Now instead of your aunt coming at you with misinfo she learned from her aunt, it’s your aunt coming at you with misinformation she learned from a russian bot farm.
But at least you can counter it with misinformation from an AI bot :D
I have the opposite problem. My mother doesn’t believe anything I tell her and thinks it is misinformation that I’ve been fed.
Have you ever tried to out crazy the crazy and force them to try to take the reasonable stance? It’s cathartic.
Yes and to make it even worse, your aunt back in the day would tell 10 people some BS and maybe 3 would believe her. Not some Russian bot factory spits out BS to 10 million people and a lot more believe it.
Did you spray for Russians under your bed before going to sleep? You really should, and check behind the sofa and in the dryer too. Russians can disguise themselves as Bounce dryer sheets, and the latest Russians can send themselves over Ethernet using the RoE protocol: Russian over Ethernet.
Russia! Quite an imaginary world you live in! Aunts and Russians and bots and misinformation and all these people targeting you! How exciting!
Can I send you my Moral Rearmament and John Birch Society fliers?
I’m oddly honored that I got a 3 paragraph troll with pictures in response to a comment that was barely even about russia.
“I don’t like what you say therefore you are a troll.” Classic shitlib behaviour.
GOOD point.
The well documented Russian troll networks simply do not exist.
Yep. The mark of a stupid Westerner is how much they blame Russia for their country’s problems (the exception being Ukraine obviously). Meanwhile the US literally has a billion+ dollar anti-China propaganda budget (taxpayer funded) and a decentralized, private network of pro-Israel propagandists backed by the richest people in the country, buying up entire media companies for that purpose.
And now instead of Marge, it’s ChatGPT.
It uses megawatts of electricity and is somehow wronger.
You’re grammar is the wrongerest.
*grandma
Also you’re an asshole for attacking his lineage.
/s
I have a gen-z friend who unjokingly does that. He’s like “I asked grok if it was true and it confirmed it.”
I wish at least he followed up with the logic or sources behind it… but no he was like “grok said so. I asked it.” he was dead serious. and I wanted to hit my head into a fucking wall
Now you are permanently overwhelmed by a tsunami of misinformation spewing out of your addictive phone instead. Progress.
If you can’t find the right information from the internet then skill issue
Sadly, I gotta disagree. Searching used to be easier, back when search engines prioritized finding useful information. Now they are vehicles for delivering ads and collecting user data.
Google of the early-2000s era was an entirely different site. I used to be able to find almost anything I needed to search for. As far as I’ve seen, there is nothing comparable to that early-Google out there today. (Though I’d be ecstatic to be proven wrong on that!)
Yeah I would agree with the other person 20 years ago. If you couldn’t find it online it probably didn’t exist
Said like someone that only looks at the “sponsored” results and thinks search doesn’t work. Exercise that scroll finger some more
Unfortunately Google is still the king of search engines. Try searching for most technical facts or most common issues or anything else on most search engines and you really can’t find it. You might find some things but you won’t find the amount of information you can find on Google. The problem with the internet nowadays is not that searching has gotten worse, it’s that there is such a plethora of information out there that you have to have the right skill set to be able to go through it. The reason you were able to find everything in the olden days was that there was so few websites out there that it was very very simple to search all of them. And the counterpoint to saying that there is a plethora of misinformation now when you’re looking at your phone simply means that you’re visiting websites and looking at sources that have a plethora of misinformation. It is very very simple to cross reference and find the correct information pretty much anywhere.
Searx is my way to go when i need to do research, it’s a search engine, that takes results from others
I would have agreed with you about 15 years ago when everything on the Internet wasn’t AI slop, calculated misinformation spread by foreign governments, and white supremacists using memes to spread their ideology.
Just disable AI slop from you search engine or stop using google and such, learn how to make un-biased searches, start to understand how to spot a fake information and start questioning what you read
Already do that shit, bro. It isn’t a justification for that trash to exist in the first place. And what the hell is a “biased search”?
I never said that it’s a justification lol, anyway, biased search is when you search something like “Is X better than Y” or something like this, which is wrong to do because it’s biased and so it will give biased results too
Example:
If i search “is tomato more healty than potatoes?” Instead of “The pros and cons of eating tomatoes and potatoes” i will get biased results that will mostly say “you should eat only tomatos!!!”
This is the dumbest shit I’ve ever read.
There is no “bias” in your example. There is only an asinine belief that you can locate ideological framing in innocuous questions about fruit and root vegetables.
This is called a bias query because it will give you biased results
You say this as though AI is only poisoning search tools.
What do you mean? Just use alternatives like Searx or remove AI from duckduckgo, for results just read, AIs are easy to spot
Right, those are all search tools.
All the people replying to you arguing that you can’t trust the internet because of AI and Algorithims… this too is a skill issue. Stop going to Google or MSN or Yahoo There are search engines that don’t use algorithms or AI, and others that don’t use algorithms and you can turn off the AI.
It also helps to understand WHERE you are getting your information from and use watchdog sites that can tell you if a site is a reputable source or not. Heading over to I’Mright.com isn’t going to help you unless you’re looking for confirmation bias.
Exactly!
Who defines the “right information”? The algorithms? The information conforms to what your peer group is saying is the “right information”? It’s consistent with what government agencies are saying?
We really aren’t any better off than just believing what aunt Marge said since you can find the exact same thing she said and things the exact opposite and which one you believe is just down to what feels right. It’s just believing what aunt Marge said with more steps.
ultimately, every individual is responsible for what they choose to take as truth. this is why there has been such an aggressive assault on critical thinking in favor of “parental authority”-- just believe what you’re told and stop asking questions.
it’s not that hard to separate the plausible from the questionable, from the obvious bullshit.
as an example, dr. fauci is a doctor. he’s been a doctor for decades, has risen to high positions in the field, has been producing research, also for decades, which has been cited by other experts in the field frequently. and, prior to bullshit claims by trump and the entire GOP, was never the subject of any controversy.
so the discerning mind has no trouble concluding that it’s reasonable to assume that fauci, who knows what he’s talking about and has no apparent reason to mislead the entire world, is a credible source of information, while trump, a notorious conman who told 30,000 verifiable lies in his first term alone is absolutely NOT. so the GOP preaches “vaccines are bad,” and the “patriotic” american says “vaccines are bad”
yes it’s fucking mind-bogglingly stupid, but the problem isn’t a lack of availability of information, the problem is information literacy–the skill (yes skill) to separate truth (even if only “likely” truth) from fiction (even if comically obviously fiction). which the GOP is actively, deliberately, visciously undermining, while no one says a thing, because we’re preoccupied by nazi gestapo trump cultists rounding up innocent citizens because they’re brown
This is actually a pretty interesting topic.
I was born in 1982 and we didn’t get the internet until 1998. Which means I was a kid and teen in a mostly analog world.
Your day to day knowledge was formed by things you were taught in school, the things you saw on the news and the people you were surrounded by. That gave you a fairly broad understanding of the world.
If you really NEEDED a correct answer, you’d use an encyclopedia at school or the library, or any specific book on the topic. But you had to be motivated to do that. And even those resources might be limited in scope or unavailable. My local library in the Netherlands would’ve had some books on US history for example, but you wouldn’t really find say, a biography of Jimmy Carter. So at some point, you’d reach the maximum depth of knowledge to be gained in your particular situation.
The internet really helps us drill down way, WAY deeper than what we could find in the 80’s and 90’s. I can now have in-depth knowledge on the most obscure topic and drill down as far as I want.
It’s unfortunate that a lot of people don’t use the web for that. Or end up actually misinformed because of it.
My high school in NZ was pretty poor, so even in the early 00s, we still had Cold War-era maps of Europe in textbooks and on the wall, and no access to the internet (computers were taught to us as glorified typewriters). It took until I was older than I care to admit to learn that Czechoslovakia was no longer a thing.
When I graduated HS, the map on the wall in our history class still had “French West Africa” on it (textbooks were at least more up to date :-)) “French West Africa” hadn’t existed for . . . looks it up . . . about a quarter century before then.
Damn, before I was even born!
“Why is the sky blue?”
“Because it’s reflecting the colour of the ocean.”
Why is the ocean blue?
Because it’s reflecting the colour of the sky.
why does it hurt when i pee?
It’s reflecting the colour of life.
Red pee means you have sinned.
Damn
We got misinformed at a much slower rate though. The newspapers could only tell us so many lies at a time.
Doesn’t misinformation involve intent? Aunt Marge probably thought she was right.
no, thats disinformation. disinformation is willful malicious intent to spread misinformation, knowing that its wrong info in order to achieve a certain result(such as propaganda by russia, or giving wrong intel to an enemy). misinfo is just saying potential info that may or may not be true, and no fact checking, and just ignorant to the info.
The reporters who propagated lies about WMDs in Iraq or beheaded babies in Israel probably think they’re telling the truth or something close.
Most people in my life still don’t fact check. I’m constantly chasing the truth while the convo runs away full of misinfo
I honestly have no idea how people can live like that. Yet I see it so often that I’m convinced it’s the norm.
People like to live within their comfort zones. I remember a study being referenced that claimed to show introducing facts contrary to a person’s existing viewpoint don’t get them to change, it just made them double-down and be more defensive.
Oh look, misinformation, lol. The study was about how science communication is based on outdated ideas and that simply presenting facts is not as effective as whole-person education. The media seems to have just read the title and maybe abstract, and ran with “you can’t change minds, stop trying”, when that’s not what it concluded.
To quote from the conclusion of the study itself:
Facts will not always change minds, but there is promise that other things will, including creating spaces for group dialogue and debate, targeting emotions and embodied knowledge, embracing multiple perspectives, altering environments to create new behaviors, and being strategic about whom we seek to target with our message. We need to provide training for our students in cognitive and behavioral science, as human attitudes and actions are both the primary cause of and the solution to the current conservation crisis (Nielsen et al., 2021).
I remember a study being referenced that claimed to show introducing facts contrary to a person’s existing viewpoint don’t get them to change, it just made them double-down and be more defensive.
To be fair, this is exactly what they said. Facts alone are not enough - you need rhetoric. So, not misinformation.
That is not what the study said though. OP said that introducing facts causes people to double down and doesn’t get them to change, when the study says that introducing facts only works a percentage of the time.
Facts alone sometimes works, but it’s more effective when combined with other strategies. Saying facts alone doesn’t work, is misinfo.
Edit: clarifying pronouns
Fair enough. However, I was under the interpretation that evidence remains the same either way; it is the way it is presented that affects the likelihood of someone changing their mind. Presenting the evidence by itself may have a small chance at a positive effect, while including proper rhetoric lowers the negative and increases positive chance.
Therefore evidence should always be presented “correctly” to avoid setbacks, and the takeaways are thus functionally identical.
I mean I get your point, and I’m sure it’s more nuanced than this and depends on a whole host of other factors like whether it’s a politically charged topic (deoxygenated blood being blue vs HRT actually working), emotional state, connection to other core beliefs (like religious ones), etc. some or all of which are mentioned in the study.
Like I’m sure for topics that aren’t really important, just presenting the correct fact is enough to adjust most people’s view, unless they are particularly stubborn. Like saying “peeing on a jellyfish sting doesn’t really help actually” will usually be met with “oh, huh, I didn’t know that”. But even something as simple as saying “the earth isn’t flat” will make some people very angry. Start listing facts for a more complex topic like climate change, economics, or sociology and people will absolutely double down on whatever black-and-white viewpoint they already hold.
But yeah sure enough, they shouldn’t have used an absolute qualifier I guess.
Therefore evidence should always be presented “correctly” to avoid setbacks, and the takeaways are thus functionally identical.
The problem that you’re running into here, is that there is no “correct” method to avoid setbacks. It is not possible to have a 100% rate of efficacy when dealing with such a diverse group as the entirety of the human race. Even the study mentions that methods will need to vary depending on who you’re talking to, and it’s likely that methods will need to be changed or adapted as demographics change or new knowledge is reached.
If you had a question that nobody could answer, you’d go down to the library, open up a drawer with a bunch of note cards in it, look to see if any of the note cards had a word about a concept you wanted to learn about, hope that the card existed, was in the right place, and listed a book that would actually give you the information you wanted.
Or you wouldn’t go through the effort, you’d ask a trusted elder or a friend, they would lie to you, and you’d peddle that misinformation for decades while refusing that you might be wrong. Guess which one was more likely
The first step would be opening an encyclopedia. A lot of households actually had an encyclopedia on their shelves for this very reason. Something which these “pre-internet” rumination threads always seems to neglect.
Honestly I only ever knew one household with an encyclopedia set, I’m sure it depends on the location but where I lived that was more of an upper middle class thing.
I still have an encyclopaedia on my shelf. I have to admit it’s the small edition though.
I also still have a bunch of dictionaries (different languages), and a very outdated atlas.
You’d ask the librarian about where to find books about stuff and get a 3 hour lecture about the Dewey system
And also the books surrounding that book
Always pick a book to the left and one to the right! Is it useful? Likely not, but you’ll never know if you don’t!
aunt Marge has been replaced by AI now
People made a living selling encyclopedias door to door. Just saying.
And encyclopedias before wikipedia had a whole pile of wrong garbage information in them. Because they were compiled quickly by people with little knowledge about the field they were compiling the information for.
Wikipedia is garbage as well when it comes to topic from third class country
Might be. Classic Encyclopedias were worse. Don’t know if you ever used one and looked up stuff for a subject where you have above average expertise. They only contained very surface-level information, rarely more than a paragraph or two, and what they contained was riddled with errors.
The problem with internet is,it didn’t made people any smarter.earlier they were victim of misinformation ,now they are victim of propaganda and all sort of fake shit.honestly a undergrad book would surpass internet any day for most part
The literal Nazis might have a word to say about propaganda not existing before the internet. Fake news too.
Yes, it’s now easier to publish fake crap to a wide audience, but fake crap being published has been an issue since before the invention of the printing press.
Even the original crusades have been organized via fake news propaganda.
The internet gives you access to huge amounts of information, and you need to have the media literacy to figure out what is sensible and what is not. But that has always been an issue.
Growing up, my grandma had a huge library in her house. We once tried counting them as kids and gave up after 4000 books. Almost all of that is pure crap. Almost all of the books are non-fiction, most of them are books on alternative health and new age spiritualism. It’s mostly just weird stuff, but literally none of that is worth the time to even read the cover.
The things is state,nazi,brahmins or whatever ,these people commands lots of power of flow of information on internet ,you cannot stop their propaganda online.when i was kid i learned that fasting is healthy for us and kill cancer or whatever after reading many article and post on internet ,but now i am grown i realised it was all bs,and how do i got to know all that ? Pure logic and books.
I think surely internet is good thing when complimented with books,when i say books i mean like campbell biology,jd clayden chemistry,feynnman physics like these,we have plan ,but on internet everything is random,i can bet no one who rely on the social media,and popular edzy video would be able to do 1 percent what a nerd is capable of,isnt it?
Entire reddit is filled with pseudo intellectual garbage,we have twitter pure filth,then other platform like insta facebook. You cannot learn much from it other than general facts which can be wrong as well.see long story short internet doesn’t teach you temperament. Its just a bad place for learning tbh
Before there was the Internet there were libraries. Your main reference books were dictionaries for looking up proper definitions of unknown words. Then you had encyclopedias for general topics. To get really specialized you had to consult the Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature. That was an index organized by topic of magazine articles, including scientific ones like Nature. Reference librarians were very helpful in finding specific information in a hurry, and there were some books that couldn’t leave the library.
You went to a library and read a couple of encyclopedias.
I had a fantastic working class education at the local library and our home encyclopedia. I definitely carry around 40 year old random factoids and such just like everybody else, but I still love researching things to this day.
I remember that one time when I was around eight, a neighbor put the entire 1976 World Book encyclopedia at the end of his driveway. I ran home, grabbed a wheelbarrow and carted that knowledge back to my house. It was about twenty years out of date at the time but still the basic concepts were valid enough that I kept referring to it until I left for university.
It’s better than what we have now though, which is going “I think elephants are actually seals that got lost on the way to the south pole” and then going on the internet and searching until you find exactly what you already believe, and then forming a social group around that, then voting in politicians who think that until that stupid belief becomes mainstream and there are politicians debating in congress whether to invade Kenya to transport all the elephants to Antarctica.
Well-fucking-said
Its not a coincidence that flat earthers have had their greatest recruitment numbers in the modern era
“breakfast is the most important meal of the day!”
https://marketingmadeclear.com/kelloggs-marketing-lie/
tl;dr: it’s fucking not.
related: you’re not going to 100% die (or even get sick. yes really) if you skip a meal (or even 2), fatass.
edit: i have to add another thing
diamond engagement rings are absolute 100% bullshit, which, as a genXer, i only learned later in life. i wouldn’t be adding this if there weren’t still way too many people who are completely bamboozled by this fake “tradition” invented solely to make obscenely wealthy people even more obscenely wealthy.
Regarding to the diamond ring thing: Most “old traditions” or “old traditional things” aren’t actually old at all. In most cases, something that has been done for longer than you are alive counts as “old tradition”, because we don’t experience the past through history books and facts, but through our experience and through what adults told us when we grew up.
There have definitely been studies linking breakfast to various positive lifestyle outcomes, but that doesn’t mean you need 9 grapefruits and 4 bowls of kelloggs flakes. I don’t eat breakfast much myself but most of what I’ve run across has shown that it’s beneficial.
for kids i would agree, it makes sense that it’s better to have breakfast than not–their brains and bodies are actively under construction and need all the macros. but for the remaining 60+ years of life, there are studies supporting the notion that breakfast is optional: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-skipping-breakfast-bad#TOC_TITLE_HDR_2 all claims are cited
ultimately everyone should do what they want, but be skeptical of the “you must eat breakfast” claims bombarding everything everywhere, made by industries that have much to gain from everyone eating breakfast, and almost as much to lose from not everyone eating breakfast.
