Topic: Online Misinformation (Read 455 times)
Those spreading irrelevant information I think they do that to trend some have taking it to be a hobby. Bloggers or some think spreading fake news and write is the only way which money can be generated for them. This trait is all over the Internet and it is increasing in daily basis. We should be very and cautious of any information we see on the Internet.
And the most annoying is that, typically your aunt/s or uncle/s are the one spreading this to your family group conversation. Like they are saying "Look at this, I am concerned about you guys so I will spread nonsense that may help you"
Their goal of sharing information is good. but the problem is when they don't filter the information they receive. Today's online media make any news for the sake of traffic. they make news that will make them go viral. even things that don't make sense are made as attractive as possible and can be trusted even though they are hoax . Now what must be educated is the person. because online media is already a lot of strange and excessive in making headline or news.
And the most annoying is that, typically your aunt/s or uncle/s are the one spreading this to your family group conversation. Like they are saying "Look at this, I am concerned about you guys so I will spread nonsense that may help you"
Their goal of sharing information is good. but the problem is when they don't filter the information they receive. Today's online media make any news for the sake of traffic. they make news that will make them go viral. even things that don't make sense are made as attractive as possible and can be trusted even though they are hoax . Now what must be educated is the person. because online media is already a lot of strange and excessive in making headline or news.
The internet seems to be the best and reliable source of information overload, but the bitter truth is that, most information online are mostly Sugar-coated as well galvanized with lies, reporters are being paid to give an information the way the rich wants it.
I can attest to the fact, during the pandemic the death rate and Covid rate was totally altered to an extent in some Countries so as to make funds and other selfish interest of the Politicians definitely.
Information gotten online should be gotten from the source before totally agreement with the piece of information.
I can attest to the fact, during the pandemic the death rate and Covid rate was totally altered to an extent in some Countries so as to make funds and other selfish interest of the Politicians definitely.
Information gotten online should be gotten from the source before totally agreement with the piece of information.
Believing any information from internet gotten from one source without further research for confirmation is absolutely wrong especially nowadays that information from internet is actually misleading. I ran into serious trouble when I was trying to get cure for keloid I developed on my skin from youtube video.
There are informations one can get from a trusted source and you will not think of making any further investigation about it,when you'll believe it correct.I know most informations online can mislead,but there are some sources,blogs that do not post wrong informations.But when one finds out that an information from a particular site is wrong,it is a lesson for that individual not to rely on a particular site for information,he must do further research to ensure that his findings are true.Nevertheless there are some manners in which these bloggers present their information atimes,that if you are not enquisitve about researching more,you will be lead astray.So therefore,we must be watchful about informations we find online.
One major word is Wikipedia! The best of them include the truth here and there.
Indeed, Wikipedia is not and will never be a reliable source. But it can be a secondary source for informal arguments and knowledge, but its better to look for other sites as much as you can, and avoid wikipedia.
Theres a reason why wikipedia is never been accepted as source for researches for these past years
Online Misinformation
One major word is Wikipedia! The best of them include the truth here and there.
One major word is Wikipedia! The best of them include the truth here and there.
Believing any information from internet gotten from one source without further research for confirmation is absolutely wrong especially nowadays that information from internet is actually misleading. I ran into serious trouble when I was trying to get cure for keloid I developed on my skin from youtube video.
Will the COVID-19 vaccine cause infertility?
There is no evidence that the approved vaccine will cause a decline in fertility. Although clinical trials have not studied this issue, thousands of trial participants have not yet reported loss of fertility, nor have it confirmed that millions of vaccinated people have had adverse events. Therefore, freedom of speech is not to create rumors. Many people have a low awareness (because of their educational level and educational level), and it is easy to quickly spread rumors. This is very annoying, because everyone’s mouth-to-mouth communication, this thing becomes Really.
There is no evidence that the approved vaccine will cause a decline in fertility. Although clinical trials have not studied this issue, thousands of trial participants have not yet reported loss of fertility, nor have it confirmed that millions of vaccinated people have had adverse events. Therefore, freedom of speech is not to create rumors. Many people have a low awareness (because of their educational level and educational level), and it is easy to quickly spread rumors. This is very annoying, because everyone’s mouth-to-mouth communication, this thing becomes Really.
Online information can mis lead information for everyone. Today more spreading a fake news or information and because of that more people believe and mis interpret, The best thing to do to avoid this situation we must know and updated of the news, just listened to the reliable resources not just in the people opinion this can help us to avoid Online misinformation.
Couldn't agree more, social media, like Facebook, is filled with misinformation, fake news and conspiracy theories. However, I've noticed that Facebook has been trying to debunk such articles, by informing users beforehand. It certainly plays an important role in tackling such practices.
These 'informative' inserts do a great job at exposing their platform for what it is. Namely, pure corp/gov propaganda and mind control. I've never had a facefuck account, but when I do run across these 'warning' banners I use it as a tip-off that there might be actual valuable information else it would be flagged by carefully chosen 'narrative controllers.'
I'll mention again that the reason I use the word 'Jewtube' in spite of the potential for it to be mistaken as 'antisemitic' is because ABC corp (holding company of Google) outsources their censorship to the Anti-Defamation League (of B'nai B'rith) and they take full advantage of their censorship powers to promote their various priories. A lot of these priorities seem downright dangerous to a lot of the people and principles I personally care about.
Misinformation is widely spread in these era as the previous generation tend to believe anything they see on the internet.
"Look at this plant, it can heal anykinds of disease", yet there's no supporting data to defend the claims.
"Look, they became magnetic after getting vaccinated", yet the one who is supposed to be magnetic is just sweaty
"Look at this, the government is in cooperation with the other governments for worldwide genocide", yet years later, nothing ever happened
And the most annoying is that, typically your aunt/s or uncle/s are the one spreading this to your family group conversation. Like they are saying "Look at this, I am concerned about you guys so I will spread nonsense that may help you"
The problem is that everybody can write something on the internet. There is no quality check, and especially with sides like Facebook there can be a lot of people involved in trying to boost misinformation to make it viral. And the second problem is that people on the internet are not critical enough, they something and instantly believe it. I see it every week with my family, they fall so easily for things on the internet. Especially ad campaigns make it so hard for older people to realise that this was paid for by a company with a motivation behind it. We need more critical thinking when it comes to the internet.
People are suffering because they are not able to perform their duties properly due to misinformation online of internet technology, in many cases the privacy of information is not maintained. Spreading untrue or false and fabricated news is easily creating social chaos underdeveloped countries are becoming more dependent on developed countries to share global networks due to technological changes. Cyber attacks are on the rise of internet, online pornography is increasing and social degradation is taking place among the youth.
..
Another thing, its is not misinformation, rather faking
Another thing, its is not misinformation, rather faking
you fake stuff to misinform
... keep talking, you are a fine specimen for the vaxxed 
Misinformation has caused alot of chaos in the society today,and this work together with misinterpretation.
Most people find it difficult to pass information in a way that people can understand and decode it properly,therefore,it makes the decoder makes alot of mistakes due to the information passed.
An information is suppose to be encoded in a way that when the decoder reads it,he will be able to understand it properly,so that there will be no mistake in the interpretation and usage.
Most people find it difficult to pass information in a way that people can understand and decode it properly,therefore,it makes the decoder makes alot of mistakes due to the information passed.
An information is suppose to be encoded in a way that when the decoder reads it,he will be able to understand it properly,so that there will be no mistake in the interpretation and usage.
In the same article you shared:
Furthermore:
You tell me, are they (Springer & IEEE) highly reputable organizations? What I'm saying is "peers" are also human that prone to bias, dishonesty, and incompetence. You tell me if peer reviews were so good, how come they passed this nonsense paper? Imagine what happened in the "lower class" papers, Thus DYOR.
Quote
Critics also argue that peer review is not effective at detecting errors. Highlighting this point, an experiment by Godlee et al. published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) inserted eight deliberate errors into a paper that was nearly ready for publication, and then sent the paper to 420 potential reviewers (7). Of the 420 reviewers that received the paper, 221 (53%) responded, the average number of errors spotted by reviewers was two, no reviewer spotted more than five errors, and 35 reviewers (16%) did not spot any.
Furthermore:
Quote
This misconduct was exposed in 2014 by three MIT graduate students by the names of Jeremy Stribling, Dan Aguayo and Maxwell Krohn, who developed a simple computer program called SCIgen that generates nonsense papers and presents them as scientific papers (26). Subsequently, a nonsense SCIgen paper submitted to a conference was promptly accepted. Nature recently reported that French researcher Cyril Labbé discovered that sixteen SCIgen nonsense papers had been used by the German academic publisher Springer (26). Over 100 nonsense papers generated by SCIgen were published by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) (26). Both organisations have been working to remove the papers.
You tell me, are they (Springer & IEEE) highly reputable organizations? What I'm saying is "peers" are also human that prone to bias, dishonesty, and incompetence. You tell me if peer reviews were so good, how come they passed this nonsense paper? Imagine what happened in the "lower class" papers, Thus DYOR.
Misinformation is widely spread in these era as the previous generation tend to believe anything they see on the internet.
"Look at this plant, it can heal anykinds of disease", yet there's no supporting data to defend the claims.
"Look, they became magnetic after getting vaccinated", yet the one who is supposed to be magnetic is just sweaty
"Look at this, the government is in cooperation with the other governments for worldwide genocide", yet years later, nothing ever happened
And the most annoying is that, typically your aunt/s or uncle/s are the one spreading this to your family group conversation. Like they are saying "Look at this, I am concerned about you guys so I will spread nonsense that may help you"
The problem is that everybody can write something on the internet. There is no quality check, and especially with sides like Facebook there can be a lot of people involved in trying to boost misinformation to make it viral. And the second problem is that people on the internet are not critical enough, they something and instantly believe it. I see it every week with my family, they fall so easily for things on the internet. Especially ad campaigns make it so hard for older people to realise that this was paid for by a company with a motivation behind it. We need more critical thinking when it comes to the internet.
...
Studies are peer reviewed to stop corruption and bias in the research. If we could not trust peer reviewed research a lot of our facts and science today would be obsolete. I think research which is peer reviewed is better than me and you looking at data that we do not understand and coming to our own conclusion because at least with the researchers they are qualified and know how to interpretate the data.
Studies are peer reviewed to stop corruption and bias in the research. If we could not trust peer reviewed research a lot of our facts and science today would be obsolete. I think research which is peer reviewed is better than me and you looking at data that we do not understand and coming to our own conclusion because at least with the researchers they are qualified and know how to interpretate the data.
All 'peer reviewed' means is that they found a handful of corrupt academics to sign off on a fraudulent paper. This is remarkably easy to do in a growing number of fields. The so-called 'climate scientists' lead the pack here, but many other disciplines followed suite.
In tight politically driven fields such as 'climate science' the pay-off for checking off as a 'peer review' for your buddy is that he/she will do the same for your next paper. It's nothing more than a circle-jerk of fraud and corruption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975196/
This article shows us the importance of peer reviewed studies and why they are more trustworthy than other studies. I have seen a lot of members here on this sub forum post claims without any studies and they claim it to be fact but all of a sudden we cannot listen to peer reviewed studies which have been scrutinized a lot more than some random member on a forum claiming a statement is true?
...
Studies are peer reviewed to stop corruption and bias in the research. If we could not trust peer reviewed research a lot of our facts and science today would be obsolete. I think research which is peer reviewed is better than me and you looking at data that we do not understand and coming to our own conclusion because at least with the researchers they are qualified and know how to interpretate the data.
Studies are peer reviewed to stop corruption and bias in the research. If we could not trust peer reviewed research a lot of our facts and science today would be obsolete. I think research which is peer reviewed is better than me and you looking at data that we do not understand and coming to our own conclusion because at least with the researchers they are qualified and know how to interpretate the data.
All 'peer reviewed' means is that they found a handful of corrupt academics to sign off on a fraudulent paper. This is remarkably easy to do in a growing number of fields. The so-called 'climate scientists' lead the pack here, but many other disciplines followed suite.
In tight politically driven fields such as 'climate science' the pay-off for checking off as a 'peer review' for your buddy is that he/she will do the same for your next paper. It's nothing more than a circle-jerk of fraud and corruption.
Don't rely on fact checking websites (and mainstream media). DYOR is still the best practice since the paper usually available on the internet. Don't use research paper as the bible with utmost truth, since many things can influence the research. Funding is one of it. You still have to trust the integrity of the researchers, and the validity and reliability of the instruments. And don't think that when you don't have the degree, you cannot ask questions.
There are two types of "misinformation" (1) Baseless claim obvious false information, and (2) Dissenting/opposing views. It's safe to put (1) into the trash can, but I encourage you to dig (2) for more useful insight.
Fact checking websites link to the research and studies that have been done on the subject. If you cannot trust peer reviewed studies then any research you do will not be valid and you could only judge it on face value. Studies are peer reviewed to stop corruption and bias in the research. If we could not trust peer reviewed research a lot of our facts and science today would be obsolete. I think research which is peer reviewed is better than me and you looking at data that we do not understand and coming to our own conclusion because at least with the researchers they are qualified and know how to interpretate the data. There are two types of "misinformation" (1) Baseless claim obvious false information, and (2) Dissenting/opposing views. It's safe to put (1) into the trash can, but I encourage you to dig (2) for more useful insight.
Jump to: