EOTO 2 Reaction: The Illusory Truth Effect

 The Illusory Truth Effect was one of the most interesting topics I learned about throughout our second group presentation project. This effect occurs when the repetition of certain information causes the brain to interpret it as more truthful, even if that information is false. The more times that a concept is repeated, it seems to seem increasingly truthful. The presentation gave us great examples of how this occurred within topics we’ve experienced, like when Donald Trump continuously stated that the Middle East was preparing deadly weapons. 

One of the reasons I found this concept so interesting is that repeating information, especially in media or politics, can be used as a form of rhetoric. Repeating points within speeches is a strategy that people find effective, making that speech more compelling and memorable. As I learned more about this concept, I began to question whether repetition as a rhetorical device was actually strong enough to make people believe those points, which is strongly related to the Illusory Truth effect. I wonder if the same things that make repetition so strong in public speaking and messaging are the same factors that make information so believable throughout instances of the Illusory Truth Effect. If I had to guess, I’d say they’re extremely comparable. 

However, I think it is critical to remember that just because someone is ingesting the same message from a source many times, it doesn’t mean that the information is truthful. Because repetition puts such strong emphasis on points of a speech or claims made in the media, some people might be automatically inclined to believe them. Investopedia adds that repetition also strengthens pathways in the brain to access certain information that people have heard many times, and people begin to associate familiarity with truthfulness. Ultimately, the Illusory Truth Effect would be beneficial for everyone to be aware of to make sure that they continue learning about topics that they may feel comfortable with.

Section 230 of the CDA

    Section 230 of the CDA (Communications Decency Agreement) has been a controversial policy recently. It originally was a layer of protection for social media and other online platforms from being held responsible for the content that its users upload. It determined that the individual users of the platforms are the publishers of the content, not the actual platform itself. In other words, even though content gets posted on these platforms, they are not considered the producers of that content. 

The legislation specifies that the platforms are able to freely police their sites and the content posted upon them according to their guidelines, so they have the right to choose what material can stay up or be taken off. 

As a result of these parameters signifying the identity of social platforms in relation to the content displayed by them, the platforms are able to avoid legal troubles concerning more sensitive material. Therefore, online companies aren’t liable for harmful content, and they can’t be punished for failing to remove content that they choose not to.

While this policy can be beneficial for companies so that they aren’t constantly having to deal with the consequences for their irresponsible users, there have been some blurred lines when considering what content is considered acceptable or unacceptable. Lawsuits have arisen concerning this legislation and left people questioning if it needs to be changed. 

Two very recent cases concerning Section 230 are Google v. Gonzalez and Twitter v. Taamneh. Google v. Gonzales came first, where the argument was that Google and its platforms promoted ISIS and allowed them to form new recruits because its algorithm encouraged it by displaying similar content to people who wanted to view it. It claimed that because of this accessibility to terrorist content, Google could be liable for some of the attacks. The court ruled that Google could not be held responsible because these posts were made by third-party users, and were therefore protected by Section 230. 

Twitter v. Taamneh was a similar case but yielded a different result. In this case, the claim was that Twitter failed to remove accounts that were associated with and supporting ISIS. The plaintiffs then claimed that because of the activity on these pro-terrorist accounts, contributed to and influenced activity from ISIS supporters. Despite the similarity of the cases, the court ruled differently here. It said that Twitter could be held responsible for “aiding and abetting” an act of terrorism. Two very contradictory outcomes for two similar cases show the uncertainty of Section 230’s policy and confusion with its limits and abilities. 

The Department of Justice is looking for clarification surrounding Section 230 and actually uploaded “areas ripe for reform” within the legislation. The topics that seem most critical to discuss are how online platforms address harmful content, clarify the federal government's involvement concerning “unlawful” content, promote competition for platforms willing to better enforce Section 230, and allow greater transparency with platforms and their users. Hopefully, addressing these areas of concern within Section 230 will give a more clear idea of what content is harmful, and how companies are supposed to act accordingly toward content violations. Because so many people use online platforms so frequently, it is important to get these parameters figured out as soon as possible. 

Do I Even Have Privacy?

    Digital privacy is something that everyone needs to be aware of, and quickly. However, awareness likely isn’t enough for people to maintain their online autonomy, as surveillance and tracking methods have integrated just about every system in our current society. 

We’ve learned about tracking, data mining, and tracking malware through social media platforms. This information is more widely known now, thanks to cases like Smith v. Facebook, which has given people insight into how often their data is being tracked and used without much public knowledge.

Yet, the government and other digital software companies have integrated other surveillance and data-capturing systems into many other areas of our lives as well. For example, the Ted Talk by Christopher Soghoian mentions that cell phone networks and companies had goals to achieve surveillance as a primary focus. These systems allow wire-tapping to be possible, which can intercept our personal texts and calls. Anyone can hack into the surveillance systems on these networks, and the Chinese government did exactly that in 2009. 

Catherine Crump’s Ted Talk highlighted that policing systems have been using license plate tracking devices, which have kept data about things we have been doing in our personal everyday lives. This could be the stores we go to, the churches we are a part of or even protests that we’ve been in.

    Facial recognition technology has also been advancing and being incorporated into our lives. Juan Enriquez’s Ted Talk discusses how face.com, a facial recognition technology that had claimed to identify 18 billion faces, was bought by Facebook. We are being tracked just about everywhere.  

These issues highly impact people like me because so much of our lives are online. We’re constantly on our phones, or else we’re on a computer for work and school. We mindlessly accept companies’ terms and conditions, where we should be looking to check how much of our information is being taken and if it’s being sold to a third party. Our information is always being absorbed and used!

I believe the government definitely needs to add some regulations for personal privacy, both in online spaces like our phones AND in public, like with public cameras. Like Soghoian mentioned, it might make it harder for police to catch the bad guys, but it would help ensure that people who aren’t supposed to have access to our personal information can’t get it. The issue is that I don’t know the best way for it to be possible… especially since so much of our personal information is already stored in some database that I have no idea about.