How concerned are you that some of the news you are reading online might be disinformation?

I only read from maintstream media, so if they are missing something or get something wrong they usually have to come clean eventually. What's on Hunter's laptop is not breaking news.

very much. But I am more worried about two things: cherry-picking what gets reported and watering down or hyping up certain topics. These two aren't disinformation, but rather similar to marketing strategies that make it seem that product is more than what it really is.

Mainstream media isn't any better.

Huge chunks of news are either disinformation or are so biased that they might as well be. The distinction of "news you are reading online" is itself disinformation because TV news is just as bad. It's probably worse due to the shield of respectability it has among older people, encouraging more people to believe the disinformation.

One person's news is another person's misinformation.

I have learned from so many others: if I don't agree with it based on what I want to believe, it is disinformation. That's where we are, folks, in our post-truth world.

I have learned from so many others: if I don't agree with it based on what I want to believe, it is disinformation. That's where we are, folks, in our post-truth world.

The easy way to expose misinformation is to ask them to support it with anyone respectable who espouses the same arguments.

It shuts them down Every. Single. Time.

Turns out when the only people to support your looney theories are other loonies, it only exposes you as a loonie. Especially those that say "I don't trust the experts". When you meet someone who doesn't trust an expert on the topic they are an expert in, you know you are dealing with a lesser.

Strangerland Today 12:07 pm JST

The easy way to expose misinformation is to ask them to support it with anyone respectable who espouses the same arguments.

It is the argument itself that should be of primary concern to those who are interested in truth, not the character of the person(s) who happen to make the argument. If the argument is valid, the truth may be seen apart from the person's character. Besides, "respectable" in whose eyes? "loony" in whose eyes?

Zhuang Zi said something relevant:

"Suppose that you and I have a dispute. If you beat me and I lose to you, does that mean you're really right and I'm really wrong? If I beat you and you lose to me, does that mean I'm really right and you're really wrong? Is one of us right and the other wrong? Or are both of us right and both of us wrong? Neither you nor I can know, and others are even more in the dark. Whom shall we have decide the matter? Shall we have someone who agrees with you decide it? Since he agrees with you, how can he decide fairly? Shall we have someone who agrees with me decide it? Since he agrees with me, how can he decide fairly? Shall we have someone who differs with both of us decide it? Since he differs with both of us, how can he make a decision? Shall we have someone who agrees with both of us decide it? Since he agrees with both of us, how can he make a decision? Given that neither you nor I, nor another person, can know how to decide, shall we wait for still another?

It is the argument itself that should be of primary concern to those who are interested in truth, not the character of the person(s) who happen to make the argument.

Who cares about their character? They could be jerks for all I care. It's their expertise that matters.

Remember, lots of people with likeable personalities think the world is flat.

StrangerlandToday 12:42 pm JST

Who cares about their character? ... It's their expertise that matters.

Apologies about the imprecision in wording, but the point remains the same. The argument itself is what determines if a position is correct or incorrect, not the expertise of the one making the argument. Expertise does not equate to infallibility, although sometimes they are confused. Deferring to the expertise of authorities is only an expedient for when an examination of the argument is outside the ability or means of someone to conduct said examination.

Strangerland Today 12:42 pm JST

Remember, lots of people with likeable personalities think the world is flat.

Perhaps they are viewing things from another dimension.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland

https://youtu.be/C8oiwnNlyE4

StrangerlandToday 12:43 pm JST

Mine. I am an excellent arbitrator of this.

Exactly. Just like everybody else. Perhaps this is why Paul the Apostle says "Let all be fully convinced in their own minds" (Romans 14:5).

No, I am happy to take this as far as it goes: to complete intellectual anarchy with everyone just believing what they want to believe. Isn't that postmodernism in a nutshell? But isn't that the bugbear of conservatives who nevertheless promote it unbeknownst to them at every turn. Optimistically, we might eventually be able to come to some agreement on what we all want to believe. And start from there. Sadly, that involves real self-exposure and insight into yourself and that's a place where so many dysfunctional people don't want to go. And it is really they who are always pushing the agenda and claiming disinformation. No, folks, the disinformation is what you are telling yourselves to make you feel better about traumas you have not resolved.

I use common sense.Checking news from different outlets/not just in English of course/.

there are a lot misinformation online these days.

even here-at daily basis.

And what do you want to believe, Eastmann? Then we will know what you consider disinformation.

Not worried at all, just acknowledging the fact and never trusting anything online before its checked by reliable sources.

Not concerned... because since the begining, those who provide information or news are biased, even if they put a lot of effor not to.

It is only natural that the person/persons that are informing something includes their point of views or opinions in that information.

Also, since the begining, there have been poeple that consiously and actevly fakes information.

The only thing that has change since then and now is that the connectivity and speed makes that any information (true or fake) is transmitted boradly and fast.

I think, it has been the duty of the information consumers (in this case us), to be able to identify and dicern what information is true and which one is fake. That may mean more effor from us readers but that is what it is.

I try and read certain news outlets, but most of the news I consume comes from sites such as Stratfor NO BS, just straight geopolitical news, as well as other reputable outlets or opinion commentators. I trust them the more so, but I try to stay away from most MSM media news outlets as the majority of them tilt left and offer no opposing viewpoints.

As far as disinformation is concerned, as adults, most of us can decipher what is true and what is not. I

Who and what one deems as misinformation depends entirely on the topic at hand, if you can fundamentally back up your argument or any argument with facts and logic, you will win the debate every single time. When it comes to questionable conspiracy theories, again, it depends on the issue and source; some topics are controversial and frequently off the wall, but a lot of these particular kinds of questionable theories could be answered or debunked if there is broader context and not just a one-sided perspective of people that think just because they have a PhD and work for the government, they are immune from ridicule and scrutiny.

I will never accept this as it leans towards a bias for one side of the argument, especially when one political point of view supports a viewpoint and declares that the topic is not up for debate or analysis.

One side wants to force you to accept their position on a certain issue or topic, and you have to take it as fact, and you are not allowed to question or give a rebuttal. I couldn't care less what people think; this is why I reject just a liberal point of view to any argument regardless of what it is or what Facebook, the media, or Google are trying to push me to accept.

Hear different viewpoints and then you should be able to ask questions, get answers, and come up with your conclusions.

To take a look at one concerning bit of recent misinformation: the eating of pets in Springfield, Ohio,

NBC: “Trump repeats **false claim about immigrants ‘eating’ dogs, cats’ in Ohio”**

https://youtu.be/d5qoaj3YndQ

MSNBC: “Trump fact-checked on **false claim of migrants ‘eating’ dogs and cats”**

https://youtu.be/vVZuAHK_Z0Y

BBC News: “Donald Trump repeats **debunked claim that immigrants are eating pets.”**

https://youtu.be/RnzuSpa7F9E

CNN: “Trump campaign and JD Vance promote **false rumors about immigrants eating pets”**

https://youtu.be/r6iyp5UD6_g

et cetera, et cetera.

The evidence for this claim which I have seen cited is as follows (with comments),

Photo by “isitmeyourelooking4x” on Reddit (Jul 28)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Columbus/comments/1eebh9o/things_you_see_while_driving_in_cbus/

Photo of an unidentified black male carrying a goose in Columbus, Ohio.

Shannon Stanley at the Springfield City Commission Meeting (Aug 13)

https://youtu.be/DiGZtFXTj9o [From 1:16:55]

“Let me be clear, this is not about race. This is about people being given the privilege of coming here from another country and having no respect for our people, our land, or our life’s work. People living their life here the way they did in Haiti, angry, stealing, polluting, living in filth and acting like animals. These are not civilized people, opening containers in our grocery stores, helping themselves to what's inside and throwing the rest onto the shelves and floors, pulling off of the highway to publicly clean and gut the roadkill lying there in front of anyone who passes by, stealing animals from farmers and leaving their severed heads at the site of an old school where children play, relieving themselves in public, making some barbaric stew out of the birds that live in our park.”

Testifies to a local knowledge of Haitian migrants eating park birds.

“Noel” at the Springfield City Commission Meeting (Aug 13)

https://youtu.be/DiGZtFXTj9o [From 1:21:00]

“It is so unsafe in my neighborhood anymore. I have the homeless that were trying to camp out, and I have, I have made concessions with them, and I try to help them the best I can to keep them from trying to squat on my property, but it is so unsafe. I have men, they cannot speak English, in my front yard screaming at me, throwing mattresses in my front yard, throwing trash in my front yard.”

Testifies to being harassed at her home by non-specified non-English speaking homeless males.

No statement regarding the eating of animals.

Allexis Telia Ferrell of Canton, Ohio (Aug 16)

https://www.kptv.com/2024/08/21/woman-arrested-allegedly-killing-cat-eating-it-front-neighbors/

Suspect is an African-American? female in Canton, Ohio.

Police Phone Call and Report (Aug 26 / Sep 10)

https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/10/exclusive-police-audio-report-confirm-haitian-goose-hunting-in-ohio-they-all-had-geese-in-their-hands/

From the phone call:

“I’m sitting here, I’m riding on the trail, I’m going to my orientation for my job today, and I see a group of Haitian people, there was about four of ’em, they all had geese in their hands.”

From the report:

“RP SAID HE COULD TELL THEY WERE HAITIAN BECAUSE HE WAS WITHIN EARSHOT OF THEM TO HEAR THEM SPEAKING HAITIAN CREOLE”

Eyewitness to Haitian migrants carrying geese.

Anthony Harris at the Springfield City Commission Meeting (Aug 27)

https://youtu.be/VL4JXoFcJQI [From 1:10:00]

“These Haitians are running into trash cans, they're running into buildings, they're running into — they're flipping cars in the middle of the street. They’re in the park grabbing up ducks by they neck and cutting they head off and walking up with them and eating them.”

Testifies to a local knowledge of Haitian migrants eating park birds.

Springfield Ohio Crime & Information Facebook group (Sep 5 [Reposted])

https://www.facebook.com/groups/889321368886343/

“Warning to all about our beloved pets & those around us!! My neighbor informed me that her daughters friend had lost her cat. She checked pages, kennels, asked around, etc. One day she came home from work, as soon as she stepped out of her car, looked towards a neighbors house, where Haitians live, & saw her cat hanging from a branch, like you’d do a deer for butchering, & they were carving it up to eat. I’ve been told they are doing this to dogs, they have been doing it at snyder park with the ducks & geese, as I was told that last bit by Rangers & police. Please keep a close eye on these animals.”

The original date of this post is unclear. However, what is clear is that this post was originally not meant for mass consumption since it was posted to a private Facebook group of Springfield locals. Its publicity is only due to a member of the group creating a screen capture and publicizing it outside the group to a nationwide audience.

Testifies to a local knowledge of Haitian migrants eating park birds and pets.

So it seems to me at least from the testimony of locals as well as one eyewitness that there is reason to suspect Haitian migrants of eating park birds. There is less reason to suspect Haitians of eating pets. Out of a community of 20,000 individuals who now suddenly comprise 25% of the population of Springfield due to mass migration, one would expect more definitive proof if these practices were in fact so normalized in the Haitian community. My suspicion is that a few incidents have been exaggerated by those on the right for their emotive potential in highlighting the problems of mass migration and depreciated by those on the left to ignore the problems of mass migration. After all, those on the right expect assimilation, “Do in Rome as the Romans,” while those on the left promote multiculturalism, “Rome should accept the ways of the barbarians in their gates as an equally valid way to live.” The problem is, as Rome falls, the Romans too will adopt the ways of the barbarians. But that is the ultimate goal now isn’t it?

But that city official said, “There have been no credible reports, etc.,” I hear someone say. And the police report cited above demonstrates that at least one such report exists. Maybe if Trump had only mentioned park birds his statement wouldn't have been so easy labelled misinformation. But all this preoccupation with animals is really just inspecting the leaves of the trees while missing the forest: mass migration has caused substantial problems for the people of Springfield, Ohio as it does everywhere else.

And on the subject of misinformation and trusting respectable sources and expertise, I would like to note that even peer-reviewed academic journals are not immune to misinformation (as if the widely reported inability to reproduce published findings in many cases didn’t already make that clear):

Sabine Hossenfelder: “A New Theory of Everything Just Dropped!”

https://youtu.be/Yk_NjIPaZk4

I just go on the assumption that everything online is a lie unless proven otherwise. Simple and effective.

Fake AI reports and false videos make it more difficult.

The easy way to expose misinformation is to ask them to support it with anyone respectable who espouses the same arguments.

It shuts them down Every. Single. Time.

The logic here is quite poor. You do realise that if you had asked Gallileo to find someone respectable to support his claims, he would have failed? Or if you had to find a single respectable professor, lawyer or scientist in the Soviet Union to question Maxist-Leninist theory, you also would have failed? Ideological power systems perpetuate their own dogma to the point that it's nearly impossible to become 'respectable' within them if you oppose them. Your test doesn’t get us closer to the truth.

One way to handle the situation is to check news from as many sources as you can. Thomas Jefferson recommended back in his day. Disinformation is, of course, still hard to detect, but 5 or 6 sources at least gives you a chance to pick it out of the sources you read. This is not a sure-fire method, but it is the best strategy.

One way to handle the situation is to check news from as many sources as you can. Thomas Jefferson recommended back in his day. Disinformation is, of course, still hard to detect, but 5 or 6 sources at least gives you a chance to pick it out of the sources you read. This is not a sure-fire method, but it is the best strategy.

Absolutely

Apologies about the imprecision in wording, but the point remains the same. The argument itself is what determines if a position is correct or incorrect, not the expertise of the one making the argument. Expertise does not equate to infallibility

Ahh, but lack of expertise and ignorance of it exponentially increases the probability of fallability.

Not all "free thinkers are wrong", but if you're figuring out whether they're probably wrong or not, you can guess they probably are.

Not all experts are correct, but if you're figuring out whether they are more likely to be correct, you can guess that at the very least their evidence has been researched, supported with evidence, peer reviewed, and accepted by a group of experts that it's the best answer they have with current science.

Podcasters don't do that.

The fact that the definition of what constitutes genuine accurate “information” requires an “expert” interpretation explanation of an agreed understanding to the spread of "falsehood" that can detect the manipulation/propaganda directly associated as “disinformation.”

In doing so, respects maintains the need for public confidence trust,

The danger is to dismiss ignore the fact “information”, the concerns portrayed from person to person is strongly contested for valid reason.

Who ultimately decides what is truthful or not?

Such concern that the spread of damaging fake, misinformation disinformation, the deliberate spread of false native that can cause harm, should be a human rights issue?

Strangerland Today 12:07 am JST

*if you can discount the experts advice because it may be wrong, that "logic" means that you must also discount the advice also of all the non-experts*

Your own logic does not follow here. One is not necessitated to reject the view of a non-expert because the view of an expert may be subject to rejection. One is, however, ideally obligated to reject either view or both views based on the strength of the arguments made in support. Some may indeed find a non-expert to make the more persuasive case in a particular case. They may ultimately be wrong, but attempts to silence such views will do little to change minds. Refutation is what is necessary. It all goes back to the argument and the quality of the data in support.

And for the record, I rarely down vote or up vote anyone. I for my part have not down voted you. Some evidently down vote here due to personality conflicts rather than to the arguments made. I mean, I have seen down votes for people expressing sympathy for people struck by natural disasters here. Best not to concern oneself with the votes.

Core problem is social media: anybody can squat down and produce a post that will reach millions.

Don't concern yourselves with down voting, its a positive, an indication you have the attention of viewers that disagree enough to login indicate so.

The next step, to respond with alternative opinions, will happen sooner or later.

Don't concern yourselves with down voting, its a positive, an indication you have the attention of viewers that disagree enough to login indicate so. 

The next step, to respond with alternative opinions, will happen sooner or later.

I would never concern myself with either a down or upvote; people can agree or disagree, not anything I lose sleep over.

It's not a concern as It's not like I champion rallies / protests, leader in innovation, or trade penny stocks based on the news I read. I am not volunteering in any wars so what I think about the participants really doesn't matter.

At worst i am way misinformed on an chatting online forum between helpless individuals. I donate somewhat but it is what I can afford, and I guess I should be more worried about the effects of the pittance if Infact the charity isn't what it seems.

The fact that the controlled media has ask this question is because the free media has asked and found out and being telling the world the truth and facts thought independent free media, That western Governments and the controlled Media are instep with the same narrative. They were instep with WMD and invading Iraq. Instep with invading Syria. Instep with the invading economic immigration sweeping over the EU and USA. Instep in the attempt to make Ukraine a NATO state on the border Russia. Instep with hiding the oppression and the apartheid committed on the people of Palestine. Read the latest piece writing by Professor Mearsheimer and it fills in what the control media avoids which is out in the opener for all to evaluate. Like it not hiding. Just that people have been brainwashed into thinking the controlled media is legitmate. I called out Israel on day one and was blasted and block and suspended due to peoples inability to evaluate what facts are present.

Don't concern yourselves with down voting, its a positive, an indication you have the attention of viewers that disagree enough to login indicate so.

I agree fully. I thrive on the upvotes, particularly when they are not accompanied by a comment, because it means they don't like what I say, but can't actually argue against it.

One is, however, ideally obligated to reject either view or both views based on the strength of the arguments made in support. Some may indeed find a non-expert to make the more persuasive case in a particular case.

And some people think the world is flat...

jeffy Sep. 12 09:13 pm JST

My suspicion is that a few incidents have been exaggerated by those on the right for their emotive potential in highlighting the problems of mass migration and depreciated by those on the left to ignore the problems of mass migration.

It is wonderful to see my take on a situation being justified:

Kaitlan Collins presses JD Vance on 'cat memes' comment and misinformation

https://youtu.be/4ABrkiHVKrc

Vance: Well, first of all, city officials have not said it's not true, they've said they don't have all the evidence.

Collins: They've said they have no evidence.

Vance: We've heard from a number of constituents on the ground, Kaitlan, who both firsthand and secondhand reports saying this stuff is happening, so they very clearly, meaning the people on the ground dealing with this, think that it is happening. And I think it's important for journalists to actually get on the ground and uncover this stuff for themselves. When you have a lot of people saying my pets are being abducted or geese at the city pond are being abducted and slaughtered right in front of us, this is crazy stuff, and again, whether those exact rumors turn out to be mostly true, somewhat true, whatever the case may be, Kaitlin, this town has been ravaged by 20,000 migrants coming in health care costs are up, housing costs are up, communicable diseases like HIV and TB have skyrocketed in this small Ohio town. This is what Kamala Harris's border policies have done and I think it's interesting, Kaitlan, that the media didn't care about the carnage wrought by these policies until we turned it into a meme about cats. And that speaks to the media’s failure to care about what’s going on in these communities. If we have to meme about it to get the media to care, we’re going to keep on doing it, because the media should care about what’s going on.

Collins: I saw you say that. I think the media does care about it. I just read a very lengthy report on it in the New York Times on it. PBS News Hour did a whole story on it.

Vance: Started by us talking about it and bringing it up. Nobody cared about this until we raised this issue.

Later Jake Tapper gives his two cents:

Tapper: I’m looking at a New York Times story from eight days ago [= Sep 3] about the immigration crisis in Springfield and the problems created there. Saying we need to make up nonsense that isn’t true so that the media covers things that the media is already covering is an odd defense.

First, Vance did not say "we need to make up nonsense that isn't true." Vance spoke of firsthand and secondhand reports from local citizens which may ultimately be "mostly true, somewhat true, whatever the case may be." This means that there is some truth to them, even if the particulars of the reports may turn out to be wrong. Tapper's characterization is thus less true than the reported rumors of local citizens.

Second, the story referred to by Tapper, “How an Ohio Town Landed in the Middle of the Immigration Debate” (Sep 3) located here: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/us/springfield-ohio-school-bus-crash-haiti-immigrants.html, only serves to prove Vance's point:

“Jobs attracted thousands of Haitians to Springfield, and employers were ecstatic. But then an immigrant driver was involved in a fatal school bus crash. And JD Vance entered the fray.”

And,

"The stage was set for another fraught chapter in the debate over immigration in America, this one magnified because JD Vance, the state's junior senator, would soon become the Republican vice presidential nominee."

And,

“The issue has become even more politicized this year, as the presidential election campaign focuses on the record number of crossings on the southern border in 2023. So it came as no surprise that the influx of Haitians to Springfield would become a talking point for Vance.”

It is therefore clear that the story to which Tapper refers was written as a result of Vance drawing attention to the problems associated with mass migration in Springfield. The only difference is that while Vance has more recently been citing cultural differences in the eating certain animals to highlight the problem of mass migration in Springfield, in this article he cites an accident caused by an unlicensed Haitian driver. His change is perhaps due to the wishes of one of the families who asked that their child who died in the accident not be politicized. But whatever the reason, the desire is still the same on Vance's part: highlighting the problems of mass migration in Springfield.

Therefore, I can only restate my earlier position on the "misinformation" regarding the eating of animals:

So it seems to me at least from the testimony of locals as well as one eyewitness that there is reason to suspect Haitian migrants of eating park birds. There is less reason to suspect Haitians of eating pets. Out of a community of 20,000 individuals who now suddenly comprise 25% of the population of Springfield due to mass migration, one would expect more definitive proof if these practices were in fact so normalized in the Haitian community.

And,

Maybe if Trump had only mentioned park birds his statement wouldn't have been so easy labelled misinformation.

There appears to be kernel of truth to the rumors, but geese do not make for great memes.

The problem is two-fold. One is the lack of education in critical reasoning skills.

The other is more difficult: people make decisions and have beliefs based on emotions rather than reason. They just use reason to justify their emotional positions. Anyone in marketing, day-trading, poker or any field that requires an awareness of psychology knows this. Smarter people don't necessarily believe in smarter things - they are just better at rationalizing their beliefs.

Maybe an education that at least teaches people to be aware of this would counter actual disinformation. Maybe not. But without free speech we are all lost.

@robert maes

"Not worried at all, just acknowledging the fact and never trusting anything online before its checked by reliable sources."

And what constitutes 'reliable sources?' There is no such thing, everybody has an agenda.

"It is the argument itself that should be of primary concern to those who are interested in truth, not the character of the person(s) who happen to make the argument. If the argument is valid, the truth may be seen apart from the person's character. Besides, "respectable" in whose eyes? "loony" in whose eyes?"@Jeffy

Brilliantly explained if few sentences Kudos Jeffy.

Some LOL. you take it all of it with a gain of salt. Murdock as made it a joke. If it about what going on in the MiddleEast and Russia I will listen to Scott Ridder. He was UN weapon inspector how deny the WMD were in Iraq. This is how long the Corporate Media has been in lockstep with Governments. I also would like to know what ever happen to the 20 billion $ of opium paste the Taiban stockpile before the Afghan invasion. Like it would have been the biggest drug seizure to date. But not one word about it. Then the USA had a Herion explosion in the 2000,s.

Exactly, John-san. You take it ALL with a grain of salt.

Funny to ask this, considering Japan has one of biggest propagandist and biased TV media in the World, except for the Comunist countries and Russia: NHK

Their news are overly dramatized, exaggerated, their are totally sold to the leading government party, which they NEVER, EVER criticize, contests or debate.

They Mafia style of taxing the population for their services also doesn't help with their reputation at all.