Recognizing Misinformation (an Academic Quiz)

knewspeak

@id_23 said:
“You're more resilient to misinformation than 83% of the UK population!”
I was 17 /20
I should be happy….

You should be happy you have the approval of the mighty Zardoz.

sigma79

A person who just woke from a coma. With no information. Has less mis-information.

Gavinski

Let's try and keep this thread mild or if will just get closed!

hes

I got 20/20, but I definitely feel like I guessed on a few. I'm kind of surprised so many people got such high scores.

hes

@richardyot said:
showing off:

Of course according to some this is just a sign that I've been brainwashed by the mainstream media 😛

Yours said 20/20 was better than "98% of the UK Population."

I got 20/20 and I'm pretty sure mine said it was better than "96% of the US Population". Interesting. Maybe lower scores outside U.S. because some of the questions were U.S.-centric. On the other hand, you know, American exceptionalism. . . (Of course, American exceptionalism might also mean we're exceptionally bad.)

knewspeak

@hes said:

@richardyot said:
showing off:

Of course according to some this is just a sign that I've been brainwashed by the mainstream media 😛

Yours said 20/20 was better than "98% of the UK Population."

I got 20/20 and I'm pretty sure mine said it was better than "96% of the US Population". Interesting. Maybe lower scores outside U.S. because some of the questions were U.S.-centric. On the other hand, you know, American exceptionalism. . . (Of course, American exceptionalism might also mean we're exceptionally bad.)

Don’t worry about all those percentages it’s made up rubbish, it’ll probably be used to try to justify censorship!

It’s all about control because the MSM is correctly no longer relevant, they don’t represent the people.

They’re losing control, people are seeing behind the curtain.

They fear real debate, because data and reason blows away their narrative. This is a BS ‘experiment’.

knewspeak

@Gavinski said:
Let's try and keep this thread mild or if will just get closed!

I thought temperament had little to do with the thread being closed more what the subject matter is?

JeffChasteen

@knewspeak said:

@JeffChasteen said:

@knewspeak said:

@Bruques said:
i find that the folks defining misinformation are themselves in the business of (rather subtle) misinformation thus the whole debate no matter the academic credentials is all very misinforming. it's become a modern era tool for labeling much inconvenient for power. certainly the misinformation overlords at FB and other outlets, misinformation is just a euphemism for stuff they'd rather not be shared. so hunter biden's laptop was supposedly misinformation. vaccine injuries being a real thing, misinformation, ukraine has neonazi brigades, all misinformation,,, (not!). . the TLDR of such an article is thus, "if you're stupid you believe sources that are not reuters endorsed, whereas clever people trust NPR/BBC, young stupid people are using the internet and we have less control of that than we used to so we need you all to come back to the one and only state sponsored truth",. i start from a position of zero trust in all state and corporate media outlets, and have somewhat more faith in the independent research that follows in the tradition of the Robert Fisks and John Pilgers of this world, cross referenced against those same state media from different continents, RT, Telesur, South China Morning Post are all equally brilliant and terrible just as BBC and NPR are. Guardian, Washing Post (pentagon mouthpiece) terrible. Much more useful as independent voices, Declassified, Grayzone, Electronic Intifada, Caitlin Johnstone, Eva Bartlett, Pepe Escobar, Glenn Greenwald albeit the Intercept is now I would suggest discredited as controlled oppposition. etc etc etc.
Anyway

Absolutely agree. The ACLU at one time defended free-speech, not because they agreed with that speech, but because that is the nature of free-speech.

Yes, the ACLU does defend Free Speech as outlined in the First Amendment. However, their job does not include ensuring that any yahoo with an opinion is provided a platform. That is not their purpose. Or the purpose of the First Amendment.

It’s funny you talk with anyone they all have opinions, only using reasoning can you formulate what you decide is correct, not by suppressing opinions. That’s free-speech. Just like the MSM tries to suppress the opinions of that ‘yahoo’ RFK Jr. because that isn’t working on to plan B smearing.

RFK Jr the mass murderer?
There is no need to “smear” him.
Frankly, his father had more brain activity while lying on the floor of The Ambassador Hotel.

knewspeak

@JeffChasteen said:

@knewspeak said:

@JeffChasteen said:

@knewspeak said:

@Bruques said:
i find that the folks defining misinformation are themselves in the business of (rather subtle) misinformation thus the whole debate no matter the academic credentials is all very misinforming. it's become a modern era tool for labeling much inconvenient for power. certainly the misinformation overlords at FB and other outlets, misinformation is just a euphemism for stuff they'd rather not be shared. so hunter biden's laptop was supposedly misinformation. vaccine injuries being a real thing, misinformation, ukraine has neonazi brigades, all misinformation,,, (not!). . the TLDR of such an article is thus, "if you're stupid you believe sources that are not reuters endorsed, whereas clever people trust NPR/BBC, young stupid people are using the internet and we have less control of that than we used to so we need you all to come back to the one and only state sponsored truth",. i start from a position of zero trust in all state and corporate media outlets, and have somewhat more faith in the independent research that follows in the tradition of the Robert Fisks and John Pilgers of this world, cross referenced against those same state media from different continents, RT, Telesur, South China Morning Post are all equally brilliant and terrible just as BBC and NPR are. Guardian, Washing Post (pentagon mouthpiece) terrible. Much more useful as independent voices, Declassified, Grayzone, Electronic Intifada, Caitlin Johnstone, Eva Bartlett, Pepe Escobar, Glenn Greenwald albeit the Intercept is now I would suggest discredited as controlled oppposition. etc etc etc.
Anyway

Absolutely agree. The ACLU at one time defended free-speech, not because they agreed with that speech, but because that is the nature of free-speech.

Yes, the ACLU does defend Free Speech as outlined in the First Amendment. However, their job does not include ensuring that any yahoo with an opinion is provided a platform. That is not their purpose. Or the purpose of the First Amendment.

It’s funny you talk with anyone they all have opinions, only using reasoning can you formulate what you decide is correct, not by suppressing opinions. That’s free-speech. Just like the MSM tries to suppress the opinions of that ‘yahoo’ RFK Jr. because that isn’t working on to plan B smearing.

RFK Jr the mass murderer?
There is no need to “smear” him.
Frankly, his father had more brain activity while lying on the floor of The Ambassador Hotel.

I can see your nonsense pervades your very soul. Too much suckling on the teats of the MSM I think.