upworthy

immigrants

Some helpful information to fight misinformation.

The rise of misinformation on social media has been a monumental stress test for the world’s critical thinking skills. Misinformation has had a huge influence on elections, public health and the treatment of immigrants and refugees across the world. Social media platforms have tried to combat false claims over the years by employing fact-checkers, but they haven’t been terribly effective because those who are most susceptible to misinformation don’t trust fact-checkers.

“The word fact-checking itself has become politicized,” Cambridge University professor Jon Roozenbeek said, according to the Associated Press. Further, studies show that when people have incorrect beliefs challenged by facts, it makes them cling to their false assumptions even harder. These platforms have also attempted to remove posts containing misinformation that violates their terms of service, but this form of content moderation is often seen as insufficient and is often applied inconsistently.

misinformation, conspiracy theories, tin foil hat, fake news, debunking false informationConspiracy theorists are associated with tin foil hats.via Mattias Berg/Flickr

How do we combat dangerous misinformation online if removing false claims or debunking them hasn’t been effective enough? A 2022 study published in the journal Science Advances by a team of university researchers and Jigsaw, a division of Google, found a relatively simple solution to the problem they call “pre-bunking.”

Pre-bunking is an easy way of inoculating people against misinformation by teaching them some basic critical thinking skills. The strategy is based on inoculation theory, a communication theory that suggests one can build resistance to persuasion by exposing people to arguments against their beliefs beforehand.

The researchers learned that pre-bunking was effective after conducting a study on nearly 30,000 participants on YouTube.

“Across seven high-powered preregistered studies including a field experiment on YouTube, with a total of nearly 30,000 participants, we find that watching short inoculation videos improves people’s ability to identify manipulation techniques commonly used in online misinformation, both in a laboratory setting and in a real-world environment where exposure to misinformation is common,” the recently published findings note.

The researchers uploaded videos into YouTube ad slots that discussed different types of manipulative communication used to spread false information such as ad hominem attacks, false dichotomies, scapegoating and incoherence.

Here’s an example of a video about false dichotomies.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Researchers found that after people watched the short videos, they were significantly better at distinguishing false information than they were before. The study was so successful that Jigsaw is looking to create a video about scapegoating and running it in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. These countries are all combating a significant amount of false information about Ukrainian refugees.

Many people talk about "critical thinking," but a lot of people don't really understand what the term means. Learning about the tropes and techniques used to spread misinformation is a vital part of developing critical thinking skills. It's not just about thinking for yourself and determining what's true based on what your brain tells you; it's about recognizing when messaging is being used to manipulate your brain to tell you certain things. It's learning about logical fallacies and how they work. It's acknowledging that we all have biases that can be preyed upon and learning how propaganda techniques are designed to do just that.

There’s an old saying, “If you give a man a fish, he’ll eat for a day. Teach that man to fish and he’ll eat forever.” Pre-bunking does something very similar. We can either play a game of whack-a-mole where social media platforms have to suss out misinformation on a minute-by-minute basis or we can improve the general public’s ability to distinguish misinformation and avoid it themselves.

Further, teaching people to make their own correct decisions about misinformation will be a lot more effective than pulling down content and employing fact-checks. These tactics only drive vulnerable, incredulous people toward misinformation.

This article originally appeared three years ago.

The Office of Kirsten Gilibrand/ Wikimedia Commons and Dr. Phil/Wikimedia Commons

Jon Stewart talks about the border crisis; Dr. Phil.

Jon Stewart is known for using humor to skewer politicians on both sides of the aisle, cleverly exposing their more ridiculous claims and inconsistencies with deft satire and mock incredulity. To the delight of The Daily Show viewers, he’s returned to the program after nine long years where he’ll sit in the hosting chair on Mondays throughout this year’s presidential election cycle.

This week, he fixed his gimlet eye on the migrant crisis at the border. He had plenty of criticism to go around and he even managed to zing Dr. Phil.

In a clip that’s now gone viral, titled, “Stewart Unpacks the GOP's ‘Migrant Crime’ Narrative,” the host makes the case that Republicans are using the crisis for political gain while Democrats are turning their backs on their core values.


After showing a series of alarmist clips (“Illegal invaders invading America!” warns one Fox News host), Stewart says, “Every two to four years, we are reminded we have a Southern border. And it is porous.”

More clips play, ratcheting up the levels of fear over the types of people who might be flowing through the border.

“Criminals, rapists, murderers, predators and God knows who else,” we see Marjorie Taylor Greene proclaim. “God knows who else? Statistically, a couple of them at least have to be podcasters,” Stewart quips.

Stewart goes on to show commentators and politicians discussing the countries where the people crossing the border are coming from, including Dr. Phil on "The Joe Rogan Experience," talking about all the fit, military-age men from China coming through the border.

“While it’s clear hyperbole,” says Stewart, after showing a clip where Donald Trump says Hannibal Lecter is one of the people crossing the border, “there does seem to be bipartisan agreement now that the border is a problem. There were 300,000 crossings in December alone. That’s an all-time high, and that is not sustainable.

“But Republicans turned down the chance to pass a strong border bill because of how confident they are that fearmongering will be an effective election-year strategy. It’s really all about branding,” Stewart said.

Trump again: “I call it Biden migrant crime, but it’s too long… Let’s call it Bigrant… Oh that’s good. That’s smart, Bigrant crime.”

“I’m not completely sold on Bigrant,” Stewart joked, stifling a laugh. It really just sounds like a migrant who’s open to crossing either border." Stewart then turned his attention to what he calls “a good old-fashioned border off,” where Trump and Biden both went to the Texas-Mexico border last week. Trump went to Eagle Pass, and Biden to Brownsville.

Biden suggests he and Trump should get together to pass a bipartisan border bill which Trump declines.

“When it comes to immigration, the Democrats hold to our country's cherished ideals, the eternal promise etched at the feet of lady liberty that speaks to our better angels," Stewart said. This is followed by a montage of clips showing politicians, including New York Mayor Eric Adams, speaking warmly about how our country is stronger because of immigrants.

“Unshakable bedrock American values of compassion and empathy and there is not a damn thing you can do to change that,” said Stewart. "And then busloads of migrants from Texas, seeking asylum in New York.“

Nice try, Texas, but you heard the mayor," Stewart continued. "We’re New York [bleeping] City!… You are never going to change our values because you’re afraid. So keep sending those busloads because we got plenty of room in our hearts and in this city.”

Adams again: “We have no more room in the city.”

Stewart stared at the camera in disbelief. “What about the yearnings and the tiredness and the tiredness of those who are doing the yearnings?”

Stewart then shows clips of Adams talking about the effect of 110,000 migrants coming to New York City. “This issue will destroy New York City,” he says.

“Yes, it turns out in the age old battle between values and fear, values never had a [bleeping] chance.


“So this is the terrible cycle America is caught in. Democrats whose high-minded values and principles did not survive a contact high with reality and Republicans whose desire to solve the problem isn’t nearly as strong as their desire to exploit it," Stewart concluded.

Pop Culture

Immigrants and travelers share their funniest language mistakes and it's a riot

Learning the nuances of another language takes time, patience and a great sense of humor.

Language barriers can be frustrating, but also so, so funny.

There are currently close to 7,000 languages being spoken around the world, which is a mind-blowing number since Americans are lucky if they speak two languages fluently. What that means, though, is that no matter where you're from, if you're going to go live in another country or visit for an extended period of time, you'll need to learn a new language.

However, it's not even that simple since even within the same language there can be huge dialect and colloquial differences. Meanings of words can be completely different from place to place, even when the language is technically the same. (Try using the term "fanny pack" in some English-speaking countries and you'll see some heads turn.)

Since we have not yet figured out the universal language thing, all of these linguistic differences make for some humbling and hilarious mix-ups as people try to communicate with and understand one another across language barriers.

This delightful little story from @ivadixit on X is a perfect example:


"I'm just remembering that my second year in America, someone asked me to 'validate their parking,' which was my first time hearing the phrase, and after blinking stupidly in silence for a full five seconds I said, 'Well parking is really hard but I'm sure you did it really well.'"

That tweet prompted a flood of responses of similar stories:

"In my first year in US, I was working in a research lab as an RA and our professor had arranged lunch for everyone. He said 'Lunch is on the house tomorrow.' Confused, I asked him for his home address."

"In college, my fellow student worker Maureen used the phrase, 'I'm sorry, I'm "on the rag" right now' to explain why she was out of sorts. I explained its actual meaning to her, and she was embarrased. She thought it meant 'out of sorts' and had been using it liberally."

"In Australia we often have a meal where people are invited to bring some food to share. It's often referred to as 'bring a plate.' A friend from Scotland literally brought and empty plate and was very confused, thinking we didn't have enough dinnerware."

Swipe through for more:

The sharing of these tweets prompted even more people to share their stories on Instagram, and they did not disappoint.

"For years, I used the expression 'up yours' as a congratulatory phrase, and nobody corrected me. Be nice to your foreigners. Correct them when they are wrong." – ombrettadidio

"I was going to college in the US when I saw a sign 'beware of the pedestrians' and I asked the people I was with what kind of animal a pedestrian is." – msgies

"A little kid dressed as a dinosaur roared at me in Peru and I said 'tengo mierda' (I have shit) instead of 'tengo miedo' (I'm scared). Whoops." – thebirdfromblighty

"Ooh I have a fun one. I studied abroad in France. Turns out 'preservatif/preservative' in French does not mean preservatives like you find in foods, it means condoms. Have never been met with such confused silence in my life." – kirstenpastel1

"I went to Spain with my husband and kept saying 'escuchame!' Thinking I was saying “excuse me” And he would die laughing every time. He finally told me I was saying 'LISTEN TO ME!' To everyone." – jenessa_sturgell

"I am Canadian. My husband is Australian. Family friend flew over from Australia and offered to nurse a Canadian woman’s baby on the plane. The Canadian very firmly told her 'no thanks.' She didn’t understand why the woman was so offended. In Australia when they say nurse a baby, it means to hold. In Canada when we say nurse a baby, it means to breastfeed. We still laugh about it." – jillybeans80

"I was in Ecuador on a missionary trip with my church, I over dressed one day and was burning up but had nowhere to put my jacket and sweater. I asked over and over at every store I walked by, every street vendor, anywhere for a bag, but I called it 'bolsa.' (I’m Puerto Rican, that's how we say it). No one hooked me up, most times people walked away with a face of disgust. Again and again I kept asking for a big bag, because I only had a tiny bag at the time. The local pastor that we met heard me at one point and ran to me, told me to keep quiet and then asked me what I needed… my response, a bolsa… a bag. Apparently you have to ask for a 'funda,' in that country I was pretty much asking for a sack of men's balls. Literal balls. So I walked around saying, 'Do you have balls? My balls are too small and I need big balls.' Good times. – 0rense

"When I first moved to the Netherlands, I had a Dutch bf who spoke English very well, but some things got lost in translation. I didn’t speak Dutch at the time, and one day he said his hairdresser friend was quitting her job to become an undertaker. I was shocked and asked why she chose such a drastic career change, and he said, she wants to work for herself and loves making people look beautiful. I thought ok good for her I guess, and we never spoke about it again. It wasn’t until years later (long after we’d broken up) and I’d become fluent in Dutch when I realized, oh…the Dutch word for 'entrepreneur' literally translates into “undertaker” (ondernemer). She didn’t want to embalm dead bodies, she wanted to open her own hair salon." – maggstaa26

"When I moved to the UK, whenever I got hungry I told people I was 'ravishing' instead of 'ravenous.' I guess they assumed I just had excellent self esteem. 😂" – devananatura

"A French-Canadian friend of ours told a great stories from when he was learning English. My favourites were his use of ‘skinny pig’ instead of ‘guinea pig’ and ‘spacegoat’ instead of ‘scapegoat’—both used in business meetings, btw. 😂" – fuzzballphotography

"Was ordering dinner in Danish in Denmark, the word for chicken is 'kylling,' but as an American I pronounced it as 'killing' which translates into 'kitten' - so the waitress at the restaurant was a bit horrified at my request for BBQ baby cat. 😂" – howdyeliza

Language barriers can cause confusion and frustration, but also a whole lot of hilarity. These examples are a good reminder to always stay humble and keep your sense of humor when learning a new language, but also to help out those who are learning the nuances of a new language because they definitely aren't easy to master.

Of all the harsh immigration policies the Trump administration has enacted, from slashing America's refugee resettlement program to building "The Wall," taking thousands of children away from their parents is by far the worst. The "zero tolerance" policy of separating families at the border drew so much international outrage that the administration eventually abandoned it and was ordered by the courts to reunite the families. In some cases, that process took far more than a year.

Now, an investigation shows that the implementation of the policy was even more inhumane than we knew.

According to the New York Times, five prosecuting attorneys who were told about the new policy in May of 2018 "recoiled" when Attorney General Jeff Sessions told them "We need to take away the children." The attorneys told officials in the Department of Justice that they were "deeply concerned" about the welfare of the children subject to that policy.

A week later, deputy attorney general Rod J. Rosenstein told the prosecutors on a call that it didn't matter how young the children were. Government attorneys had apparently refused to prosecute two cases in which the children were barely more than infants, and it was made clear that they should not have done that.

"Per the A.G.'s policy, we should NOT be categorically declining immigration prosecutions of adults in family units because of the age of a child," John Bash, the departing U.S. attorney in western Texas, wrote to his staff immediately after the call. Bash was the one who had declined the cases involving babies, but Rosenstein overruled him.


This information comes from a draft report of a two-years investigation by the DOJ's inspector general, which included more than 45 interviews with key officials in addition to emails and documents. Officials say the final report could change, but what was revealed is shocking, even for those who are familiar with the policy and its implementation.

ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt expressed his shock at the report on Twitter.

Among the revelations in the report:

- A secret pilot program in 2017 along the Mexico border in Texas alarmed government attorneys. "We have now heard of us taking breastfeeding defendant moms away from their infants," one government prosecutor wrote to his superiors. "I did not believe this until I looked at the duty log."

- Border Patrol was stretched so thin from the family separation prosecutions that they missed serious felony cases, with one Texas prosecutor warning the DOJ that "sex offenders were released" as a result.

- U.S. Marshals had no warning before the policy was announced, which led to overcrowding and budget overruns because there was not preparation for it.

- DOJ officials have long claimed that they thought children would be reunited with their parents within hours, but there was no actual plan in place to get families reunited. "We found no evidence, before or after receipt of the memorandum, that DOJ. leaders sought to expedite the process for completing sentencing in order to facilitate reunification of separated families," the inspector general wrote.

Reading the NTY report, when confronted with who was ultimately responsible for the welfare of the children and for reuniting the with their parents, the officials involved in the policy either refuse to comment or point fingers elsewhere. No one wants to be the one to say, "I'm the monster," and of course the individual ultimately responsible for all federal policy is the president himself.

In fact, according to the Times:

"Gene Hamilton, a top lawyer and ally of Stephen Miller, the architect of the president's assault on immigration, argued in a 32-page response that Justice Department officials merely took direction from the president. Mr. Hamilton cited an April 3, 2018, meeting with Mr. Sessions; the homeland security secretary at the time, Kirstjen Nielsen; and others in which the president 'ranted' and was on 'a tirade,' demanding as many prosecutions as possible."

When "Prosecute 'em all!" becomes the policy or even misdemeanor illegal entry cases of asylum-seekers crossing the border in an area other than a port of entry, and no one plans for the fallout, chaos is inevitable and children ultimately pay the price.

"The department's single-minded focus on increasing prosecutions came at the expense of careful and effective implementation of the policy, especially with regard to prosecution of family-unit adults and the resulting child separations," the draft report said.

And what of the Border Patrol agents charged with carrying out the assignment of taking babies out of their parents' arms? One of them spoke to PBS Frontline about what that was like:

Make no mistake—children were traumatized by this policy. How could they not be? And that cruelty was exactly the point. Our government decided that punishing parents by traumatizing children would be an effective deterrent for people trying to enter the U.S., no matter what their circumstances.

There are certain lines that we, as a civilized society, simply should not cross. Knowingly causing harm to children is one of those lines. And the U.S. not only crossed that line, but hurdled over it with Trump's "zero tolerance" policy. Our own "of the people, by the people" government deliberately hurting babies and children is what we should truly have zero tolerance for. Not in our name. Not our watch.