Take a quiz on misinformation, see how you do

[Frankfooter]

No it doesn't.

This study has nothing to do with sources.
It has to do with judging headlines.

On the most basic level it does relate to sources.
If you can tell bullshit by headlines you are also likely to spend less time ready dodgy sources.
It just means the very basic bullshit filters work for someone.

Which is why this study is so useless here.
"Was this a real headline" isn't the problem here.

I would expect we could cut out about half of the crap posted here if people could tell misinformation by headlines.
Then you can dig further and check sources and verify reports.

Perhaps you'd like to dig through the 4,750 pages of material supporting South Africa's accusation of Israeli genocide submitted today.
Let us know if this passes as trustworthy sources.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850977598291239348

 

[Valcazar]

It is not entirely useless either.
Many people only read the headlines.
So the ability to judge headlines does matter.

But it is minor.
The choice is just to judge "is this headline real".
Sure that has some value, but tells you nothing about it being misleading or whether the story under it is supported or slanted or anything.
It is just "yes, this headline was published in a source the authors considered respectable".

 

[Valcazar]

On the most basic level it does relate to sources.
If you can tell bullshit by headlines you are also likely to spend less time ready dodgy sources.
It just means the very basic bullshit filters work for someone.

But very basic.
It is a test of "is this written like a headline in a reputable newspaper".
That really doesn't tell you a lot beyond the most obvious.

I would expect we could cut out about half of the crap posted here if people could tell misinformation by headlines.
Then you can dig further and check sources and verify reports.

But this doesn't even tell misinformation by headlines, since a soberly-written headline about misinformation would qualify as a real headline.

Perhaps you'd like to dig through the 4,750 pages of material supporting South Africa's accusation of Israeli genocide submitted today.
Let us know if this passes as trustworthy sources.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850977598291239348

No.
And if you read more than the headline in the twitter post, you would know why.

 

[Frankfooter]

But very basic.
It is a test of "is this written like a headline in a reputable newspaper".
That really doesn't tell you a lot beyond the most obvious.

Agreed, but the amount of disinformation that gets posted here that shouldn't even pass that headline test shows that people, and this board, fail at the basic level.
If you want to get into academic sourcing or confirming scientific studies and reviews that's another level. A level this board rarely touches.

But this doesn't even tell misinformation by headlines, since a soberly-written headline about misinformation would qualify as a real headline.

Sure it does. Even though headlines are quite often not written by the journalists that write the articles, soberly written bullshit is still bullshit.
CBC posted a story about the Israeli attack on Iran, calling it 'retaliation'. A number of people wrote to the ombudsman and within hours they took out the word 'retaliation'.
In that case it was the headline that carried the misinformation for the most part, though parts of the article were also edited.

No.
And if you read more than the headline in the twitter post, you would know why.

Explain.

 

[Valcazar]

Sure it does. Even though headlines are quite often not written by the journalists that write the articles, soberly written bullshit is still bullshit.

Exactly my point.
The CBC headline you are referring to would be considered "real" in this case, even though you consider it misinformation.

Explain.

You could just read the article you linked to and get the answer very easily.

 

[richaceg]

Here's a test result I came up with about Franky....
He'g going off the rails again... 10/10

 

[Frankfooter]

Exactly my point.
The CBC headline you are referring to would be considered "real" in this case, even though you consider it misinformation.

That headline was corrected because it was misinformation.
Fortunately the CBC still has an ombudsman.

You could just read the article you linked to and get the answer very easily.

This article?
Explain.

South Africa delivers evidence of Israel genocide to ICJ - DIRCO

Media Statement 28 October 2024 South Africa delivers evidence of Israel genocide to ICJ South Africa has filed its Memorial to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) today, 28 October 2024, in its case on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of...

dirco.gov.za

 

[Valcazar]

This article?
Explain.

South Africa delivers evidence of Israel genocide to ICJ - DIRCO

Media Statement 28 October 2024 South Africa delivers evidence of Israel genocide to ICJ South Africa has filed its Memorial to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) today, 28 October 2024, in its case on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of...

dirco.gov.za

Yes.
The media statement from South Africa explains very clearly why I won't be digging through the 4,750 pages of material submitted supporting South Africa's accusation of Israeli genocide.

It's not a trick or a gotcha question, Frank.

Maybe you should read the statement.
You know, the one you linked to.

 

[Frankfooter]

Yes.
The media statement from South Africa explains very clearly why I won't be digging through the 4,750 pages of material submitted supporting South Africa's accusation of Israeli genocide.

It's not a trick or a gotcha question, Frank.

Maybe you should read the statement.
You know, the one you linked to.

Your post was implying that the submission or the page on the submission was misinformation, as part of this discussion. That's what I questioned.
But if you were just noting that the material won't be public, as per court rules, then you should have said that.

Given the subject of this thread you should be clearer.

 

[Valcazar]

Your post was implying that the submission or the page on the submission was misinformation, as part of this discussion. That's what I questioned.
But if you were just noting that the material won't be public, as per court rules, then you should have said that.

Given the subject of this thread you should be clearer.

My post wasn't implying any such thing.
My entire point in this thread has been that just going by the headline is bad and doesn't tell you anything.
You never would have asked me to vet it if you had read the link and known it wasn't available to the public.

It took three tries to get you to read the article and notice the material wasn't available to the public.
Pretty much proving my point.

 

[Frankfooter]

My post wasn't implying any such thing.
My entire point in this thread has been that just going by the headline is bad and doesn't tell you anything.
You never would have asked me to vet it if you had read the link and known it wasn't available to the public.

It took three tries to get you to read the article and notice the material wasn't available to the public.
Pretty much proving my point.

This is a thread about misinformation, excuse me if I thought you were posting something on topic.

 

[Valcazar]

This is a thread about misinformation, excuse me if I thought you were posting something on topic.

I was.
Explicitly so.
As I just explained.

 

[Frankfooter]

I was.
Explicitly so.
As I just explained.

From my end, it was just another pedantic reply where I answered honestly thinking you were discussing whether the South Africa ICJ submission was misinformation.

 

[basketcase]

Prove what I've posted is disinformation, basketcase.
...

You regularly do that yourself with your idiotically self-contradictory views.

As I said, you post DIP, not because you know it's fake but simply because you embrace anything that you think is against Israel.

 

[basketcase]

...

Are you claiming this is disinformation?

IDF ordered Hannibal directive on October 7 to prevent Hamas taking soldiers captive

***

www.haaretz.com

It is when you pretend this applies to the 1200 CIVILIANS killed by Hamas and the several hundred CIVILIANS kidnapped.

 

[basketcase]

Agreed, but the amount of disinformation that gets posted here that shouldn't even pass that headline test shows that people, and this board, fail at the basic level.
...

Absolutely seen by people spamming us with any tweet he agrees with.

 

[Frankfooter]

You regularly do that yourself with your idiotically self-contradictory views.

As I said, you post DIP, not because you know it's fake but simply because you embrace anything that you think is against Israel.

Of course you can't prove anything I've posted is disinformation.
because it isn't.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1851935039275016462

 

[Frankfooter]

It is when you pretend this applies to the 1200 CIVILIANS killed by Hamas and the several hundred CIVILIANS kidnapped.

There were around 400 IOF killed Oct 7 plus 3-400 killed by the IOF using the Hannibal Doctrine.
How many times has Israel killed more than that in a day now?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1852047574653636665

 

[basketcase]

Of course you can't prove anything I've posted is disinformation.
because it isn't.
...

I'm sur ethat you have taken the time to research who all the randos are you post from.

And yes, endless masses of disinformation. For example, you recently claimed it was a war crime for Israel to kill Hezbollah commanders. That was even your direct statement, not a tweet you spammed us with.

Also recently in the news was the story you were pushing in the summer about "Israeli soldiers" using chemical weapons on campus protesters that turned out be be American kids who bought fart spray on Amazon. I could go on if you really want but that won't change you endlessly spamming hate tweets, putting no other thought into it other than whether you think it makes Israel look bad.

At least the people in the Russian and Iranian bot farms get paid for doing what you do.

 

[Frankfooter]

I'm sur ethat you have taken the time to research who all the randos are you post from.

And yes, endless masses of disinformation. For example, you recently claimed it was a war crime for Israel to kill Hezbollah commanders. That was even your direct statement, not a tweet you spammed us with.

Also recently in the news was the story you were pushing in the summer about "Israeli soldiers" using chemical weapons on campus protesters that turned out be be American kids who bought fart spray on Amazon. I could go on if you really want but that won't change you endlessly spamming hate tweets, putting no other thought into it other than whether you think it makes Israel look bad.

At least the people in the Russian and Iranian bot farms get paid for doing what you do.

I claimed that it was a war crime to use civilian devices, as usual you are being dishonest.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1837471714784997438

What I posted about the IOF spraying US students was correct.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1748729253770698944

You are so dishonest.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1853086403061498367