Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Just reading the headlines is not a new issue and really in itself it's not an issue. Particularly in the internet age, no one can read every story in full. There just isn't time.

I recall way back in highschool journalism class, the headline was supposed to grab the readers attention...where things have gone off the rails, is it's not supposed to be misleading or salacious.

It was well understood even back then that most readers won't read every story through to the end. To address this, there was a clear priority in writing "news" stories.
- Headline should give the reader an idea of what the story is about. (so they can decide if they want to read on)
- 1st Paragraph should give the who, what, where, and when. (so they have a basic understanding if they don't have time or inclination to read it all)
- Main body gives the details. (If they are interested, they can get details)
- Anything new at the end of the story should be purely tertiary material (items that are not critical to the story but provide completeness).

Often today, it's flipped.
- Headline: So salacious and wildly misleading, you must read on.
- 1st Paragraph: Give a little more detail on the salacious and misleading aspects to draw you in.
- Main Body: Go on about the salacious and misleading aspects. Often after the first couple paragraphs, it becomes incoherent and poorly written discouraging the reader to continue reading.
- Very End: Inserts a short statement of the facts and a small backpedal on the salacious and misleading info so as not to be liable for false reporting, slander, etc...

Cut to the chase--"When it Bleeds it Leads"

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Both sides lie wildly in Climate Change debate.

This is a lie.

Originally Posted by geoleo

For example /"Sea Level rise" to hear the leftist mantra we will be deluged in 12 years.

This is another lie.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by boatman61

So... What has any of this to do with sailing.. its just Mud People crap.

Sailing will be illegal because of climate changie..its obvious!

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is a lie.




This is another lie.

Then refute it with contrary facts or shut.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Of course, it's not one side is educated and logical and the other side are stupid knuckle draggers as so many on one side like to portray their enemies.

There's a lot of dunner kruger effect among the so called "educated". They think they are immune to blindly following the talking heads...while blindly following the talking heads.

Go read 1984, amazing how many people practice textbook "double think".

Plus "group think".

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Westcliffe01

So long as powerful groups work to shut down debate of any kind and resort to name calling - sensible people will be skeptical. The skeptics have not been wrong yet, none of the dire predictions have yet come true. The only thing that is changing is humans expanding their presence in storm and flood prone areas previous deemed unfit for habitation (due to greedy planners who have nothing to lose). Then being "surprised" when a hurricane wipes them out...

Apparently people need to be protected from Darwins law by the government now... As John Wayne said, "life's hard, but its much harder if you are stupid".

Just who are these "greedy Planners"?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by geoleo

Then refute it with contrary facts or shut.

Contrary facts would require that you actually present facts. All you've done is state an untruth with zero facts.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There was a lovely segment from John Oliver I believe, where he first introduced 3 scientists who were skeptical that humans caused climate change. Then he introduced Bill Nye... and 96 other scientists, to show the true landscape of the climate change debate amongst the experts. (ok they were mostly actors on both sides, but the point made is that there ISN'T really much debate amongst the experts about humans causing climate change). So watching a TV discussion with one person for and one person against is itself an overrepresentation of the actual skepticism of the subject matter experts.

The assertion that there is more of a debate, that it's not close to settled amongst the experts... is misinformation; it's unquestionable dogma from the denier* side that the question is still up in the air.

You know very well where the "it's not settled!" messaging comes from, and it's not the scientists. Yet you treat it as unquestionable... aka dogma.

*I apologize for saying "denier". A newer and more accurate word has been coined: "inactivist". This new word more accurately conveys that the point of not accepting the reality of climate change is so that no significant action is taken, no changes made. No carbon tax, no cap and trade, no end to fossil fuel subsidies or SUV/pickup emissions loopholes, no curb on single-use plastics, no major cleanup of abandoned mines and wells... nothing.

......and no forbidding leftist green new deal and climate changer alarmists flying around the world by themselves in their private jets polluting like hell
. Seems they are the huge hypocrits of all time. Something like a preacher going in a whorehouse ,worse!.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Contrary facts would require that you actually present facts. All you've done is state an untruth with zero facts.

My fact is that the USA Governments NOAA states that sea rise along USA coasts has risen 5 3/4 inches in the past 100 years from 1919 to 2019. You say it is an untruth - I say it is a fact. So here is your opportunity to shine fella. YOU STATE YOUR FACT REFUTING MY FACT ---OR SHUT lolol

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

This is a lie.




This is another lie.

That's the thing with the New Woke Fanatic.. anything contrary to the mantra is a lie..
Give me a Born Again Christian any day..

Global sea level rise began around the start of the 20th century. Between 1900 and 2016, the globally averaged sea level rose by 16–21 cm.

[geoleo]

My simple minded observation is that most people adopt their political narratives. They adopt those themes and narratives that are fed to them by primarily the media. They do not think for themselves as that is too hard. So we have an increasing mass of simple mined lazy people who follow group think. This will not end well.

[Westcliffe01]

Property tax hungry local governments. The best and most suitable land has been occupied for decades.

Originally Posted by geoleo

Just who are these "greedy Planners"?

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by boatman61

That's the thing with the New Woke Fanatic.. anything contrary to the mantra is a lie..
Give me a Born Again Christian any day..

Global sea level rise began around the start of the 20th century. Between 1900 and 2016, the globally averaged sea level rose by 16–21 cm.

Thats very close to my 5 3/4 inches for USA. Mike Rally may say its a lie.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Westcliffe01

Property tax hungry local governments. The best and most suitable land has been occupied for decades.

So shuold these people who need land to live on immigrate to Asia?

[HeinSdL]

Definitely polarized, the 'debate' on climate change, in line with many other public discussions. But over time the facts will bear out and either the climate will not change, or it will change a bit but won't threaten the human race in a material way, or it will turn out to be so bad that mankind will indeed face an existential threat.

Based on what I observe, hear and read, I am very much in the 'existential threat' camp and would like mankind to take action. If later I turn out to be incorrect in my view I will apologise profusely but we would end up in a world in which we took siginificant steps to move away from CO2 emissions, dumped no more plastic at will, halted soil erosion and restored a degree of bio diversity.

If however I was in the 'it will be alright' camp I would feel rather uncomfortable with the small doubt that I might be wrong in my view. Sorry at a later stage would no longer cut it as we come to the undeniable conclusion that indeed the existential threat has become reality. So I would still want to see action being taken, I might after all be wrong.

Regardless, if indeed I was in the 'it will be alright' camp, I certainly would not get too angry about what others are doing to fight climate change as in effect almost nothing is being done. Politicians are mainly making promises but doing nothing. I sometimes wish I was in this camp myself, it would make my life easier.