed that these incidents were not isolated and suggested the industry’s self-regulation efforts were not sufficient.

Don Foster, chairman of the House of Lords’ group for Gambling Reform, called out the failure of self-regulation and urged government intervention to protect children from loot box-related harm.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport emphasized the need for video game companies to enhance efforts in safeguarding players from loot box risks.

The UK games industry body Ukey supported the implementation of new guidelines by July 2024 to ensure player protection and promote responsible gaming.

EA affirmed their commitment to loot box disclosures and providing players with information for safe gaming practices.

Jagex and Hatch were contacted for comments by The Guardian.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Apple fined 500 million euros by EU for music streaming practices

Apple faces a €500m (£427m) fine for unfairly influencing competitors in the music streaming market, according to the Financial Times. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, will impose the penalty following an extensive investigation.

Why is Apple facing the prospect of fines?

After Spotify filed complaints in 2019, the EU began examining Apple’s position in the music streaming app market. The focus was narrowed down to specific restrictions placed by Apple on app developers, preventing them from informing iPhone and iPad users about more affordable music subscriptions outside of the App Store. Spotify claims this favors Apple Music, the company’s rival app.

This case is the latest in a series of legal disputes involving Apple’s App Store, which has been criticized by the companies utilizing it for its rules and charges. Apple recently announced that it would allow EU customers to download apps without going through its own store, a concession made under pressure from the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).

What does the EU think about Apple’s actions?

The EU did not comment directly, but when Apple issued a new statement of objection in February of the previous year, it suggested that the company would be penalized for unfair trading conditions violating Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The Commission expressed concerns that the restrictions can prevent developers from informing consumers about affordable streaming service subscriptions.

What happens next?

The Financial Times reported that the Commission will announce the fine in the early part of the next month. The maximum fine for anti-competitive behavior is 10% of global turnover, which, in Apple’s case, could be up to $30bn (£24bn), although the final amount is expected to be lower. Apple may appeal the Commission’s decision.

What are Apple and Spotify saying?

Apple and Spotify declined to comment on Monday. However, Apple has previously defended its App Store, stating that it has aided Spotify in becoming Europe’s top music streaming service.

Spotify, on the other hand, has emphasized its complaint against Apple’s aim to establish a “level playing field,” arguing that the App Store restrictions give preference to Apple Music, the company’s own streaming service.

What do the experts say?

Ann Witt, a professor of antitrust law at France’s EDHEC Business School, remarked that Apple is already confronting a stringent regulatory environment with the introduction of the DMA. The Open Market Institute opined that the size of the reported fine will not have a significant impact on Apple’s behavior.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Google Search: Beware of These Deceptive Practices

A new study shows that searching online to evaluate news can actually increase beliefs in misinformation, especially when search engines return low-quality information. This highlights the need for better media literacy programs and improved search engine responsiveness. Credit: SciTechDaily.com

Alarming research findings demonstrate the limitations of using recommended procedures to debunk false content.

Conventional wisdom holds that searching online to assess the veracity of misinformation can lead to less belief in that information. But a new study by a team of researchers shows that the opposite is happening. This means that searches are actually taking place to assess the veracity of false news articles. To increase Probability of believing false information.

The results of this study will be published in the journal today (December 20th) Nature, provides insight into the impact of search engine output on users. This is a relatively under-researched area.

How search engines influence users’ beliefs

“Our research shows that the act of searching online to evaluate news increases beliefs in misinformation, which is very common and by a significant amount.” new york universityCenter for Social Media Politics (CSMaP) and one of the authors of this paper.

The reason for this result may be explained by the search engine output. Researchers found that this phenomenon was concentrated among individuals for whom search engines returned low-quality information.

“This means that ‘data gaps’ (areas of the information ecosystem dominated by low-quality or outright false news and information) play a significant role in the online search process, leading to poor search results. “The danger is that you may see reliable or, even more alarmingly, unreliable information at the top of search results,” said lead author and University of Central Florida professor said Kevin Alette, assistant professor and CSMaP faculty researcher.

Methodology and focus of nature research

The newly published Nature Aslett, Sanderson, and their colleagues studied the effects of using online search engines to evaluate false or misleading views. This approach is recommended by technology companies, government agencies, and others.

To do so, they recruited participants through both Qualtrics and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (a tool frequently used to conduct behavioral science research) and conducted a series of five experiments. Its purpose is to measure the impact of common actions. i.e. Searching and Evaluating News Online (SOTEN).

Investigating online search behavior and its impact

The first four studies tested the following aspects of online search behavior and impact:

  • The impact of SOTEN on believing both false or misleading news and true news within two days of article publication (popular fake articles included articles such as: COVID-19 (new coronavirus infection) vaccines, Trump impeachment proceedings, climate change, etc.)
  • Does the effect of SOTEN change individuals’ evaluations of the truthfulness of news articles?
  • blue sky effect Month After publication
  • The impact of SOTEN on recent news about salient topics with important news coverage – in the case of this study, news about the Covid-19 pandemic.

The fifth study combined survey and web tracking data to determine the effects of exposure to both low- and high-quality search engine results on misinformation beliefs. By collecting search results using a custom web browser plug-in, researchers were able to determine how search results were displayed. quality These search results can influence users’ beliefs about the misinformation being evaluated.

Source credibility ratings for this study were determined by NewsGuard, a browser extension that rates news and other information sites to help users evaluate the trustworthiness of content they encounter online.

Conclusion and recommendations

Across five studies, the authors found that the act of searching online to evaluate news led to a statistically significant increase in belief in misinformation. This occurred either immediately or months after the incorrect information was published. This finding suggests that the passage of time, and the ostensible opportunity for fact-checking to enter the information ecosystem, does not reduce the impact of SOTEN, which increases the likelihood of believing a false news article to be true. Additionally, a fifth study showed that this phenomenon is concentrated among individuals for whom search engines return low-quality information.

“The findings of this study underscore the need for media literacy programs to ground recommendations in empirically tested interventions and the need for search engines to invest in solutions to the challenges identified in this study.” ” concludes Joshua A. Tucker, professor of political science and co-director of CSMaP. of the author of the paper.

Reference: “Online searches to evaluate misinformation may increase perceptions of its truth,” December 20, 2023 Nature.
DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06883-y

Other authors on the paper include William Gaedel and Jonathan Nagler of New York University’s Center for Social Media Politics and Nathaniel Persily of Stanford Law School.

This research was supported by a grant (2029610) from the National Science Foundation.

Source: scitechdaily.com