info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: ! ABC affiliate flooded with vaccine horror stories
1 view
Skip to first unread message
a322x1n
Sep 17, 2021, 1:39:44 PM9/17/21
to
Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:XnsADA87EE5E624C...@216.166.97.131:
> Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1b406f03-efd8-450f...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:42:57 AM UTC-7, Lee wrote:
>>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>> > "An ABC news fishing expedition on Facebook took a startling turn
>>> > over the weekend, after a reporter asked readers to share stories
>>> > of loved ones who died of Covid after refusing or delaying to get
>>> > the vaccine.
>>> >
>>> > Instead, thousands of readers reported of loved ones who died
>>> > after vaccination and, even worse, dying from adverse reactions to
>>> > the vaccine."
>>> >
>>> Someone died from a Covid vaccination?
>>>
>>> Who?
>> Obviously, you never heard of the law of the confidentiality of
>> medical records.
>>
> Autopsies are public records, any death
> caused by a vaccination would be known to all.
>
> https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/a-autopsy-and-coroners-
> reports/
"Kurt's" habit of making up lies knows no limit.
news:XnsADA87EE5E624C...@216.166.97.131:
> Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1b406f03-efd8-450f...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:42:57 AM UTC-7, Lee wrote:
>>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>
>>> > "An ABC news fishing expedition on Facebook took a startling turn
>>> > over the weekend, after a reporter asked readers to share stories
>>> > of loved ones who died of Covid after refusing or delaying to get
>>> > the vaccine.
>>> >
>>> > Instead, thousands of readers reported of loved ones who died
>>> > after vaccination and, even worse, dying from adverse reactions to
>>> > the vaccine."
>>> >
>>> Someone died from a Covid vaccination?
>>>
>>> Who?
>> Obviously, you never heard of the law of the confidentiality of
>> medical records.
>>
> Autopsies are public records, any death
> caused by a vaccination would be known to all.
>
> https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/a-autopsy-and-coroners-
> reports/
"Kurt's" habit of making up lies knows no limit.
Mitchell Holman
Sep 17, 2021, 1:56:39 PM9/17/21
to
a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote in
news:XnsADA880CD3C944ti...@85.12.62.249:
Such is why most sane people killfiled
him long ago.
news:XnsADA880CD3C944ti...@85.12.62.249:
him long ago.
a322x1n
Sep 18, 2021, 3:44:59 PM9/18/21
to
Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:XnsADA9870504C9B...@216.166.97.131:
> news:4693b49f-8c54-4da6...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 10:59:02 AM UTC-7, Kurt Nicklas
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 12:56:33 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote in
>>> > news:XnsADA880CD3C944ti...@85.12.62.249:
>>> >
>>> >> Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> >> news:XnsADA87EE5E624C...@216.166.97.131:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >>> news:1b406f03-efd8-450f...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:42:57 AM UTC-7, Lee wrote:
>>> >>>>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> > "An ABC news fishing expedition on Facebook took a startling
>>> >>>>> > turn over the weekend, after a reporter asked readers to
>>> >>>>> > share stories of loved ones who died of Covid after refusing
>>> >>>>> > or delaying to get the vaccine.
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > Instead, thousands of readers reported of loved ones who
>>> >>>>> > died after vaccination and, even worse, dying from adverse
>>> >>>>> > reactions to the vaccine."
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> Someone died from a Covid vaccination?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Who?
>>> >>>> Obviously, you never heard of the law of the confidentiality of
>>> >>>> medical records.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> Autopsies are public records, any death
>>> >>> caused by a vaccination would be known to all.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/a-autopsy-and-coron
>>> >>> e rs- reports/
>>> <noe...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote in
>>> > news:XnsADA880CD3C944ti...@85.12.62.249:
>>> >
>>> >> Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> >> news:XnsADA87EE5E624C...@216.166.97.131:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >>> news:1b406f03-efd8-450f...@googlegroups.com:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:42:57 AM UTC-7, Lee wrote:
>>> >>>>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> > "An ABC news fishing expedition on Facebook took a startling
>>> >>>>> > turn over the weekend, after a reporter asked readers to
>>> >>>>> > share stories of loved ones who died of Covid after refusing
>>> >>>>> > or delaying to get the vaccine.
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > Instead, thousands of readers reported of loved ones who
>>> >>>>> > died after vaccination and, even worse, dying from adverse
>>> >>>>> > reactions to the vaccine."
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> Someone died from a Covid vaccination?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Who?
>>> >>>> Obviously, you never heard of the law of the confidentiality of
>>> >>>> medical records.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> Autopsies are public records, any death
>>> >>> caused by a vaccination would be known to all.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/a-autopsy-and-coron
>>> >>
>>> >> "Kurt's" habit of making up lies knows no limit.
>>> >>
>>> > Such is why most sane people killfiled
>>> > him long ago.
>>> Mitchell doesn't like me. I don't let him play the games he likes to
>>> >> "Kurt's" habit of making up lies knows no limit.
>>> >>
>>> > Such is why most sane people killfiled
>>> > him long ago.
>>> play.
>>>
>>> So he hides.
>> ROTFL! These idiots think autopsies are routine matters. They only
>> happened when the DA or the police suspect foul play.
>
> Kurt claimed thousands have died from the
> covid vaccination. Yet neither of you can name
> a single person that has proven to have done so.
>
> No wonder you are religious, you will
> believe anything with proof of nothing.
"Kurt" will be making up names soon to go with his "big lie".
a322x1n
Sep 18, 2021, 3:49:54 PM9/18/21
to
THE son of the First Cause <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:f1938f7a-c342-4a30...@googlegroups.com:
> Don't you mean holman's lies?
No, "Kurt's" lies. And "Kurt's" lies alone.
news:f1938f7a-c342-4a30...@googlegroups.com:
No, "Kurt's" lies. And "Kurt's" lies alone.
Mitchell Holman
Sep 18, 2021, 9:23:52 PM9/18/21
to
a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote in
news:XnsADA996094F5ABti...@85.12.62.249:
Following which he will insist that you prove him wrong.
news:XnsADA996094F5ABti...@85.12.62.249:
a322x1n
Sep 21, 2021, 1:56:23 PM9/21/21
to
a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote in
news:XnsADAC82F6F2BF6ti...@85.12.62.249:
> https://tinyurl.com/n26ybjru
P.S. https://www.rightwingwatch.org/organizations/
news:XnsADAC82F6F2BF6ti...@85.12.62.249:
> https://tinyurl.com/n26ybjru
P.S. https://www.rightwingwatch.org/organizations/
a322x1n
Sep 21, 2021, 9:41:56 PM9/21/21
to
Lamey <lame...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:dijkkg97f6upshgv3...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:52:27 GMT, a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote:
>
>>Kurt Nicklas <kurt_n...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:836kkg5o9k1l5ukjq...@4ax.com:
>>> Karen.
>>>
>>> You're so clumsy and stupid.
>>
>>Total bull shit, "Kurt".
>>Is all you have to offer is more disinformation sites?
>
> Why are his disinformation and yours are not? Explain how you get
> these conclusions.
His sites dispense lies, bull shit, made up stories. Mine dispense
accurate facts and information:
<https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/masters-public-administration/guide-to-mi
sinformation-and-fact-checking/>
<https://tinyurl.com/p3tzu2ku>
Don't let the big words give you a headache, "Lamey":
The internet makes it easy for billions of people to access information
with a few simple keystrokes. However, it also makes it easy to spread
false information, which can have disastrous effects on both individuals
and society as a whole. For this reason, it’s important to fact-check
sources of information.
Fact-checking is important because misinformation can sway your opinion.
In turn, your opinion can largely inform your actions. If you base your
actions on false information, you can easily make the wrong decisions.
These decisions can lead to unintended consequences. For example, if you
share fake news on a social media platform and people find out it’s
fake, it could negatively impact their opinion of your credibility. Or,
the fake news you share could go viral and shape the outcome of an
election.
The best way to counter fake news is to conduct your own research.
Through this guide, you’ll learn the basics about misinformation and
fake news, how to evaluate sources of information, where to find
reputable information, and where to look for fact-checking tools.
Misinformation Definition: What Is It and Why Is It an Issue?
By its simplest definition, misinformation is incorrect or misleading
information. However, when Dictionary.com named misinformation the 2018
word of the year, it did so with the addition of a phrase that reflects
our modern predicament. Misinformation isn’t just incorrect or
misleading information — it’s false information that people spread
regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.
This new definition accounts for the fact that many people who share
misinformation online do not know it’s misinformation, and they’re not
sharing it with malicious or dubious intent. Many people share “fake
news” because they find it interesting and relevant to what’s going on
in the world.
The seemingly innocent act of sharing misinformation can have unintended
and pernicious consequences. If news outlets or editorial sites report
misinformation without fact-checking it first, misinformation can become
fake news. At its worst, fake news undermines democracy. Misinformation
can also propel other issues, such as climate change denial or the
anti-vaccination movement. The people working to fight misinformation
are committed to ensuring that lies don’t hurt individuals and society
as a whole.
Misinformation vs. Disinformation
Misinformation and disinformation are terms that may seem
interchangeable. Although there are some similarities between
misinformation and disinformation, they’re not the same. Unlike
misinformation, which people spread without knowing it’s false,
disinformation is false information that people spread with full
knowledge of its inaccuracy.
An example of disinformation is the fake Nike coupons spread by trolls
on the internet forums 4Chan and 8Chan. After Nike featured Colin
Kaepernick — a former NFL quarterback whose #TakeAKnee campaign was a
protest against racial injustice — in an ad campaign, the forum users
began disseminating fake coupons. The fake, racist coupons offered 75%
off Nike’s products for “people of color.” The intent of this
disinformation was to hurt the Nike brand.
Urban legends are examples of misinformation. Many people spread urban
legends believing they’re true, or at least there’s a shred of truth to
them. The Slender Man myth is an example of a modern urban legend
propagated online. Children passed around the story of a bogeyman named
Slender Man. Eventually, two children claimed that Slender Man forced
them to attempt to commit murder.
Because misinformation can be more widespread and harder to spot than
disinformation, this guide focuses on misinformation. However, keep in
mind that the fact-checking methods here can also be used against
disinformation.
The Spread of Misinformation and Fake News
Instant communication and social media have made it easier than ever for
people to get in touch with each other, regardless of time or place.
While this is incredibly useful for a multitude of reasons, it has also
created the perfect breeding ground for misinformation to spread like
wildfire.
Research shows that Facebook users engage with misinformation — which
often takes the form of fake news — 70 million times per month on
average. This is a decline from the 2016 peak of 200 million monthly
fake news engagements, but still no small figure. On Twitter, people
share false content 4 million to 6 million times per month, a figure
that has not declined since the 2016 election.
Due to artificially intelligent bots, “trolls” who are intentionally
hurtful and nasty, as well as microtargeting and personalized ads, it’s
all too easy for fake news to spread. Cognitive biases can make people
more susceptible to misinformation. On social networks, we tend to share
stories that tug at our emotions, and we’re more likely to engage with
content that already has a lot of “likes,” comments, or re-tweets —
regardless of whether that content is true or false.
In the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, investigators found that
a firm called Cambridge Analytica harvested psychological profile data
from unknowing users. Bad actors used this data in an attempt to
influence the 2016 election by microtargeting users with misinformation;
they took advantage of emotional biases to disseminate fake news stories
that ultimately influenced political opinions.
The Importance of Credible Sources
Fact-checking claims with reliable information from credible sources is
perhaps the best way to fight the spread of misinformation. By
double-checking a claim you see on social media or in an online article,
you can verify whether or not it’s true. It’s important to use
verifiable, reputable sources to fact-check information — otherwise, you
risk perpetuating the cycle.
What Makes a Source Credible?
When it comes to the credibility of information sources, the waters can
be muddy for a casual internet user. It isn’t always immediately clear
which websites and articles are credible. A certain site may seem
trustworthy to one person, but not to another.
There are six criteria you can use to evaluate a website:
Authority: The website should have contact information, developer/owner
information, and author credentials/qualifications. Purpose: The
website’s purpose should be clear, with articles that match its stated
purpose; you can look at the domain’s URL to help determine purpose —
.gov sites are government sites, .edu sites are college and university
sites, while .com, .org, .net, domains can be purchased and may be
sources of fake news. Coverage: The website should provide external
links to verifiable sources to back up factual claims. If the site only
links to its own pages, and the occasional external link is to a
low-authority, questionable site, then coverage is incomplete and may be
untrustworthy. Timeliness: The website should provide information about
when content was written and published, as well as whether it has been
updated. Links to information sources should be relevant and up-to-date.
Objectivity: The website should be clear about how objective it is. You
should be able to find out exactly what a site is up to by looking at
its “About” section. Accuracy: The website’s factual claims should be
verifiable. Factual claims should hold up as true when you test them
against independent sources. It can be tough to verify a website’s
credibility because you have to conduct research. However, it’s far
better to put in the extra effort than to blindly accept a site’s claims
as factual.
Website Evaluation Checklist: How to Evaluate a Source for Credibility
There are some additional criteria by which to judge a site’s
reliability. To make the process of evaluating sources even easier, ask
yourself the following questions:
Does the site’s design prioritize user experience such that you are able
to easily navigate and find out information about the site? Or is it
hard to use? Is the site’s content riddled with technical errors (i.e.
spelling errors, grammatical errors, headlines that don’t match the
content subject matter) such that it’s clear there’s no editorial
oversight? Or is there a reasonable level of quality? Is the site’s
content doubtable, derivative, and repetitive, or is it authentic? If
it’s a news source, can you find articles that have been amended to
correct inaccurate statements or typos? Does the site have any original
sources of information or does it only link out? For original sources,
does a search on a reputable search engine reveal the authenticity of
the person or organization? What is the person or organization’s aim?
Are the images on the site low-quality and spammy, or do they relate and
contribute directly to the content’s subject matter? Does the site
identify its target audience? Can you easily search the site via onsite
search engine? Does the site have a valid security certificate?
Do the site editor’s respond when you contact them?
Do attempts to access content frequently result in redirects?
Is the site often down and not functioning properly?
Do links typically lead to dead pages?
You don’t have to answer all of these questions, but even attempting to
answer some of them can put you on the right track to determining a
website’s credibility. The key is to get critical and start taking extra
steps toward certainty.
Below, you’ll find some of the biggest questions to answer in your
search for the truth.
Is the Claim Believable?
First, consider the claim itself: does common sense tell you it’s
believable or realistic? News can be shocking or unexpected, but a
headline should have a reasonable level of believability. Treat
sensational or revelatory claims about public figures, politics, and the
nature of reality as suspect. Try not to trust everything you read or
assume something is true because someone wrote it. If an article sounds
far-fetched, there’s a good chance it’s fake news.
Is This a Well-Known News Organization or Website?
Which website or organization is providing you with information? Is it a
trusted news outlet, such as The New York Times, NPR, or Reuters? Or is
it a random website you’ve never heard of before? Again, check the URL
of the website: .edu and .gov sites are more reliable, as they’re
reserved for educational institutions and government organizations.
Someone may even try to mimic the URL of a reputable news outlet, so
double-check that it’s not misspelled or a few letters off.
Do They Include Sources for Their Information?
Whether we’re talking news articles or scholarly papers, a credible
source always includes their external sources of information to back up
their factual claims. News organizations require journalists to identify
their sources unless the source has requested anonymity. Experts want to
give credit, as they know that citing other experts makes their claims
even stronger. However, be careful to examine journalistic, scholarly,
and scientific sources. Even official-sounding sources may be too biased
to be trusted or not as legitimate as they appear.
Is the Information Available from Other Trusted News Outlets?
Is the website you’re reading the only one reporting this information,
or are other well-known, authoritative news outlets also sharing similar
stories? If one website is the only place where you can find any
information on a subject, it’s probably fake news. Even the most recent,
breaking stories spread quickly between different news outlets. If there
are other sites reporting the information, check the validity and
authority level of those sites.
Is the Author Real and Reliable?
Take a moment to identify the author of a piece of content. If the
website reveals the author’s name and credentials, it can be a good sign
that someone is willing to stand by their work and put their reputation
on the line.
However, an author alone isn’t enough to indicate a reliable source. It
may be a fake persona or pseudonym, or they may not be qualified to
actually write about the subject. Be sure to see if the author provides
any links to personal websites, social media profiles, or a portfolio,
and follow the links to check legitimacy.
Did It Happen Recently?
Look at the date of the article or report. When was it first posted or
last updated? The date of a source says a lot about whether or not the
information is still relevant, factual, accurate, or useful. For
example, if you’re looking for the latest information on presidential
candidates, the timestamp on information sources can change the accuracy
and relevance of the information a great deal. Facts are time-sensitive;
generally, the more recent a report is, the better.
Does It Elicit Strong Emotions?
Fake news and misinformation often attempt to appeal to your emotions or
elicit a strong or intense reaction. Is the article or source of
information trying to get you to feel a certain way?
It doesn’t matter what the emotion is — happy, angry, sad, shocked — any
article that attempts to persuade you to feel intense emotions is more
likely to be biased. An author of a biased article may be trying to
persuade you to believe certain ideologies or support a cause, rather
than inform you. Look for information sources that include the other
side of the argument in the form of countervailing evidence or
interviews with experts who contradict the prevailing sentiment of a
piece.
Is Confirmation Bias Clouding Your Judgment?
Confirmation bias is the human tendency to seek out and believe
information that confirms our biases. When looking at any source, it’s
important to consider your own response to the information. Is the
information source telling you what you want to hear? Is confirmation
bias making it difficult to see that a source isn’t as reliable as you
think it is? You’ll know you’re experiencing confirmation bias when your
emotions are powerful and a healthy level of skepticism is nonexistent.
Credible Sources: Where to Find Reputable Information
Though you can’t trust everything you read, there are still plenty of
reliable places to find credible information on the internet.
Associated Press News: A not-for-profit news agency and winner of 53
Pulitzer Prizes, the AP has an unincorporated structure with over 1,000
members, including U.S. newspapers and broadcasters. Reuters: Often the
source of information for other news sites, Reuters has a sterling
reputation and is owned by Thomson Reuters, which limits corporate
influence. PBS: A nonprofit organization, the Public Broadcasting
Service subjects content to a test to ensure it does not serve the
interests of funders. The Economist: Despite the liberal bent of its
editorials, The Economist has a reputation for reporting factual
information free from bias. BBC: Primarily funded by a license fee paid
by British households, BBC News is independent and regulated by a
separate entity called Ofcom that receives direction from the British
Parliament. Some of the other publications with top ratings include The
New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and ProPublica. Although it’s
not a news publication, C-SPAN is an excellent source of firsthand
information about what’s happening in Washington.
Who Can Combat Misinformation?
Everyone can and should fight against the spread of misinformation by
researching claims and refusing to share fake news. If a story is
suspect, it’s better not to share it. Regardless of your age, gender,
location, or political beliefs, you can take steps to find out whether
the information you encounter online is factually correct. Some people,
however, are in an especially strong position to fight the spread of
misinformation.
Government Leaders and Officials
People who work for the government — whether at the local, state, or
federal level — are in a unique position to fight fake news. Public
leaders have an ethical responsibility to advance the public interest
and promote ethical organizations. Because misinformation and fake news
cannot aid the public, government officials have free rein to promote
initiatives to fight fake news.
Public leaders can do the following:
Promote news literacy.
Encourage independent and professional journalism.
Encourage scientific investigation into methods of curbing the
dissemination of fake news. Promote governmental transparency.
Discourage censorship.
Advocate for free speech.
In particular, public leaders can choose to honor whistleblowers who
reveal the truth. Individuals who pursue a public administration degree
will be at the forefront of battling fake news by promoting public
awareness and following through on transparency initiatives.
Industry Leaders
Public leaders can only do so much; it takes the help of private
organizations to fight misinformation. When the public and private
sectors work together toward a common goal, they can have successful
public-private partnerships. Leaders from the news and internet
industries — such as YouTube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter — must be
committed to fighting misinformation. Allowing fake news to circulate on
internet platforms will only contribute to future problems with
misinformation. Just as public leaders have a responsibility to be
honest with the public, industry leaders must actively oppose the spread
of misinformation.
Journalists and Writers
Journalists and writers have control over the content they create, and
they have an obligation to ensure the information they report is as
accurate and true as possible. Even so, according to the Poynter
Institute, a study revealed that 80% of journalists have fallen for
misinformation online. According to misinformation expert Joan Donovan,
journalists and media outlets help amplify misinformation when they
cover it. This is why Google released two new tools to help journalists
fact-check stories. By only reporting information they know to be true,
journalists and writers can stop misinformation before it has a chance
to spread.
Younger Generations
Children are the future of our world, and due to growing public
awareness of fake news, children are in a position to counter
misinformation from a young age. Born between 1996 and 2010, Generation
Z is the first generation to grow up on the internet, with virtually
endless access to technology and instant communications. Generation Z is
well-prepared for public service because they know the issues and are
not afraid of activism. According to the Poynter Institute, older people
are more likely to share fake news. As digital natives, Generation Z may
understand how to evaluate sources and identify fake news better than
older generations who are not natively familiar with this technology.
Fact-Checking Resources and Tools
There are many resources and tools designed to help you verify the truth
of factual claims on and off the internet.
Fact-Checking Sites
FactCheck.org: From the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University
of Pennsylvania, this is a nonprofit, nonpartisan site dedicated to
reducing the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.
PolitiFact: Acquired by the Poynter Institute in 2018 and funded by
online ads as well as private donors, Politifact is a nonpartisan site
featuring the “truth-o-meter,” which assigns levels of truth to
political statements. FAIR: A national media watchdog group, FAIR
specializes in critiquing media bias and censorship, with an emphasis on
promoting diverse, dissenting media viewpoints. OpenSecrets: From the
Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks the
influence of money in American politics, OpenSecrets features reporting,
data, and academic resources on money in politics. Snopes: The original
fact-checking and myth-busting site, Snopes is an independent
organization that fact-checks any story worth checking.
Browser Extensions and Plug-ins
Project Fib: Chrome extension that claims to detect fake news on your
Facebook news feed. B.S. Detector: Chrome extension that adds a warning
label to questionable sites and identifies questionable links on social
media posts. Media Bias Fact Check: Chrome extension that adds an icon
to news sites denoting their political bias. StopTheBullS#!t: Chrome
extension that claims to block fake news.
news:dijkkg97f6upshgv3...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 17:52:27 GMT, a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote:
>
>>Kurt Nicklas <kurt_n...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:836kkg5o9k1l5ukjq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 19:49:52 GMT, a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote:
>>>
>>>> THE son of the First Cause <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:f1938f7a-c342-4a30...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:39:45 AM UTC-6, a322x1n wrote:
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsADA87EE5E624C...@216.166.97.131:
>>>>>> > Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> > news:1b406f03-efd8-450f...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:42:57 AM UTC-7, Lee wrote:
>>>>>> >>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Autopsies are public records, any death
>>>>>> > caused by a vaccination would be known to all.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/a-autopsy-and-coro
>>>>>> > ne rs - reports/
>>> On Sat, 18 Sep 2021 19:49:52 GMT, a322x1n <vo...@void.void> wrote:
>>>
>>>> THE son of the First Cause <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:f1938f7a-c342-4a30...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 11:39:45 AM UTC-6, a322x1n wrote:
>>>>>> Mitchell Holman <noe...@verizon.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:XnsADA87EE5E624C...@216.166.97.131:
>>>>>> > Viktor Tandofsky <vtand...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> > news:1b406f03-efd8-450f...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> On Friday, September 17, 2021 at 7:42:57 AM UTC-7, Lee wrote:
>>>>>> >>> Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> > Autopsies are public records, any death
>>>>>> > caused by a vaccination would be known to all.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/a-autopsy-and-coro
>>>>>> "Kurt's" habit of making up lies knows no limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you mean holman's lies?
>>>>
>>>> No, "Kurt's" lies. And "Kurt's" lies alone.
>>>
>>> Here's the report you deleted because it's painful for you to read,
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't you mean holman's lies?
>>>>
>>>> No, "Kurt's" lies. And "Kurt's" lies alone.
>>>
>>> Karen.
>>>
>>> You're so clumsy and stupid.
>>>
>>> "An ABC news fishing expedition on Facebook took a startling turn
>>> over the weekend, after a reporter asked readers to share stories of
>>> loved ones who died of Covid after refusing or delaying to get the
>>> vaccine.
>>>
>>> Instead, thousands of readers reported of loved ones who died after
>>> vaccination and, even worse, dying from adverse reactions to the
>>> vaccine."
>>https://tinyurl.com/n26ybjru
>>> "An ABC news fishing expedition on Facebook took a startling turn
>>> over the weekend, after a reporter asked readers to share stories of
>>> loved ones who died of Covid after refusing or delaying to get the
>>> vaccine.
>>>
>>> Instead, thousands of readers reported of loved ones who died after
>>> vaccination and, even worse, dying from adverse reactions to the
>>> vaccine."
>>
>>Total bull shit, "Kurt".
>>Is all you have to offer is more disinformation sites?
>
> Why are his disinformation and yours are not? Explain how you get
> these conclusions.
His sites dispense lies, bull shit, made up stories. Mine dispense
accurate facts and information:
<https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/masters-public-administration/guide-to-mi
sinformation-and-fact-checking/>
<https://tinyurl.com/p3tzu2ku>
Don't let the big words give you a headache, "Lamey":
The internet makes it easy for billions of people to access information
with a few simple keystrokes. However, it also makes it easy to spread
false information, which can have disastrous effects on both individuals
and society as a whole. For this reason, it’s important to fact-check
sources of information.
Fact-checking is important because misinformation can sway your opinion.
In turn, your opinion can largely inform your actions. If you base your
actions on false information, you can easily make the wrong decisions.
These decisions can lead to unintended consequences. For example, if you
share fake news on a social media platform and people find out it’s
fake, it could negatively impact their opinion of your credibility. Or,
the fake news you share could go viral and shape the outcome of an
election.
The best way to counter fake news is to conduct your own research.
Through this guide, you’ll learn the basics about misinformation and
fake news, how to evaluate sources of information, where to find
reputable information, and where to look for fact-checking tools.
Misinformation Definition: What Is It and Why Is It an Issue?
By its simplest definition, misinformation is incorrect or misleading
information. However, when Dictionary.com named misinformation the 2018
word of the year, it did so with the addition of a phrase that reflects
our modern predicament. Misinformation isn’t just incorrect or
misleading information — it’s false information that people spread
regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.
This new definition accounts for the fact that many people who share
misinformation online do not know it’s misinformation, and they’re not
sharing it with malicious or dubious intent. Many people share “fake
news” because they find it interesting and relevant to what’s going on
in the world.
The seemingly innocent act of sharing misinformation can have unintended
and pernicious consequences. If news outlets or editorial sites report
misinformation without fact-checking it first, misinformation can become
fake news. At its worst, fake news undermines democracy. Misinformation
can also propel other issues, such as climate change denial or the
anti-vaccination movement. The people working to fight misinformation
are committed to ensuring that lies don’t hurt individuals and society
as a whole.
Misinformation vs. Disinformation
Misinformation and disinformation are terms that may seem
interchangeable. Although there are some similarities between
misinformation and disinformation, they’re not the same. Unlike
misinformation, which people spread without knowing it’s false,
disinformation is false information that people spread with full
knowledge of its inaccuracy.
An example of disinformation is the fake Nike coupons spread by trolls
on the internet forums 4Chan and 8Chan. After Nike featured Colin
Kaepernick — a former NFL quarterback whose #TakeAKnee campaign was a
protest against racial injustice — in an ad campaign, the forum users
began disseminating fake coupons. The fake, racist coupons offered 75%
off Nike’s products for “people of color.” The intent of this
disinformation was to hurt the Nike brand.
Urban legends are examples of misinformation. Many people spread urban
legends believing they’re true, or at least there’s a shred of truth to
them. The Slender Man myth is an example of a modern urban legend
propagated online. Children passed around the story of a bogeyman named
Slender Man. Eventually, two children claimed that Slender Man forced
them to attempt to commit murder.
Because misinformation can be more widespread and harder to spot than
disinformation, this guide focuses on misinformation. However, keep in
mind that the fact-checking methods here can also be used against
disinformation.
The Spread of Misinformation and Fake News
Instant communication and social media have made it easier than ever for
people to get in touch with each other, regardless of time or place.
While this is incredibly useful for a multitude of reasons, it has also
created the perfect breeding ground for misinformation to spread like
wildfire.
Research shows that Facebook users engage with misinformation — which
often takes the form of fake news — 70 million times per month on
average. This is a decline from the 2016 peak of 200 million monthly
fake news engagements, but still no small figure. On Twitter, people
share false content 4 million to 6 million times per month, a figure
that has not declined since the 2016 election.
Due to artificially intelligent bots, “trolls” who are intentionally
hurtful and nasty, as well as microtargeting and personalized ads, it’s
all too easy for fake news to spread. Cognitive biases can make people
more susceptible to misinformation. On social networks, we tend to share
stories that tug at our emotions, and we’re more likely to engage with
content that already has a lot of “likes,” comments, or re-tweets —
regardless of whether that content is true or false.
In the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, investigators found that
a firm called Cambridge Analytica harvested psychological profile data
from unknowing users. Bad actors used this data in an attempt to
influence the 2016 election by microtargeting users with misinformation;
they took advantage of emotional biases to disseminate fake news stories
that ultimately influenced political opinions.
The Importance of Credible Sources
Fact-checking claims with reliable information from credible sources is
perhaps the best way to fight the spread of misinformation. By
double-checking a claim you see on social media or in an online article,
you can verify whether or not it’s true. It’s important to use
verifiable, reputable sources to fact-check information — otherwise, you
risk perpetuating the cycle.
What Makes a Source Credible?
When it comes to the credibility of information sources, the waters can
be muddy for a casual internet user. It isn’t always immediately clear
which websites and articles are credible. A certain site may seem
trustworthy to one person, but not to another.
There are six criteria you can use to evaluate a website:
Authority: The website should have contact information, developer/owner
information, and author credentials/qualifications. Purpose: The
website’s purpose should be clear, with articles that match its stated
purpose; you can look at the domain’s URL to help determine purpose —
.gov sites are government sites, .edu sites are college and university
sites, while .com, .org, .net, domains can be purchased and may be
sources of fake news. Coverage: The website should provide external
links to verifiable sources to back up factual claims. If the site only
links to its own pages, and the occasional external link is to a
low-authority, questionable site, then coverage is incomplete and may be
untrustworthy. Timeliness: The website should provide information about
when content was written and published, as well as whether it has been
updated. Links to information sources should be relevant and up-to-date.
Objectivity: The website should be clear about how objective it is. You
should be able to find out exactly what a site is up to by looking at
its “About” section. Accuracy: The website’s factual claims should be
verifiable. Factual claims should hold up as true when you test them
against independent sources. It can be tough to verify a website’s
credibility because you have to conduct research. However, it’s far
better to put in the extra effort than to blindly accept a site’s claims
as factual.
Website Evaluation Checklist: How to Evaluate a Source for Credibility
There are some additional criteria by which to judge a site’s
reliability. To make the process of evaluating sources even easier, ask
yourself the following questions:
Does the site’s design prioritize user experience such that you are able
to easily navigate and find out information about the site? Or is it
hard to use? Is the site’s content riddled with technical errors (i.e.
spelling errors, grammatical errors, headlines that don’t match the
content subject matter) such that it’s clear there’s no editorial
oversight? Or is there a reasonable level of quality? Is the site’s
content doubtable, derivative, and repetitive, or is it authentic? If
it’s a news source, can you find articles that have been amended to
correct inaccurate statements or typos? Does the site have any original
sources of information or does it only link out? For original sources,
does a search on a reputable search engine reveal the authenticity of
the person or organization? What is the person or organization’s aim?
Are the images on the site low-quality and spammy, or do they relate and
contribute directly to the content’s subject matter? Does the site
identify its target audience? Can you easily search the site via onsite
search engine? Does the site have a valid security certificate?
Do the site editor’s respond when you contact them?
Do attempts to access content frequently result in redirects?
Is the site often down and not functioning properly?
Do links typically lead to dead pages?
You don’t have to answer all of these questions, but even attempting to
answer some of them can put you on the right track to determining a
website’s credibility. The key is to get critical and start taking extra
steps toward certainty.
Below, you’ll find some of the biggest questions to answer in your
search for the truth.
Is the Claim Believable?
First, consider the claim itself: does common sense tell you it’s
believable or realistic? News can be shocking or unexpected, but a
headline should have a reasonable level of believability. Treat
sensational or revelatory claims about public figures, politics, and the
nature of reality as suspect. Try not to trust everything you read or
assume something is true because someone wrote it. If an article sounds
far-fetched, there’s a good chance it’s fake news.
Is This a Well-Known News Organization or Website?
Which website or organization is providing you with information? Is it a
trusted news outlet, such as The New York Times, NPR, or Reuters? Or is
it a random website you’ve never heard of before? Again, check the URL
of the website: .edu and .gov sites are more reliable, as they’re
reserved for educational institutions and government organizations.
Someone may even try to mimic the URL of a reputable news outlet, so
double-check that it’s not misspelled or a few letters off.
Do They Include Sources for Their Information?
Whether we’re talking news articles or scholarly papers, a credible
source always includes their external sources of information to back up
their factual claims. News organizations require journalists to identify
their sources unless the source has requested anonymity. Experts want to
give credit, as they know that citing other experts makes their claims
even stronger. However, be careful to examine journalistic, scholarly,
and scientific sources. Even official-sounding sources may be too biased
to be trusted or not as legitimate as they appear.
Is the Information Available from Other Trusted News Outlets?
Is the website you’re reading the only one reporting this information,
or are other well-known, authoritative news outlets also sharing similar
stories? If one website is the only place where you can find any
information on a subject, it’s probably fake news. Even the most recent,
breaking stories spread quickly between different news outlets. If there
are other sites reporting the information, check the validity and
authority level of those sites.
Is the Author Real and Reliable?
Take a moment to identify the author of a piece of content. If the
website reveals the author’s name and credentials, it can be a good sign
that someone is willing to stand by their work and put their reputation
on the line.
However, an author alone isn’t enough to indicate a reliable source. It
may be a fake persona or pseudonym, or they may not be qualified to
actually write about the subject. Be sure to see if the author provides
any links to personal websites, social media profiles, or a portfolio,
and follow the links to check legitimacy.
Did It Happen Recently?
Look at the date of the article or report. When was it first posted or
last updated? The date of a source says a lot about whether or not the
information is still relevant, factual, accurate, or useful. For
example, if you’re looking for the latest information on presidential
candidates, the timestamp on information sources can change the accuracy
and relevance of the information a great deal. Facts are time-sensitive;
generally, the more recent a report is, the better.
Does It Elicit Strong Emotions?
Fake news and misinformation often attempt to appeal to your emotions or
elicit a strong or intense reaction. Is the article or source of
information trying to get you to feel a certain way?
It doesn’t matter what the emotion is — happy, angry, sad, shocked — any
article that attempts to persuade you to feel intense emotions is more
likely to be biased. An author of a biased article may be trying to
persuade you to believe certain ideologies or support a cause, rather
than inform you. Look for information sources that include the other
side of the argument in the form of countervailing evidence or
interviews with experts who contradict the prevailing sentiment of a
piece.
Is Confirmation Bias Clouding Your Judgment?
Confirmation bias is the human tendency to seek out and believe
information that confirms our biases. When looking at any source, it’s
important to consider your own response to the information. Is the
information source telling you what you want to hear? Is confirmation
bias making it difficult to see that a source isn’t as reliable as you
think it is? You’ll know you’re experiencing confirmation bias when your
emotions are powerful and a healthy level of skepticism is nonexistent.
Credible Sources: Where to Find Reputable Information
Though you can’t trust everything you read, there are still plenty of
reliable places to find credible information on the internet.
Associated Press News: A not-for-profit news agency and winner of 53
Pulitzer Prizes, the AP has an unincorporated structure with over 1,000
members, including U.S. newspapers and broadcasters. Reuters: Often the
source of information for other news sites, Reuters has a sterling
reputation and is owned by Thomson Reuters, which limits corporate
influence. PBS: A nonprofit organization, the Public Broadcasting
Service subjects content to a test to ensure it does not serve the
interests of funders. The Economist: Despite the liberal bent of its
editorials, The Economist has a reputation for reporting factual
information free from bias. BBC: Primarily funded by a license fee paid
by British households, BBC News is independent and regulated by a
separate entity called Ofcom that receives direction from the British
Parliament. Some of the other publications with top ratings include The
New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and ProPublica. Although it’s
not a news publication, C-SPAN is an excellent source of firsthand
information about what’s happening in Washington.
Who Can Combat Misinformation?
Everyone can and should fight against the spread of misinformation by
researching claims and refusing to share fake news. If a story is
suspect, it’s better not to share it. Regardless of your age, gender,
location, or political beliefs, you can take steps to find out whether
the information you encounter online is factually correct. Some people,
however, are in an especially strong position to fight the spread of
misinformation.
Government Leaders and Officials
People who work for the government — whether at the local, state, or
federal level — are in a unique position to fight fake news. Public
leaders have an ethical responsibility to advance the public interest
and promote ethical organizations. Because misinformation and fake news
cannot aid the public, government officials have free rein to promote
initiatives to fight fake news.
Public leaders can do the following:
Promote news literacy.
Encourage independent and professional journalism.
Encourage scientific investigation into methods of curbing the
dissemination of fake news. Promote governmental transparency.
Discourage censorship.
Advocate for free speech.
In particular, public leaders can choose to honor whistleblowers who
reveal the truth. Individuals who pursue a public administration degree
will be at the forefront of battling fake news by promoting public
awareness and following through on transparency initiatives.
Industry Leaders
Public leaders can only do so much; it takes the help of private
organizations to fight misinformation. When the public and private
sectors work together toward a common goal, they can have successful
public-private partnerships. Leaders from the news and internet
industries — such as YouTube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter — must be
committed to fighting misinformation. Allowing fake news to circulate on
internet platforms will only contribute to future problems with
misinformation. Just as public leaders have a responsibility to be
honest with the public, industry leaders must actively oppose the spread
of misinformation.
Journalists and Writers
Journalists and writers have control over the content they create, and
they have an obligation to ensure the information they report is as
accurate and true as possible. Even so, according to the Poynter
Institute, a study revealed that 80% of journalists have fallen for
misinformation online. According to misinformation expert Joan Donovan,
journalists and media outlets help amplify misinformation when they
cover it. This is why Google released two new tools to help journalists
fact-check stories. By only reporting information they know to be true,
journalists and writers can stop misinformation before it has a chance
to spread.
Younger Generations
Children are the future of our world, and due to growing public
awareness of fake news, children are in a position to counter
misinformation from a young age. Born between 1996 and 2010, Generation
Z is the first generation to grow up on the internet, with virtually
endless access to technology and instant communications. Generation Z is
well-prepared for public service because they know the issues and are
not afraid of activism. According to the Poynter Institute, older people
are more likely to share fake news. As digital natives, Generation Z may
understand how to evaluate sources and identify fake news better than
older generations who are not natively familiar with this technology.
Fact-Checking Resources and Tools
There are many resources and tools designed to help you verify the truth
of factual claims on and off the internet.
Fact-Checking Sites
FactCheck.org: From the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University
of Pennsylvania, this is a nonprofit, nonpartisan site dedicated to
reducing the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.
PolitiFact: Acquired by the Poynter Institute in 2018 and funded by
online ads as well as private donors, Politifact is a nonpartisan site
featuring the “truth-o-meter,” which assigns levels of truth to
political statements. FAIR: A national media watchdog group, FAIR
specializes in critiquing media bias and censorship, with an emphasis on
promoting diverse, dissenting media viewpoints. OpenSecrets: From the
Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks the
influence of money in American politics, OpenSecrets features reporting,
data, and academic resources on money in politics. Snopes: The original
fact-checking and myth-busting site, Snopes is an independent
organization that fact-checks any story worth checking.
Browser Extensions and Plug-ins
Project Fib: Chrome extension that claims to detect fake news on your
Facebook news feed. B.S. Detector: Chrome extension that adds a warning
label to questionable sites and identifies questionable links on social
media posts. Media Bias Fact Check: Chrome extension that adds an icon
to news sites denoting their political bias. StopTheBullS#!t: Chrome
extension that claims to block fake news.
a322x1n
Sep 21, 2021, 10:25:15 PM9/21/21
to
Lamey <lame...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:k34lkg5asbjjrnblt...@4ax.com:
> Who says?
>>
>><https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/masters-public-administration/guide-to-
>>misleading information ?it? false information that people spread
>>sharing it with malicious or dubious intent. Many people share ?ake
>>news?because they find it interesting and relevant to what? going on
>>misinformation, which people spread without knowing it? false,
>>protest against racial injustice ?in an ad campaign, the forum users
>>often takes the form of fake news ?70 million times per month on
>>hurtful and nasty, as well as microtargeting and personalized ads, it?
>>with content that already has a lot of ?ikes,?comments, or re-tweets ?
>>verifiable, reputable sources to fact-check information ?otherwise,
>>match its stated purpose; you can look at the domain? URL to help
>>determine purpose ? .gov sites are government sites, .edu sites are
>>Accuracy: The website? factual claims should be verifiable. Factual
>>have to conduct research. However, it? far better to put in the extra
>>effort than to blindly accept a site? claims as factual.
>>(i.e. spelling errors, grammatical errors, headlines that don? match
>>the content subject matter) such that it? clear there? no editorial
>>oversight? Or is there a reasonable level of quality? Is the site?
>>or do they relate and contribute directly to the content? subject
>>extra steps toward certainty.
>>
>>Below, you?l find some of the biggest questions to answer in your
>>URL of the website: .edu and .gov sites are more reliable, as they?e
>>think it is? You?l know you?e experiencing confirmation bias when your
>>firsthand information about what? happening in Washington.
>>federal level ?are in a unique position to fight fake news. Public
>>nonpartisan site featuring the ?ruth-o-meter,?which assigns levels of
Oh, darn, "Lamey", the big words did give you a headache.
news:k34lkg5asbjjrnblt...@4ax.com:
>>
>><https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/masters-public-administration/guide-to-
>>mi sinformation-and-fact-checking/>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/p3tzu2ku>
>>
>>Don't let the big words give you a headache, "Lamey":
>>
>>The internet makes it easy for billions of people to access
>>information with a few simple keystrokes. However, it also makes it
>>easy to spread false information, which can have disastrous effects on
>>both individuals and society as a whole. For this reason, it?
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/p3tzu2ku>
>>
>>Don't let the big words give you a headache, "Lamey":
>>
>>The internet makes it easy for billions of people to access
>>information with a few simple keystrokes. However, it also makes it
>>easy to spread false information, which can have disastrous effects on
>>important to fact-check sources of information.
>>
>>Fact-checking is important because misinformation can sway your
>>opinion. In turn, your opinion can largely inform your actions. If you
>>base your actions on false information, you can easily make the wrong
>>decisions. These decisions can lead to unintended consequences. For
>>example, if you share fake news on a social media platform and people
>>find out it? fake, it could negatively impact their opinion of your
>>
>>Fact-checking is important because misinformation can sway your
>>opinion. In turn, your opinion can largely inform your actions. If you
>>base your actions on false information, you can easily make the wrong
>>decisions. These decisions can lead to unintended consequences. For
>>example, if you share fake news on a social media platform and people
>>credibility. Or, the fake news you share could go viral and shape the
>>outcome of an election.
>>
>>The best way to counter fake news is to conduct your own research.
>>Through this guide, you?l learn the basics about misinformation and
>>outcome of an election.
>>
>>The best way to counter fake news is to conduct your own research.
>>fake news, how to evaluate sources of information, where to find
>>reputable information, and where to look for fact-checking tools.
>>
>>Misinformation Definition: What Is It and Why Is It an Issue?
>>By its simplest definition, misinformation is incorrect or misleading
>>information. However, when Dictionary.com named misinformation the
>>2018 word of the year, it did so with the addition of a phrase that
>>reflects our modern predicament. Misinformation isn? just incorrect or
>>reputable information, and where to look for fact-checking tools.
>>
>>Misinformation Definition: What Is It and Why Is It an Issue?
>>By its simplest definition, misinformation is incorrect or misleading
>>information. However, when Dictionary.com named misinformation the
>>2018 word of the year, it did so with the addition of a phrase that
>>misleading information ?it? false information that people spread
>>regardless of whether there is intent to mislead.
>>
>>This new definition accounts for the fact that many people who share
>>misinformation online do not know it? misinformation, and they?e not
>>
>>This new definition accounts for the fact that many people who share
>>sharing it with malicious or dubious intent. Many people share ?ake
>>news?because they find it interesting and relevant to what? going on
>>in the world.
>>
>>The seemingly innocent act of sharing misinformation can have
>>unintended and pernicious consequences. If news outlets or editorial
>>sites report misinformation without fact-checking it first,
>>misinformation can become fake news. At its worst, fake news
>>undermines democracy. Misinformation can also propel other issues,
>>such as climate change denial or the anti-vaccination movement. The
>>people working to fight misinformation are committed to ensuring that
>>lies don? hurt individuals and society as a whole.
>>
>>The seemingly innocent act of sharing misinformation can have
>>unintended and pernicious consequences. If news outlets or editorial
>>sites report misinformation without fact-checking it first,
>>misinformation can become fake news. At its worst, fake news
>>undermines democracy. Misinformation can also propel other issues,
>>such as climate change denial or the anti-vaccination movement. The
>>people working to fight misinformation are committed to ensuring that
>>
>>Misinformation vs. Disinformation
>>Misinformation and disinformation are terms that may seem
>>interchangeable. Although there are some similarities between
>>misinformation and disinformation, they?e not the same. Unlike
>>Misinformation vs. Disinformation
>>Misinformation and disinformation are terms that may seem
>>interchangeable. Although there are some similarities between
>>misinformation, which people spread without knowing it? false,
>>disinformation is false information that people spread with full
>>knowledge of its inaccuracy.
>>
>>An example of disinformation is the fake Nike coupons spread by trolls
>>on the internet forums 4Chan and 8Chan. After Nike featured Colin
>>Kaepernick ?a former NFL quarterback whose #TakeAKnee campaign was a
>>knowledge of its inaccuracy.
>>
>>An example of disinformation is the fake Nike coupons spread by trolls
>>on the internet forums 4Chan and 8Chan. After Nike featured Colin
>>protest against racial injustice ?in an ad campaign, the forum users
>>began disseminating fake coupons. The fake, racist coupons offered 75%
>>off Nike? products for ?eople of color.?The intent of this
>>disinformation was to hurt the Nike brand.
>>
>>Urban legends are examples of misinformation. Many people spread urban
>>legends believing they?e true, or at least there? a shred of truth to
>>
>>Urban legends are examples of misinformation. Many people spread urban
>>them. The Slender Man myth is an example of a modern urban legend
>>propagated online. Children passed around the story of a bogeyman
>>named Slender Man. Eventually, two children claimed that Slender Man
>>forced them to attempt to commit murder.
>>
>>Because misinformation can be more widespread and harder to spot than
>>disinformation, this guide focuses on misinformation. However, keep in
>>mind that the fact-checking methods here can also be used against
>>disinformation.
>>
>>The Spread of Misinformation and Fake News
>>Instant communication and social media have made it easier than ever
>>for people to get in touch with each other, regardless of time or
>>place. While this is incredibly useful for a multitude of reasons, it
>>has also created the perfect breeding ground for misinformation to
>>spread like wildfire.
>>
>>Research shows that Facebook users engage with misinformation ?which
>>propagated online. Children passed around the story of a bogeyman
>>named Slender Man. Eventually, two children claimed that Slender Man
>>forced them to attempt to commit murder.
>>
>>Because misinformation can be more widespread and harder to spot than
>>disinformation, this guide focuses on misinformation. However, keep in
>>mind that the fact-checking methods here can also be used against
>>disinformation.
>>
>>The Spread of Misinformation and Fake News
>>Instant communication and social media have made it easier than ever
>>for people to get in touch with each other, regardless of time or
>>place. While this is incredibly useful for a multitude of reasons, it
>>has also created the perfect breeding ground for misinformation to
>>spread like wildfire.
>>
>>often takes the form of fake news ?70 million times per month on
>>average. This is a decline from the 2016 peak of 200 million monthly
>>fake news engagements, but still no small figure. On Twitter, people
>>share false content 4 million to 6 million times per month, a figure
>>that has not declined since the 2016 election.
>>
>>Due to artificially intelligent bots, ?rolls?who are intentionally
>>fake news engagements, but still no small figure. On Twitter, people
>>share false content 4 million to 6 million times per month, a figure
>>that has not declined since the 2016 election.
>>
>>hurtful and nasty, as well as microtargeting and personalized ads, it?
>>all too easy for fake news to spread. Cognitive biases can make people
>>more susceptible to misinformation. On social networks, we tend to
>>share stories that tug at our emotions, and we?e more likely to engage
>>more susceptible to misinformation. On social networks, we tend to
>>with content that already has a lot of ?ikes,?comments, or re-tweets ?
>>regardless of whether that content is true or false.
>>
>>In the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, investigators found
>>that a firm called Cambridge Analytica harvested psychological profile
>>data from unknowing users. Bad actors used this data in an attempt to
>>influence the 2016 election by microtargeting users with
>>misinformation; they took advantage of emotional biases to disseminate
>>fake news stories that ultimately influenced political opinions.
>>
>>The Importance of Credible Sources
>>Fact-checking claims with reliable information from credible sources
>>is perhaps the best way to fight the spread of misinformation. By
>>double-checking a claim you see on social media or in an online
>>article, you can verify whether or not it? true. It? important to use
>>
>>In the case of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, investigators found
>>that a firm called Cambridge Analytica harvested psychological profile
>>data from unknowing users. Bad actors used this data in an attempt to
>>influence the 2016 election by microtargeting users with
>>misinformation; they took advantage of emotional biases to disseminate
>>fake news stories that ultimately influenced political opinions.
>>
>>The Importance of Credible Sources
>>Fact-checking claims with reliable information from credible sources
>>is perhaps the best way to fight the spread of misinformation. By
>>double-checking a claim you see on social media or in an online
>>verifiable, reputable sources to fact-check information ?otherwise,
>>you risk perpetuating the cycle.
>>
>>What Makes a Source Credible?
>>When it comes to the credibility of information sources, the waters
>>can be muddy for a casual internet user. It isn? always immediately
>>
>>What Makes a Source Credible?
>>When it comes to the credibility of information sources, the waters
>>clear which websites and articles are credible. A certain site may
>>seem trustworthy to one person, but not to another.
>>
>>There are six criteria you can use to evaluate a website:
>>
>>Authority: The website should have contact information,
>>developer/owner information, and author credentials/qualifications.
>>Purpose: The website? purpose should be clear, with articles that
>>seem trustworthy to one person, but not to another.
>>
>>There are six criteria you can use to evaluate a website:
>>
>>Authority: The website should have contact information,
>>developer/owner information, and author credentials/qualifications.
>>match its stated purpose; you can look at the domain? URL to help
>>determine purpose ? .gov sites are government sites, .edu sites are
>>college and university sites, while .com, .org, .net, domains can be
>>purchased and may be sources of fake news. Coverage: The website
>>should provide external links to verifiable sources to back up factual
>>claims. If the site only links to its own pages, and the occasional
>>external link is to a low-authority, questionable site, then coverage
>>is incomplete and may be untrustworthy. Timeliness: The website should
>>provide information about when content was written and published, as
>>well as whether it has been updated. Links to information sources
>>should be relevant and up-to-date. Objectivity: The website should be
>>clear about how objective it is. You should be able to find out
>>exactly what a site is up to by looking at its ?bout?section.
>>purchased and may be sources of fake news. Coverage: The website
>>should provide external links to verifiable sources to back up factual
>>claims. If the site only links to its own pages, and the occasional
>>external link is to a low-authority, questionable site, then coverage
>>is incomplete and may be untrustworthy. Timeliness: The website should
>>provide information about when content was written and published, as
>>well as whether it has been updated. Links to information sources
>>should be relevant and up-to-date. Objectivity: The website should be
>>clear about how objective it is. You should be able to find out
>>Accuracy: The website? factual claims should be verifiable. Factual
>>claims should hold up as true when you test them against independent
>>sources. It can be tough to verify a website? credibility because you
>>have to conduct research. However, it? far better to put in the extra
>>effort than to blindly accept a site? claims as factual.
>>
>>Website Evaluation Checklist: How to Evaluate a Source for Credibility
>>There are some additional criteria by which to judge a site?
>>Website Evaluation Checklist: How to Evaluate a Source for Credibility
>>reliability. To make the process of evaluating sources even easier,
>>ask yourself the following questions:
>>
>>Does the site? design prioritize user experience such that you are
>>ask yourself the following questions:
>>
>>able to easily navigate and find out information about the site? Or is
>>it hard to use? Is the site? content riddled with technical errors
>>(i.e. spelling errors, grammatical errors, headlines that don? match
>>the content subject matter) such that it? clear there? no editorial
>>oversight? Or is there a reasonable level of quality? Is the site?
>>content doubtable, derivative, and repetitive, or is it authentic? If
>>it? a news source, can you find articles that have been amended to
>>correct inaccurate statements or typos? Does the site have any
>>original sources of information or does it only link out? For original
>>sources, does a search on a reputable search engine reveal the
>>authenticity of the person or organization? What is the person or
>>organization? aim? Are the images on the site low-quality and spammy,
>>original sources of information or does it only link out? For original
>>sources, does a search on a reputable search engine reveal the
>>authenticity of the person or organization? What is the person or
>>or do they relate and contribute directly to the content? subject
>>matter? Does the site identify its target audience? Can you easily
>>search the site via onsite search engine? Does the site have a valid
>>security certificate? Do the site editor? respond when you contact
>>search the site via onsite search engine? Does the site have a valid
>>them? Do attempts to access content frequently result in redirects?
>>Is the site often down and not functioning properly?
>>Do links typically lead to dead pages?
>>You don? have to answer all of these questions, but even attempting to
>>Is the site often down and not functioning properly?
>>Do links typically lead to dead pages?
>>answer some of them can put you on the right track to determining a
>>website? credibility. The key is to get critical and start taking
>>extra steps toward certainty.
>>
>>Below, you?l find some of the biggest questions to answer in your
>>search for the truth.
>>
>>Is the Claim Believable?
>>First, consider the claim itself: does common sense tell you it?
>>
>>Is the Claim Believable?
>>believable or realistic? News can be shocking or unexpected, but a
>>headline should have a reasonable level of believability. Treat
>>sensational or revelatory claims about public figures, politics, and
>>the nature of reality as suspect. Try not to trust everything you read
>>or assume something is true because someone wrote it. If an article
>>sounds far-fetched, there? a good chance it? fake news.
>>headline should have a reasonable level of believability. Treat
>>sensational or revelatory claims about public figures, politics, and
>>the nature of reality as suspect. Try not to trust everything you read
>>or assume something is true because someone wrote it. If an article
>>
>>Is This a Well-Known News Organization or Website?
>>Which website or organization is providing you with information? Is it
>>a trusted news outlet, such as The New York Times, NPR, or Reuters? Or
>>is it a random website you?e never heard of before? Again, check the
>>Is This a Well-Known News Organization or Website?
>>Which website or organization is providing you with information? Is it
>>a trusted news outlet, such as The New York Times, NPR, or Reuters? Or
>>URL of the website: .edu and .gov sites are more reliable, as they?e
>>reserved for educational institutions and government organizations.
>>Someone may even try to mimic the URL of a reputable news outlet, so
>>double-check that it? not misspelled or a few letters off.
>>Someone may even try to mimic the URL of a reputable news outlet, so
>>
>>Do They Include Sources for Their Information?
>>Whether we?e talking news articles or scholarly papers, a credible
>>Do They Include Sources for Their Information?
>>source always includes their external sources of information to back
>>up their factual claims. News organizations require journalists to
>>identify their sources unless the source has requested anonymity.
>>Experts want to give credit, as they know that citing other experts
>>makes their claims even stronger. However, be careful to examine
>>journalistic, scholarly, and scientific sources. Even
>>official-sounding sources may be too biased to be trusted or not as
>>legitimate as they appear.
>>
>>Is the Information Available from Other Trusted News Outlets?
>>Is the website you?e reading the only one reporting this information,
>>up their factual claims. News organizations require journalists to
>>identify their sources unless the source has requested anonymity.
>>Experts want to give credit, as they know that citing other experts
>>makes their claims even stronger. However, be careful to examine
>>journalistic, scholarly, and scientific sources. Even
>>official-sounding sources may be too biased to be trusted or not as
>>legitimate as they appear.
>>
>>Is the Information Available from Other Trusted News Outlets?
>>or are other well-known, authoritative news outlets also sharing
>>similar stories? If one website is the only place where you can find
>>any information on a subject, it? probably fake news. Even the most
>>similar stories? If one website is the only place where you can find
>>recent, breaking stories spread quickly between different news
>>outlets. If there are other sites reporting the information, check the
>>validity and authority level of those sites.
>>
>>Is the Author Real and Reliable?
>>Take a moment to identify the author of a piece of content. If the
>>website reveals the author? name and credentials, it can be a good
>>outlets. If there are other sites reporting the information, check the
>>validity and authority level of those sites.
>>
>>Is the Author Real and Reliable?
>>Take a moment to identify the author of a piece of content. If the
>>sign that someone is willing to stand by their work and put their
>>reputation on the line.
>>
>>However, an author alone isn? enough to indicate a reliable source. It
>>reputation on the line.
>>
>>may be a fake persona or pseudonym, or they may not be qualified to
>>actually write about the subject. Be sure to see if the author
>>provides any links to personal websites, social media profiles, or a
>>portfolio, and follow the links to check legitimacy.
>>
>>Did It Happen Recently?
>>Look at the date of the article or report. When was it first posted or
>>last updated? The date of a source says a lot about whether or not the
>>information is still relevant, factual, accurate, or useful. For
>>example, if you?e looking for the latest information on presidential
>>actually write about the subject. Be sure to see if the author
>>provides any links to personal websites, social media profiles, or a
>>portfolio, and follow the links to check legitimacy.
>>
>>Did It Happen Recently?
>>Look at the date of the article or report. When was it first posted or
>>last updated? The date of a source says a lot about whether or not the
>>information is still relevant, factual, accurate, or useful. For
>>candidates, the timestamp on information sources can change the
>>accuracy and relevance of the information a great deal. Facts are
>>time-sensitive; generally, the more recent a report is, the better.
>>
>>Does It Elicit Strong Emotions?
>>Fake news and misinformation often attempt to appeal to your emotions
>>or elicit a strong or intense reaction. Is the article or source of
>>information trying to get you to feel a certain way?
>>
>>It doesn? matter what the emotion is ?happy, angry, sad, shocked ?any
>>accuracy and relevance of the information a great deal. Facts are
>>time-sensitive; generally, the more recent a report is, the better.
>>
>>Does It Elicit Strong Emotions?
>>Fake news and misinformation often attempt to appeal to your emotions
>>or elicit a strong or intense reaction. Is the article or source of
>>information trying to get you to feel a certain way?
>>
>>article that attempts to persuade you to feel intense emotions is more
>>likely to be biased. An author of a biased article may be trying to
>>persuade you to believe certain ideologies or support a cause, rather
>>than inform you. Look for information sources that include the other
>>side of the argument in the form of countervailing evidence or
>>interviews with experts who contradict the prevailing sentiment of a
>>piece.
>>
>>Is Confirmation Bias Clouding Your Judgment?
>>Confirmation bias is the human tendency to seek out and believe
>>information that confirms our biases. When looking at any source, it?
>>likely to be biased. An author of a biased article may be trying to
>>persuade you to believe certain ideologies or support a cause, rather
>>than inform you. Look for information sources that include the other
>>side of the argument in the form of countervailing evidence or
>>interviews with experts who contradict the prevailing sentiment of a
>>piece.
>>
>>Is Confirmation Bias Clouding Your Judgment?
>>Confirmation bias is the human tendency to seek out and believe
>>important to consider your own response to the information. Is the
>>information source telling you what you want to hear? Is confirmation
>>bias making it difficult to see that a source isn? as reliable as you
>>information source telling you what you want to hear? Is confirmation
>>think it is? You?l know you?e experiencing confirmation bias when your
>>emotions are powerful and a healthy level of skepticism is
>>nonexistent.
>>
>>Credible Sources: Where to Find Reputable Information
>>Though you can? trust everything you read, there are still plenty of
>>nonexistent.
>>
>>Credible Sources: Where to Find Reputable Information
>>reliable places to find credible information on the internet.
>>
>>Associated Press News: A not-for-profit news agency and winner of 53
>>Pulitzer Prizes, the AP has an unincorporated structure with over
>>1,000 members, including U.S. newspapers and broadcasters. Reuters:
>>Often the source of information for other news sites, Reuters has a
>>sterling reputation and is owned by Thomson Reuters, which limits
>>corporate influence. PBS: A nonprofit organization, the Public
>>Broadcasting Service subjects content to a test to ensure it does not
>>serve the interests of funders. The Economist: Despite the liberal
>>bent of its editorials, The Economist has a reputation for reporting
>>factual information free from bias. BBC: Primarily funded by a license
>>fee paid by British households, BBC News is independent and regulated
>>by a separate entity called Ofcom that receives direction from the
>>British Parliament. Some of the other publications with top ratings
>>include The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and ProPublica.
>>Although it? not a news publication, C-SPAN is an excellent source of
>>
>>Associated Press News: A not-for-profit news agency and winner of 53
>>Pulitzer Prizes, the AP has an unincorporated structure with over
>>1,000 members, including U.S. newspapers and broadcasters. Reuters:
>>Often the source of information for other news sites, Reuters has a
>>sterling reputation and is owned by Thomson Reuters, which limits
>>corporate influence. PBS: A nonprofit organization, the Public
>>Broadcasting Service subjects content to a test to ensure it does not
>>serve the interests of funders. The Economist: Despite the liberal
>>bent of its editorials, The Economist has a reputation for reporting
>>factual information free from bias. BBC: Primarily funded by a license
>>fee paid by British households, BBC News is independent and regulated
>>by a separate entity called Ofcom that receives direction from the
>>British Parliament. Some of the other publications with top ratings
>>include The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, and ProPublica.
>>firsthand information about what? happening in Washington.
>>
>>Who Can Combat Misinformation?
>>Everyone can and should fight against the spread of misinformation by
>>researching claims and refusing to share fake news. If a story is
>>suspect, it? better not to share it. Regardless of your age, gender,
>>Who Can Combat Misinformation?
>>Everyone can and should fight against the spread of misinformation by
>>researching claims and refusing to share fake news. If a story is
>>location, or political beliefs, you can take steps to find out whether
>>the information you encounter online is factually correct. Some
>>people, however, are in an especially strong position to fight the
>>spread of misinformation.
>>
>>Government Leaders and Officials
>>People who work for the government ?whether at the local, state, or
>>the information you encounter online is factually correct. Some
>>people, however, are in an especially strong position to fight the
>>spread of misinformation.
>>
>>Government Leaders and Officials
>>federal level ?are in a unique position to fight fake news. Public
>>leaders have an ethical responsibility to advance the public interest
>>and promote ethical organizations. Because misinformation and fake
>>news cannot aid the public, government officials have free rein to
>>promote initiatives to fight fake news.
>>
>>Public leaders can do the following:
>>
>>Promote news literacy.
>>Encourage independent and professional journalism.
>>Encourage scientific investigation into methods of curbing the
>>dissemination of fake news. Promote governmental transparency.
>>Discourage censorship.
>>Advocate for free speech.
>>In particular, public leaders can choose to honor whistleblowers who
>>reveal the truth. Individuals who pursue a public administration
>>degree will be at the forefront of battling fake news by promoting
>>public awareness and following through on transparency initiatives.
>>
>>Industry Leaders
>>Public leaders can only do so much; it takes the help of private
>>organizations to fight misinformation. When the public and private
>>sectors work together toward a common goal, they can have successful
>>public-private partnerships. Leaders from the news and internet
>>industries ?such as YouTube, Google, Facebook, and Twitter ?must be
>>and promote ethical organizations. Because misinformation and fake
>>news cannot aid the public, government officials have free rein to
>>promote initiatives to fight fake news.
>>
>>Public leaders can do the following:
>>
>>Promote news literacy.
>>Encourage independent and professional journalism.
>>Encourage scientific investigation into methods of curbing the
>>dissemination of fake news. Promote governmental transparency.
>>Discourage censorship.
>>Advocate for free speech.
>>In particular, public leaders can choose to honor whistleblowers who
>>reveal the truth. Individuals who pursue a public administration
>>degree will be at the forefront of battling fake news by promoting
>>public awareness and following through on transparency initiatives.
>>
>>Industry Leaders
>>Public leaders can only do so much; it takes the help of private
>>organizations to fight misinformation. When the public and private
>>sectors work together toward a common goal, they can have successful
>>public-private partnerships. Leaders from the news and internet
>>truth to political statements. FAIR: A national media watchdog group,
>>FAIR specializes in critiquing media bias and censorship, with an
>>emphasis on promoting diverse, dissenting media viewpoints.
>>OpenSecrets: From the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group
>>that tracks the influence of money in American politics, OpenSecrets
>>features reporting, data, and academic resources on money in politics.
>>Snopes: The original fact-checking and myth-busting site, Snopes is an
>>independent organization that fact-checks any story worth checking.
>>
>>Browser Extensions and Plug-ins
>>Project Fib: Chrome extension that claims to detect fake news on your
>>Facebook news feed. B.S. Detector: Chrome extension that adds a
>>warning label to questionable sites and identifies questionable links
>>on social media posts. Media Bias Fact Check: Chrome extension that
>>adds an icon to news sites denoting their political bias.
>>StopTheBullS#!t: Chrome extension that claims to block fake news.
>
>
> and still no answer.
>>FAIR specializes in critiquing media bias and censorship, with an
>>emphasis on promoting diverse, dissenting media viewpoints.
>>OpenSecrets: From the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group
>>that tracks the influence of money in American politics, OpenSecrets
>>features reporting, data, and academic resources on money in politics.
>>Snopes: The original fact-checking and myth-busting site, Snopes is an
>>independent organization that fact-checks any story worth checking.
>>
>>Browser Extensions and Plug-ins
>>Project Fib: Chrome extension that claims to detect fake news on your
>>Facebook news feed. B.S. Detector: Chrome extension that adds a
>>warning label to questionable sites and identifies questionable links
>>on social media posts. Media Bias Fact Check: Chrome extension that
>>adds an icon to news sites denoting their political bias.
>>StopTheBullS#!t: Chrome extension that claims to block fake news.
>
>
Oh, darn, "Lamey", the big words did give you a headache.
a322x1n
Sep 21, 2021, 10:45:11 PM9/21/21
to
THE son of the First Cause <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7d73dadf-ac71-4890...@googlegroups.com:
> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 8:13:15 PM UTC-6, THE son of the
> First Cause wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7:41:56 PM UTC-6, a322x1n wrote:
>>
>> > Government Leaders and Officials
>> > People who work for the government — whether at the local, stat
> e, or
>> > federal level — are in a unique position to fight fake news.
>> The govt is behind much of the fake news.
>>
>> > Government Leaders and Officials
>> > People who work for the government — whether at the local, stat
> e, or
>> > federal level — are in a unique position to fight fake news.
>
> Those that do it happen to be govt employees, but they have their own
> agenda, it is not a govt agenda, but their own.
Are you sure:
<https://onlinemasters.ohio.edu/masters-public-administration/guide-to-mi
sinformation-and-fact-checking/>
<https://tinyurl.com/p3tzu2ku>
a322x1n
Sep 22, 2021, 12:48:42 AM9/22/21
to
Lamey <lame...@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:uh6lkg5ba7o9a8q80...@4ax.com:
> What makes you think they are not lying? Will you run again?
Well for one thing, it confirms that you're a total liar, "Lamey".
Also, you didn't read it. You never read the truth, "Lamey". Did
the big words give you another headache?
How do you tell if "Lamey's" posts/responses are lies? It's easy,
it's "Lamey's" post/response. Lamey wouldn't post the accurate
time of day.
news:uh6lkg5ba7o9a8q80...@4ax.com:
Well for one thing, it confirms that you're a total liar, "Lamey".
Also, you didn't read it. You never read the truth, "Lamey". Did
the big words give you another headache?
How do you tell if "Lamey's" posts/responses are lies? It's easy,
it's "Lamey's" post/response. Lamey wouldn't post the accurate
time of day.
0 new messages