top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 135 points 2 years ago (30 children)

Are Republicans already unironically upset that the majority of examples of misinformation are from conservative sources?

  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 years ago (28 children)

    I honestly hope that isn't true, even if left wing sources are harder to find. This is a case where I believe showing 'both sides' is necessary. It's less likely that they will be duped by people on the left, but it is still possible and they need to be aware of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    I don't like the idea of having to provide an equal amount of examples from 'both sides' when that isn't matching reality, on an issue specifically affecting one political party more than the other (or maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine, I don't know). There are misinformation examples from probably every part of the political spectrum, but they should be exemplified proportionally. Showing the reality, which is that a majority of fake news is generated by conservative sources, is important.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Yeah, I recall someone from the BBC saying something similar when it came to covering Brexit. It would take their producers days to find a credible, coherent voice that was pro-Brexit, while the anti-Brexit folks were basically lined up to voice their reasoning. That dichotomy was never revealed to listeners and caused some strife amongst the news team as it seemed disingenuous to present both sides as equal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    It shouldn't be about who is doing it more, it should be about how to recognize propaganda. Propaganda can come from any side of the political spectrum. Saying "they do it more" doesn't help when just trying to teach the basics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    It doesn't answer your question completely, but apparently conservatives are more likley to belive fake news.

    Here is a quote from a study with a lot of links to related works.

    In particular, Grinberg, Joseph, Friedland, Swire-Thompson, and Lazer [[42], p. 374] found that “individuals most likely to engage with fake news sources were conservative leaning.” Indeed, political bias can be a more important predictor of fake news believability than conspiracy mentality [43] despite conspirational predispositions playing a key role in motivated reasoning [44]. Perhaps because of this, an important body of research has examined whether conservatism influences fake news believability [45,46]. Tellingly, Robertson, Mourão, and Thorson [47] found that in the US liberal news consumers were more aware and amenable to fact-checking sites, whereas conservatives saw them as less positive as well as less useful to them, which might be why conservative SM users are more likely to confuse bots with humans, while liberal SM users tend to confuse humans with bots [48]. In particular, those who may arguably belong to the loud, populist and extremist minority wherein “1% of individuals accounted for 80% of fake news source exposures, and 0.1% accounted for nearly 80% of fake news sources shared” ([42], p. 374).

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720622001537#bib0045

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 99 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    I don’t like the headline description of this because I really hate the term “fake news”, given who originated it (or at least who popularized it). Reading the article though, CA seems to refer to it as “media literacy”, which seems more apt, that or “critical thinking skills” would be so much better. Just anything other than the term “fake news”.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    He didn’t originate that term. He claims that he did and he appropriated it, but it was in existence long before he started using it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    it was in existence long before he started using it.

    Notably, in late 30s Germany by a pretty infamous man.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 68 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    I mean, we learned all about citing and sources in 8th grade social studies.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • Look at this guy, learning correctly!

    I'll have you know buddy, that I'm a moron and was constantly pushed up grades because I showed up enough and did half-ass work to earn a C and didn't learn anything.

    And most of us are like that! Because the American school system is fucked and rather not fail a kid and now we are in government and believe in Jewish space lasers and will fist fight people we disagree with!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Yes, just like how we all learned about how important it is to pay off credit card debt and the benefits of long term investing while in school (aka compound interest...in math class). Yet far too many people act like this is something that needs to be added to the curriculum when it's already there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago* (6 children)

    FWIW, I don't think we all learned that, they literally never taught that in my school. Like, they literally never explicitly mentioned "credit card debt" or "long-term investments" or any investments really in my classes, and I think they should have.

    Of course it's gonna be different from school to school, state to state, and country to country.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • [–] 61 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    News is supposed to tell you what happened not how to feel about it. When you notice an article is using a lot of emotionally charged language, that’s a good sign to check the facts (if there are any)

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    You might as well only read news wires like Reuters and AP, then.

    Context matters, emotions matter, selective reporting is rampant, and all journalism writes to their audience. It's usually more accurate to read articles from both sides of an issue and assume that both are wrong, with the truth often somewhere in the middle. On a geopolitical scale, it's also good to assume rational actors (because, far more often than not, they are rational even if you don't have the context that rationalizes an action).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 58 points 2 years ago

    I still remember a 2 day assignment we had of finding scientific articles, and classifying them as trustworthy or not. Ie, was it in a peer reviewed journal vs a study at a "clinic" that has bias in the outcome. I remember that to this day and feel like it was a major shift toward my ability to think critically

  • source
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Internet shizzos will believe this is indoctrination and brainwashing

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I know adults who need to take that class.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (14 children)

    I can already hear Republicans writing up a ban on this type of class in Florida.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    Shortcut is to just include it under their definition of CRT

    ...a bit like how California classified bees as fish, except that was for conservation and this would just be evil lol

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (13 replies)
    [–] 24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Is this real? I can't tell.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    fully expect the entire right wing media aparatus to be demonizing this as something ridiculous as brainwashing kids against facts and truth, and "LIBERALS REQUIRE FORCED INDOCTRINATION TO MAKE KIDS ACCEPT THEIR LIES".

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    Thinking critically about internet content

    Random confession bear meme on the board

    "Ok class. What are some things wrong with this meme? Samantha?"

    "It's not actually confessing anything?"

    "Correct!"

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    Something we need, not just in schools but outside as well.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Really bad news for the MAGAs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    Nearly every act of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia and transphobia ever committed has been committed by conservatives.

    We should be teaching our children why it is immoral to do business or keep relationships with conservatives.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    This, frankly, is an incredible move. Hopefully us Europeans take notice and consider implementing something similar.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 10 points 2 years ago
    load more comments
    view more: next ›