Slashdot Mirror
Study: Most Students Can't Spot Fake News (engadget.com)
Even those who think that the U.S. Presidential election wasn't affected by the swath of fake news articles swirling on Facebook and other social media networks, they tend to agree that there is a lot of misinformation on the web. At Slashdot, it's hard to say that anyone here will not be able to tell fake news from a real one. But what about kids? How is our future generation doing? Not so well, apparently. An anonymous reader shares an Engadget report:A Stanford study of 7,804 middle school, high school and college students has found that most of them couldn't identify fake news on their own. Their susceptibility varied with age, but even a large number of the older students fell prey to bogus reports. Over two-thirds of middle school kids didn't see why they shouldn't trust a bank executive's post claiming that young adults need financial help, while nearly 40 percent of high schoolers didn't question the link between an unsourced photo and the claims attached to it. Why did many of the students misjudge the authenticity of a story? They were fixated on the appearance of legitimacy, rather than the quality of information. A large photo or a lot of detail was enough to make a Twitter post seem credible, even if the actual content was incomplete or wrong. There are plenty of adults who respond this way, we'd add, but students are more vulnerable than most.
Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.
But that might lead to critical thinking.
"His name was James Damore."
Ignorance and confidence, that's always a winning combination.
Sadly, it seems to be one lately.
That's the point. Teach logic to preschoolers, I say.
Good luck with that. There are kids in their 20s in college who can't budget, can't cook, and if it isn't on Facebook it doesn't exist. There are adults high school (drop-outs) who have never applied for even a part-time job and as a result are too afraid of rejection to give it a try (real special snowflakes) They drop out of government-paid trade schools that give them an extra stipend, and they can't budget either, which is why they get iPhones and home internet on a $150 a month plan as soon as their check comes, go to concerts at $200 a pop, eat out with their friends, and then wonder why they have no money for food or rent.
You don't need to teach them critical thinking - you need to teach them basic thinking. Cause and effect, such as "you spend money on sh*t you want, you won't have money for sh*t you need.".
Last week I had the displeasure to watch one second-year college student who works as a cook in a burger franchise screw up making grilled cheese.
Q: How the hell do you screw up making a grilled cheese sandwich?
They don't have basic life skills and you expect to teach them logic? Sheldon says (and Mr Spock agrees) that is illogical. And we have a new generation of teachers who don't know much either, because they were also special snowflakes. They teach from the book because, like the burger cook, they can't do it if it isn't laid out step by step.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is it is hard to validate their authenticity" - Abraham Lincoln
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...
This election is the first time in my life I've taken the trouble to dig down past the news reporting into the facts that were reported.
This almost looks orchestrated.
Right now we're seeing the first rumblings of a landslide change in the way news is reported. We're starting by building up a problem in the minds of the readership, being "fake news sites". (Note that it's fake *sites*, not fake *stories*.)
This will go on for awhile until most of the readership simply accepts that "fake news sites" is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Then we'll see sites rolling out their "fixes" to the problems.
Google is pulling ad revenue from sites deemed to be "fake news", under the rule that they are not "advertiser friendly". Expect many ambiguous rules and discretionary enforcement to be implemented. For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.
I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.
Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.
The difference is between *what* gets reported, versus the *style* of reporting. Sites can be left-leaning or right-leaning, but the text shouldn't be obviously dismissive, judgemental, opinionated drivel. Readers shouldn't be told what to think - they should make up their own minds.
So look to the future, where *sites* (not articles) can't be found in search engines, can't get ad revenue, and have to live in the shadows,
Oh, and here's a list of famous fake news articles published by the MSM in recent years.
Also note that the "fake news" scare originally started from a professor creating a list of "fake news" websites was itself fake!. The list has since been taken down, but the term "fake news site" that it coined will be with us for awhile.
The “fake news” freakout: The story about a professor creating an authoritative list of “fake news” websites, as widely reported across the mainstream media, was itself a fake news story. The creator of the list was a madcap left-wing activist who compiled it on a whim, not through any sort of rigorously-vetted academic process. When the list of fake news sites came under sustained criticism, it was removed from the Internet, long after generating a raft of stories on top news websites and TV shows.
As with many of the other stories above, the fake-news-site list received huge MSM coverage because it dovetailed with a Democrat political initiative – President Obama is personally involved – and it flattered both the ideological preferences and business interests of Big Media.
People who followed the Clintons during the 90s - when Trump was one of their fanbois - know all the things that you pretend don't exist. The Rose Law Firm, Hilary's Cattle Futures, Whitewater, her attempt to take over US healthcare, et al. Those were done fully utilizing the fact that her husband ran things. Then after Bill's term ended, Hilary became a senator, a role in which she achieved squat, then ran for president and thankfully got pummelled by Obama. Then became Secretary of State and managed to totally mismanage the Arab Spring crises that followed, as well as violating government rules on handling government information. Crimes that sent other people to jail.
Quit being a shill for her. The Dems could have won this election had they played fair and let Bernie beat her. I actually disagree w/ Bernie on most things, but I'll say this for him: he drew bigger crowds than Trump, and had he been the nominee, any GOP candidate - be it Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich,... would have lost in a landslide. Similar to Obama's win over Romney
I had an amazing teacher in middle school. He'd teach us exactly that--how to spot propaganda, false advertising claims, etc. It was probably the best set of lessons I ever learned because now I'm impervious to all the crap.
Of course, if he was teaching today they'd try to brand him as a communist or a "leftist" (whatever that means) ...
Actually he would alternately be branded a communist/leftist and a racist/misogynist/[something]-phobe depending on whose propaganda was being scrutinized.
:-)
There, I reject your implication that it is only the right offering false claims.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
Great quote, but it has more impact if you cite your source: Socrates, 469-399 BC.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.