Can you correct misinformation on the Web? Maybe not

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Can you correct misinformation on the Web? Maybe not


www.foxnews.com

Have you heard about the dentist who pulled all of her ex-boyfriend's teeth out in a fit of jealous rage? What about the "fact" that more women are the victims of domestic abuse on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year? How about the story about terrorists who have stolen thousands of dollars worth of UPS uniforms? (Like delivery people don't have enough problems already.)

Need I go on?

All these stories are false, but thanks in large part to the wonderful World Wide Web,
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
After reading this article, I immediately thought of ATS. Any of the three apps they mentioned would most likely crash and burn if you visited this site. The only concern I have is how they validate corrections. Just because someone says something is wrong doesn't make it wrong. Are they checking the facts from the fact checkers?

Something like this is just a step away from 1984. Sounds great in principal, but will it actually work the way its intended, or will a vocal minority start re-writing history for the rest of us?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I've always believed that the World Wide Web is the ultimate 'Anti-Christ' designed to mislead many. It's extremely easy for the people behind the curtains pulling the string to social engineer society through the use of World Wide Web. It's happening today and it will continue to happen, just take a look at Facebook for example, too many people caught up in their own illusion and ego.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   
There is no logical reason why none of those things happened, and no proof they did happen (that I know of).

However, I must say, these scumbags lusting over wanting to come whitewash opinions off the Net is really dangerous and scary.

I could care less about idiots posting falsehoods, but seeking some remedy to go around and erase or change things? That's psychopathic.

No surprise to me though, I know they want this power badly.

Instead I propose we just take everything with a grain of salt so to speak. Consider things but not really believe in them per se.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   


Prophecy: "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." Daniel 12:4


didn't the Piso family write this stuff and people still can't figure it out?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Sites like this spreading garbage as truth 24/7 really don't help.

You just have to decide for yourself what is true. And you will probably be wrong.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I found this interesting.


Some participants in the study did in fact adjust their beliefs to form more correct views when information was instantly highlighted, pointing out errors. However, a disturbing number of people rejected the corrections...In fact, they rejected the corrections even though they were told it was from a reputable, impartial source.

On the positive side, people were more receptive to the corrections when they were presented after some delay. When corrected information was presented 3 minutes after reading a story (a distracting task was introduced during that time), participants--which included ethnically and politically diverse members--were moderately more likely to adjust their views and form more accurate beliefs.


I see that frequently here on ATS. Some people will defend their beliefs in the face of verifiable information, not because they cannot understand it, but rather they haven't had enough time to hold onto their initial belief (they don't want to be told they are wrong on page 1). Unfortunately, attention spans often dwindle when time is introduced to the equation.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
I thought the only people who believed the things they've read on the net were either under the age of 13 or over 60.

Just sayin'
edit on 29-1-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Zarniwoop
 


That's a surprising result, and somewhat counter-intuitive, since it seems like the more time that passes, the more time you have to develop an affinity for a belief.

When I see a questionable story, especially one spread via e-mail chains, snopes.com seems to be a good place to check it out. While we can't trust them to be 100% accurate, they present the research they've already done and you can follow-up on that yourself to the degree you feel is warranted to confirm the truth.

They are usually right IMO, but they may have been wrong a few times.





top topics
 
5

log in

join