lichess.org
Donate

On Misinformation

fact is that both are currently being used synonymously. as "purposely spreading wrong information \ propaganda".
Here is FEMA answer regarding rumors and scams:

www.fema.gov/disaster/current/hurricane-helene/rumor-response

>Help keep yourself, your family and your community safe after Hurricane Helene by being aware of rumors and scams and sharing official information from trusted sources.
>
>Do your part to the stop the spread of rumors by doing three easy things:
>
>Find trusted sources of information.
>Share information from trusted sources.
>Discourage others from sharing information from unverified sources.
>
>[...]
>Rumor: FEMA does not have enough money to provide disaster assistance for Helene.
>
>Fact: FEMA has enough money right now for immediate response and recovery needs. If you were affected by Helene, do not hesitate to apply for disaster assistance as there is a variety of help available for different needs.
>
>October 3, 2024
>[...]
@bfchessguy said in #24:
> One of those spreading conspiracy regarding Hurricane Helene is none other than
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick
>
> I'll let you guess for whom she'll be voting. lmao
Election desperation is palpable

They would try and politicize an apple falling from a tree onto someones head at this point as a grand scheme not to trust the administration
[ This space was warned repeatedly to remain blank

]
____
#4 what_game_is_this says "I'm not arguing with this post" In fact you are arguing with this post

what_game_is_this says "I try to inform"
In fact you do not

what_game_is_this says "I believe the links i suggest are informative. "
In fact you believe there could be information yet informativeness is subjective

what_game_is_this says "People may draw their own conclusions."
While there is no evidence of people making an informed decision at any time through histoy, others were even less lucky: Have you heard of Heaven's Gate, son? Jonestown?

These are facts.

_________

Misinformation is a punk ass poser pretending to be moo-information #1

1 City Source State News Reals 1999 Pub.
2 Unbuckle Mushu News Ourly 2019 Chem.
3 Unlichenly Comorbidity News Daily 4x4 .mime
#27:

> [ This space was warned repeatedly to remain blank
>
> ]
> ____
> #4 what_game_is_this says "I'm not arguing with this post" In fact you are arguing with this post
>

Thank you for taking an interest in my posts, specifically #14.

Whether or not I'm arguing something isn't very important. It doesn't change anything in #14.

You (anyone) is very welcome to discuss this as it increases both interest and visibility of this thread.

---

> what_game_is_this says "I try to inform"
> In fact you do not

I don't? I think the links I provided in #14 have a lot of information.

You (anyone) is very welcome to discuss this as it increases both interest and visibility of this thread.

---

> what_game_is_this says "I believe the links i suggest are informative. "
> In fact you believe there could be information yet informativeness is subjective

What is subjective information? How does that apply to #14?

You (anyone) is very welcome to discuss this as it increases both interest and visibility of this thread.

---

> what_game_is_this says "People may draw their own conclusions."
> While there is no evidence of people making an informed decision at any time through histoy, others were even less lucky: Have you heard of Heaven's Gate, son? Jonestown?
>

I agree that people does a lot of uninformed decisions. That is why I started this thread. To try to make people more informed. Post #14 is particularly interesting here.

---

> These are facts.
>
> _________
>
> Misinformation is a punk ass poser pretending to be moo-information #1
>
> 1 City Source State News Reals 1999 Pub.
> 2 Unbuckle Mushu News Ourly 2019 Chem.
> 3 Unlichenly Comorbidity News Daily 4x4 .mime

---

Did I mention post #14?
i think a big problem are deliberate and intentional, mean, criminal even, disinformations for a purpose like propaganda or for elections or for economic purposes, a whole lot commercials disguised as "information about the product" ...

... simply l i e s .

you don't have to and shouldn't consume this kind of bad, wrong, corrupt, marode, even dangerous sort of media.

there's reliable sources instead, well-balanced, documentaries, ... in case - when you're not into sth too much in deep - you can find worthy '[this 'n that] for kids', or '(wikipedia) in simple english', or 'explain like i'm 5' on reddit.com.

or once and for all learn to tell such manipulating lies from the or any truth there might be behind them undisguised!
... you'll get an eye, a sixth sense for what is rubbish and be able to like tell it already from a title of a piece of news or from its unreliable source, or from its appearance like blunt like scratch.
If I knew how to give a post a standing ovation, I'd stand and clap for #3 by @NaturalBornTraveller. The best I could do was to give the post a heart emoji -- which is a bit like a standing ovation.

Too often, when we ask careful, indeed Socratic, questions, or ask to be provided with an appropriate, persuasive quotation supporting somebody else's argument, we are not given an answer or anything specific and helpful, but are given, instead, a cursory sentence or two and then:

A link!

Or a host of links!

It's like asking for help on a math problem, and having the person requested -- who perhaps doesn't want to admit that he or she can't work it EITHER -- wave toward a math book -- or toward a shelf of math books -- and say

"behold the answer! It's in the book(s)!"

without even indicating a chapter, let alone a page number.

I've encountered this so many times on the internet, especially lately, that I've become hoarse from laughing.

If somebody can't say something persuasively, in their OWN WORDS, perhaps with the help (from time to time) of accurate, STATED quotations, they are likely to persuade me of only one thing:

that they can't really defend what they want passionately to believe, yet they want to say SOMETHING lest anyone think that their contentions can't really be supported!

Furthermore, I'm not eager to click on random "links" posted on an internet forum. It's a bit like asking me to drink from a community glass. It might work out fine, but it ... might not.

Using a link merely to show the source of an accurate, TYPED quotation doesn't require me to wonder if a link is savory.

In summary: it's more persuasive (and sanitary!) to argue using your OWN WORDS instead of throwing out a blizzard of links and pretending that it's a real response.

None of this post is meant as a rebuke to the original poster, by the way -- that poster wasn't trying to argue or respond to anything, so what I say about the use of links in argument doesn't really apply to him (or her).