Cyborgs, trolls and bots can fill the internet with lies and half-truths. Understanding them is key to learning how misinformation spreads online.As the 2016 election showed, social media is increasingly used to amplify false claims and divide Americans over hot-button issues including race and immigration. Researchers who study misinformation predict it will get worse leading up to this year’s presidential vote. Here’s a guide to understanding the problem:MISINFORMATION VS. DISINFORMATIONPolitical misinformation has been around since before the printing press, but the internet has allowed falsehoods, conspiracy theories and exaggerations to spread faster and farther than ever.Misinformation is defined as any false information, regardless of intent, including honest mistakes or misunderstandings of the facts. Disinformation, on the other hand, typically refers to misinformation created and spread intentionally as a way to confuse or mislead.Misinformation and disinformation can appear in political ads or social media posts. They can include fake news stories or doctored videos. One egregious example of disinformation from last year was a video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that was slowed down to make her sound as if she were slurring her words.Research indicates that false claims spread more easily than accurate ones, possibly because they are crafted to grab attention.Scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology analyzed more than 126,000 stories, some true and some false, that were tweeted millions of times from 2006 through the end of 2016. They found that misleading or incorrect stories traveled six times faster — and reached more people.Online misinformation has been blamed for deepening America’s political polarization and contributing to distrust in government. The risks were highlighted in 2016 when Russian trolls created fake accounts to spread and amplify social media posts about controversial issues.WAR OF THE BOTS AND CYBORGSThe disposable foot soldiers in this digital conflict are bots. In the social media context, these autonomous programs can run accounts to spread content without human involvement.Many are harmless, tweeting out random poems or pet photos. But others are up to no good and designed to resemble actual users.One study by researchers at the University of Southern California analyzed election-related tweets sent in September and October 2016 and found that 1 in 5 were sent by a bot. The Pew Research Center concluded in a 2018 study that accounts suspected of being bots are responsible for as many as two-thirds of all tweets that link to popular websites.While flesh-and-blood Twitter users will often post a few times a day, about a variety of subjects, the most obvious bots will tweet hundreds of times a day, day and night, and often only on a specific topic. They are more likely to repost content rather than create something original.And then there’s the cyborg, a kind of hybrid account that combines a bot’s tirelessness with human subtlety. Cyborg accounts are those in which a human periodically takes over a bot account to respond to other users and to post original content. They are more expensive and time consuming to operate, but they don’t give themselves away as robots.“You can get a lot from a bot, but maybe it’s not the best quality,” said Emilio Ferrara, a data science researcher at the University of Southern California who co-wrote the study on Twitter bots. “The problem with cyborgs is they are much harder to catch and detect.”SPOT THE BOTSBots can be hard to spot, even for the best researchers.“We have 12 ways that we spot a bot, and if we hit seven or eight of them we have pretty high confidence,” said Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that studies connections between social media, cybersecurity and government.Nonetheless, Brookie recalled the case of a Twitter account from Brazil that was posting almost constantly — sometimes once per minute — and displayed other bot-like characteristics. And yet, “It was a little grandma, who said, ‘This is me!’”Their prevalence and the difficulty of identifying them has made bots into a kind of digital bogeyman and transformed the term into an insult, used to dismiss other social media users with different opinions.Michael Watsey, a 43-year-old New Jersey man who often tweets his support for President Donald Trump, said he has been repeatedly called a Russian bot by people he argues with online. The accusations prompted Twitter to temporarily suspend his account more than once, forcing him to verify he is a human.“All I’m trying to do is uses my First Amendment right to free speech,” he said. “It’s crazy that it’s come to this.”TROLLS AND SOCK PUPPETSThe word troll once referred to beasts of Scandinavian mythology who hid under bridges and attacked travelers. Now it also refers to people who post online to provoke others, sometimes for their own amusement and sometimes as part of a coordinated campaign.Sock puppets are another oddly named denizen of social media, in this case a type of imposter account. While some users may use anonymous accounts simply to avoid identifying themselves, sock-puppet accounts are used by the owner to attack their critics or praise themselves. In October, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney acknowledged operating a secret Twitter account under the name “Pierre Delecto,” which he used to defend himself against criticism.FAKED VIDEOS: DEEP, CHEAP AND SHALLOWDeepfakes are videos that have been digitally created with artificial intelligence or machine learning to make it appear something happened that did not. They are seen as an emerging threat, as improvements in video editing software make it possible for tricksters to create increasingly realistic footage of, say, former President Barack Obama delivering a speech he never made, in a setting he never visited. They are expensive and difficult to create — especially in a convincing way.Facebook announced last month that it would ban deepfake videos — with exceptions for satire. Beginning in March, Twitter will prohibit doctored videos, photography and audio recordings “likely to cause harm.” Material that is manipulated but isn’t necessarily harmful may get a warning label. And YouTube bans “deceptive uses of manipulated media” that could pose serious risk of harm.By contrast, shallowfakes, cheapfakes or dumbfakes are videos that have been doctored using more basic techniques, such as slowing down or speeding up footage or cutting it.Examples include a doctored video posted by Britain’s Conservative Party before December’s U.K. election that made it seem like a Labour Party official was struggling to respond to a question about Brexit.Because they’re easy and inexpensive to make, cheapfakes can be every bit as dangerous as their fancier cousin, the deepfake.“Deepfakes are getting more realistic and easier to do,” said John Pavlik, a journalism professor at Rutgers University who studies how technology and the internet are changing communication habits. “But you don’t have to have special software to make these simpler ones.”Researchers who study Americans’ changing media habits recommend that people turn to a variety of sources and perspectives for their news, use critical thinking when evaluating information on social media, and think twice about reposting viral claims. Otherwise, they say, misinformation will continue to flow, and users will continue to spread it.“The only solution,” Ferrara said, “is education.” 
…

Democratic presidential contenders stretched beyond the facts on policy and sometimes on their own records Friday in their New Hampshire debate.Amy Klobuchar called out Pete Buttigieg for an evolution on health care that he didn’t acknowledge. Joe Biden told only part of the story when he boasted about a success as vice president in getting troops home from Iraq.A look at how some of their claims from Manchester, New Hampshire, compare with the facts:Klobuchar, Buttigieg and health careKLOBUCHAR, on Buttigieg’s evolution on health care: “And Pete, while you have a different plan now, you sent out a tweet just a few years ago that said henceforth, forthwith, indubitably, affirmatively, you are for ‘Medicare for All’ for the ages.”BUTTIGIEG: “Just to be clear, the truth is that I have been consistent throughout in my position on delivering health care for every American.”THE FACTS: Klobuchar, a Minnesota senator, is right. Before he launched his presidential campaign, Buttigieg sounded supportive of “Medicare for All.” The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, isn’t now.In February 2018, he was involved in a Twitter exchange as liberals were pressing Democratic politicians to back a government health plan.“When/where have you ever heard me oppose ‘Medicare for All?”’ he asked in a Feb. 17, 2018, response to an activist’s query.A day later, he tweeted out a column he wrote as a Harvard University senior, saying he’d “been on record on this one since 2004.”On the same day, he sent out a separate tweet: “Gosh! Okay … I, Pete Buttigieg, politician, do henceforth and forthwith declare, most affirmatively and indubitably, unto the ages, that I do favor ‘Medicare for All,’ as I do favor any measure that would help get all Americans covered. Now, if you’ll excuse me, potholes await.”
Biden and troops in IraqBIDEN, saying President Barack Obama asked him to get 156,000 troops out of Iraq: “I did that.”THE FACTS: True, but that’s not the end of the story. Obama asked Biden to take the lead in efforts to withdraw troops and coordinate efforts to maintain stability in Baghdad. What Biden did not mention was that some of the troops had to go back.Obama and Biden failed to win agreement from the Iraqi government to keep a limited number of U.S. troops there after December 2011. That was the deadline for a complete U.S. pullout under a deal negotiated by the Bush administration in late 2008. Biden was still vice president when Obama was compelled to return American troops to Iraq in 2014 after the rise of the Islamic State extremist group.Yang and corporate profitsANDREW YANG, tech entrepreneur: “We have record high corporate profits in this country right now.”THE FACTS: Corporate profits are high, but they’re not at record levels.Companies earned $1.84 trillion in profits in 2018, slightly below the $1.86 trillion earned in 2014, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. But as a share of national income, corporate profits were 6.6% in 2018. That’s down from 7.6% in 2012 and significantly below the peak of 8.9% in 1929.
…

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. The paintings of Jorge A. Yances evoke a mysterious interplay between past and present, reality and fantasy, a style called magical realism. “I paint first and foremost because it is a necessity for myself. It’s something that I have to do almost every day, even if I take just the pencil and just draw on a blank paper. It is a feeling of satisfaction of the body and the mind to be able to create something,” he says.  For more than 15 years, Yances has created paintings using vivid colors and delicate brushstrokes. Yances’ artwork has been critically acclaimed and exhibited throughout the United States, South America and Asia.Jorges YancesMagical realism is often described as “surreal,” and Yances says it was by chance that magical realism entered his life.   “The magical realism part was not something I set out to paint because I did not know what it meant. I only knew of Gary Garcia Marquez and his magical realism literature,” he says. “A professor at the University in Tennessee came in my gallery downtown close to Hillsboro Village in Nashville and she said, ‘Your work is nice and it’s so magical realism.’ It was then after she explained what it was that I agreed that yes, my paintings can be called magical realism.”Yances’ art contains complex hidden images. He describes magical realism this way: “Magical realism for me is expressing something that is inside of you. I let the painting pretty much be free. I don’t want to show what’s behind it. Sometimes there’s three or four different layers on the paintings,” he says.  “So, the faces and the bodies and everything that appears on my canvases, they are there. I don’t paint them.  They kind of reveal themselves.” Some of Yances’ drawings come from discoveries from his native city of Cartagena, Colombia. Yances emigrated to Nashville, TN with his family when he was 13. Jorge YancesYances says the teachings of a relative also influenced his art. “My aunt was also an artist. She taught my cousins and me. She wanted us to know the different between watercolor and oil painting, the smell of paint and just all the little details,” he says.Yances says his aunt taught him that technique is not enough. Any artist can portray the beauty of a city, he says, but she encouraged him to reveal more than what may be visible. “It is more than paint on a canvas,” Yances says. “It is art which detects the power of the stories that surrounds all of us.”
…

Their defense off to a rocky start, Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers look to rebound Friday by bringing in a film director in hopes of dashing the credibility of a rape accuser who acknowledged abusing prescription drugs during a movie shoot before the alleged assault.
    
Warren Leight wrote and directed “The Night We Never Met,” a 1993 romantic comedy starring Annabella Sciorra, the actress who testified early in the trial that Weinstein barged into her apartment and raped her in the mid-1990s.
    
But that isn’t Leight’s only connection to the case.
    
Now the showrunner and executive producer on “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” Leight wrote a (hash)MeToo-themed episode of the show, based on the Weinstein saga.
    
In the episode titled “I’m Going to Make You a Star,” the head of a big media studio is arrested after he’s accused of raping young actresses and forcing one to watch him masturbate at an audition. In a line evoking what accusers have said of Weinstein, the mogul character tells a victim: “You want this part, don’t you?”
    
“I thought, go big,” Leight told People magazine after the episode aired in September.
    
Sciorra, the first of six accusers to take the witness stand, was friends with Leight and testified that she brought his “The Night We Never Met” script to Weinstein’s attention, even staging a reading with her theater company so the once-revered Hollywood honcho could hear it acted out.
    
Sciorra, now 59, said Weinstein agreed to make the film, but only if she starred in it _ something she resisted because she already had back-to-back movie shoots booked and didn’t want a third.
    
To help her cope with the grueling schedule, Sciorra said Weinstein sent her a care package that included a bottle of Valium and that, by the time The Night We Never Met started filming, she was hooked on the drug. She said it was around the same time that she started drinking alcohol.
    
On cross-examination, defense lawyer Donna Rotunno questioned if Sciorra was on Valium or drunk the night she alleges Weinstein raped her. The actress denied both, saying she had weaned herself off the drug by then and didn’t have much to drink that night.
   
 “I realized I was addicted to the Valium and I was taking it during the day a lot, at nighttime,” Sciorra testified. “I also knew it wasn’t good for me.”
    
“The Night We Never Met” finished filming in December 1992, according to the Internet Movie Database. Sciorra alleges Weinstein raped her in late 1993 or early 1994 after giving her a ride home from a dinner with people in the film industry.
    
The Associated Press does not typically identify people who say they have been victims of sexual assault, unless they come forward publicly.
    
Rotunno foreshadowed Leight’s appearance on the witness stand as she grilled Sciorra about her use of Valium and her behavior on the set of “The Night We Never Met.” At one point, the lawyer asked if Leight ever spoke to her “about the fact you were intoxicated.”
    
Sciorra said no, but later said, “He might have, I don’t recall.”
    
Leight, 63, went on to write the play Side Man,'' a 1999 Pulitzer Prize finalist, and was a top producer on the HBO seriesIn Treatment.” He started in television as a writer on “100 Centre Street,” a short-lived 2002 drama series about the very New York City courthouse where Weinstein is on trial.
    
Prosecutors rested their case against Weinstein on Thursday after more than two weeks of testimony from about two dozen witnesses.
    
Weinstein is charged with raping a woman in a Manhattan hotel room in March 2013 and forcibly performing oral sex on a different woman in 2006. Sciorra’s allegations, too old for criminal charges on their own, are the basis for a charge alleging Weinstein is a serial predator who has committed multiple assaults over the years.
    
Weinstein, 67, has maintained any sexual encounters were consensual.
    
Weinstein’s lawyers on Friday are also expected to call to the witness stand cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who specializes in human memory. They are looking to raise doubts about the accusers’ recollections of encounters that, in some cases, are more than a decade or two old.
    
The first defense witness, an industry executive who remains a Weinstein ally, seemed blindsided on Thursday when a prosecutor confronted him with text messages that appeared to justify Weinstein’s behavior and bash his accusers.
    
Paul Feldsher, a former agent who once knew Sciorra, scolded Weinstein in November 2018 for “behaving like a cad.” But in another message shown to the jury, he stuck up for Weinstein, telling him: I think the dog pile of actresses who are suddenly brave and recalling repressed memories is hideous.''
    
The defense had hoped Feldsher would discredit Sciorra by recounting a conversation he had with her in the early 1990s in which she supposedly told him she haddone this crazy thing with Harvey” but didn’t say she had been assaulted.
    
“My understanding was that she fooled around with him,” Feldsher testified.
…

The European commissioner for human rights urged Moscow Friday to investigate a violent assault on a journalist and a lawyer in Russia’s province of Chechnya.Elena Milashina, from the independent Novaya Gazeta, said she and Marina Dubrovina, a lawyer accompanying her on a trip to Chechnya, were pushed and beaten by a dozen people in the lobby of their hotel late Thursday. Milashina long has exposed human rights violations in Chechnya.The regional branch of Russia’s Interior Ministry in Chechnya said it was looking into the incident.The Kremlin has relied on Chechnya’s leader Ramzan Kadyrov to keep the North Caucasus region stable after two devastating separatist wars. International rights groups have accused Kadyrov’s feared security forces of extrajudicial killings, torture and abductions of dissenters.The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović on Friday condemned the assault on the journalist and the lawyer as “the latest of a series of worrying attacks on human rights defenders and critics” in Chechnya.Mijatović noted that “ the climate of hostility against independent civil society activists, human rights defenders, lawyers and journalists in Chechnya is often fomented by virulent and threatening speech of political leaders, including at the highest levels” of the regional leadership.She urged the Russian authorities to “urgently reverse this unacceptable situation and uphold their obligations to ensure that human rights defenders can work safely and freely.” Mijatović emphasized that those responsible for the assault must be punished.
…