• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Misinformation and RF

F1fan

Veteran Member
It's always good to back up your claims with sources. However, that doesn't mean the sources you use aren't spreading incorrect information themselves.
This, exactly.

An ex girlfriend went down the Qanon nonsense and she would cite all sorts of sources, but they too were nonsense. The thing about being a skilled thinker is recognizing valid sources, and good assertions from nonsense. These disinformation websites and youtubers are very skilled at manipulation and telling their targets what they want to hear. All they need to do is get their targets hooked on one idea. Then they are seen as credible.
 

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Good question. That's something worth pondering.

Any documentary covering conspiracy theories is walking a fine line between presenting facts and presenting incorrect information. It's hard to make a definitive assessment here but I would say it comes down to whether they're presenting the conspiracy theory as something people believe or if they're presenting it as a valid alternative.

Saying, "This is what some people believe and these are the reasons why" is fair enough. Adding, "And maybe they're right" strays into misinformation.
Agree, also I think the viewer has to apply some brain as well :D

I wouldn't say that a phrase like "And maybe they're right" counts as misinformation as much as an open question.

A good example of misinformation could be when someone during the covid said that 5G spread covid or what they said or in politics in general when they spread rumors about each other and only 50% of what is said is true or manipulated.

Putin telling the Russian people a lot of false things about what is going on in Ukraine and calling them Nazis etc.

So there is a lot of misinformation going on, not only from random documentary makers or YouTubers.
 

Daemon Sophic

Avatar in flux
I think that misinformation is more than just incorrect information. I think it is intentionally incorrect or negligently conveyed information.

having sources certainly does not preclude something from being misinformation. People can cherry pick sources, they can lie about sources, they can intentionally misrepresent sources, and they can parrot other sources with little to no fact checking.

I think mainstream media sources can be guilty of disseminating misinformation, and I think non-mainstream media can be guilty of disseminating misinformation.

I think that individual or small groups are more likely to lose their platform on social media websites or be punished by search algorithms, because there is little to no other oversight other than that.
Misinformation is by definition incorrect information. That doesn't mean it's a deliberate attempt to deceive (that would be disinformation) and it's perfectly possible for an honest mistake to spread rapidly. News sources can certainly spread misinformation or disinformation no matter how big they are.




That's a fairly common tactic used in spreading conspiracy theories. Make more reliable news sources a part of the conspiracy and you can make your own theories untouchable. If you get removed from Youtube or social media, it confirms what you've been saying all along.




It's always good to back up your claims with sources. However, that doesn't mean the sources you use aren't spreading incorrect information themselves.




I try to run news sources by Media Bias / Fact Check. It labels The Corbett Report as a conspiracy website:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-corbett-report/

Media Bias / Fact Check is by no means perfect, particularly in its assessment of left/right bias. I've found that it's overwhelmingly Americacentric which skews its evaluation of non-American news sources.

It's generally pretty good for determining how reliable a source is though.
OK folks! It looks like we have two winners here. Which means that this thread is officially OVER!! :cool::cool: :smilecat:

I’d like to thank all the contestants, as well as everyone else who came out to watch!
:hugehug:

Goodnight everybody!

.











.


 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Disinformation; consciously lying, can be used to cause others to unknowingly spread misinformation. Some people will read disinformation, think it makes sense, and then spread it thinking it to be true. Now it becomes misinformation.

Things started to go from bad to worse in about 2015, during the buildup leading to the two USA Presidential Primaries. If you recall, Trump was originality a darling of the main stream and Leftist media, during the Republican Primaries. Nobody thought Trump could or would win, so the Democrat party and their media allies thought they would support Trump, so he could bloody up the top GOP candidates; Jeb Bush and others, going into the general election. Trump had made his fortune in NYC, which was a Democrat stronghold. He was a large donor, so the benefit of the doubt initially applied to him.

When Trump went on to win the Republican nomination, through the Democratic process of voting, the liberal media turned on him. There was no longer any benefit of the doubt. He was now the enemy and the first round of mostly misinformation began; gossip scandals based on he said and she said.

What made things go from bad to worse were the results of the Democrat Primaries. If you recall Bernie Sanders was more dynamic and started to take the lead over Hillary. He was going to be the popular choice in the Democratic voting process. But the game was rigged for Hillary, using the super delegate scam, allowing Hillary to steal the nomination from Bernie. It was ironic that Hillary would complain about winning the popular vote in 2016, while herself using a gimmick to cheat Bernie in the popular vote. The two faced shift to disinformation appears.

Everyone on both sides of the political isle saw the rigged Hillary nomination, and to prevent this from dividing the Democrat party, the Democrats needed a worse bogeyman; Trump, that would be hated more by Bernie voters than they would hate Hillary. She needed Bernie voter enthusiasm.

This is when the Russian Collusion Coup disinformation campaign was in the works, with FBI spying on the Trump campaign, based on what would be proven was a lie. This disinformation was effective in taking the blame for the steal away from Hillary, since the Democrat base swallowed the lie willingly, and passed it on as misinformation that was thought to be true due not the nearly full media disinformation cooperation. After that, it has become the main way for the media and political parties to attack each other.

When Mueller could not blame Trump for Collusion, this disinformation campaign behind the Coup, went silent, but with no apology. This lack of apology, is how you can tell disinformation from misinformation. People will accept being wrong, but a deliberate con artist can never admit anything.

Instead the same con artists started a new disinformation campaign to cover up the Biden family quid pro quo dealings with Ukraine; Russian and China. They blamed Trump. This led to two impeachments where due process was not allowed. This is another tell for disinformation. Misinformation will try to debate and convince, due to a sincere belief the misinformation is true. Disinformation needs to control the information, or else it can be neutralized.

This is why it is important we do a system restore by going back to the last time things were were more friendly and sportsmen like; 2015. This may require exposing those who still head the disinformation campaigns designed to result in misinformation and unintentional division on a wide social scale.

There is symbolism in Revelation of the whore of Babylon riding a scarlet beast. The beast will turn against the whore and burn her with fire. The whore is disinformation for money and power, while the scarlet beast is activism of the misunderstood pool of misinformation thought to be true; scarlet letter. Those who believed the disinformation and were led astray, who unknowingly passed misinformation, will go after the whore so we can get back to normal; sports instead of war.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

Misinformation is sometimes lying, plain and simple. Misinformation also applies to some ideas that are wrong but the promoter does not know it. So, misinformation equals lying + innocent errors.
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
I try to run news sources by Media Bias / Fact Check. It labels The Corbett Report as a conspiracy website:

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-corbett-report/

Media Bias / Fact Check is by no means perfect, particularly in its assessment of left/right bias. I've found that it's overwhelmingly Americacentric which skews its evaluation of non-American news sources.

It's generally pretty good for determining how reliable a source is though.
I implore you to watch James Corbett’s report on these fact checkers.
Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers? - The Corbett Report
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Little experiment I want to try on the topic of misinformation here on RF.

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”.

That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources
.

I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation
No, I don't

That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources.
This sums it pretty much up how I see it also
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I implore you to watch James Corbett’s report on these fact checkers.
Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers? - The Corbett Report
The song of the defeated bull****er who's mad he got found out and called out.
(lots of people fact check the fact checkers. True story, its fast enough I cited an article saying Chaco Tacos were discontinued false, but as I was typing information changed, it was revealed ti be a definite thing, and though when I pasted the link it said the claim was false when I posted the reply it was updated to a true claim).
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Others call Buddhism nonsense

Some Atheists call Theism nonsense

Why calling others their belief nonsense?
Seriously? Are you defending Qanon as a factual and reliable source for information? It isn’t. The believers are literally citing nonsense. They offer no factual explanations for what they believe. Their conspiracy theories are nonsense.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?
I rather decide for myself which parts of documentaries are useful and which parts not
I rather don't have Big Tech decide that for me...censorship is dangerous
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?
I saw a movie today titled
"The real Anthony Fauci"
Some good info was given, that I keep
But mainstream media condemns it all as conspiracy...it is censored and deleted

That in itself I call the real conspiracy; and there is too much of this nowadays

I rather decide for myself what to read
I do not need Big Tech to decide for me; they are too sick themselves
 
Last edited:

Erebus

Well-Known Member

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Little experiment I want to try on the topic of misinformation here on RF.

From my perspective, “misinformation” is a term that has recently become a mainstream designation for “incorrect information”. That is to say information that is not parroted by the mainstream media sources. I’m sure you guys have a different opinion on misinformation.

Misinformation : false or inaccurate information, which may or may not be deliberately constructed to mislead. Whether it's "mainstream" or not is hardly the point.

A valuable independent media source I follow was on YouTube when I found him in my teens. He kept warning that eventually he and other like sources would be labeled as “misinformation” and removed from mainstream services. I doubted him, and for several years I watched him on YouTube. But then all at once “misinformation” was mainstream news and they were removed.

This particular YouTuber sources all of his information and claims. It what makes him so valuable. So I’m going to post a link to transcript and video of one of his documentaries, and I’m curious if RF will remove this thread on account of “misinformation”. YouTube found it fitting to do so, and i know you guys don’t want misinformation floating around.

RF isn't YouTube.

but here’s the thing. Everything is sourced. The claims are sourced. The claims are simply not mainstream. But they are documented claims. So, RF, what do you do?

You're daring a community? Weird. Things being 'sourced', incidentally, speak more to traceability than accuracy. I could source an article on any half-*** idea you'd care to name, no problem at all. I could even make it look pretty credible. It's actually not that hard.

How & Why Big Oil Conquered The World - The Corbett Report
Long story short, the documentary talks about how the Rockefellers are eugenicists who run the show. Better I post where I get my information from than make baseless claims, yes? And mr. Corbett here is nice enough to provide evidence for his claims.


@Estro Felino i think you would find these particular documentaries and news source interesting.

This is surprising to you?
 

an anarchist

Your local anarchist.
I'm not going to do that as I honestly don't see the point.
From my perspective, it seems you are being willfully ignorant. You aren’t even willing to look at an alternate opinion on these fact checkers.

The video raises good points and information about these fact checkers. If I were to summarize the points for you in a couple short paragraphs, would you then at least look at an opposing opinion? I don’t want to waste my time on you if you won’t even bother doing that.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
From my perspective, it seems you are being willfully ignorant. You aren’t even willing to look at an alternate opinion on these fact checkers.

The video raises good points and information about these fact checkers. If I were to summarize the points for you in a couple short paragraphs, would you then at least look at an opposing opinion? I don’t want to waste my time on you if you won’t even bother doing that.

I suspected you might feel that way. I have nothing against you personally but I find these topics exhausting. The podcast you shared was just under an hour long but I guarantee it would have taken me several more hours to check and cross-reference any points brought up.

If you'd like to share a couple of what you feel are the most important points, I'm happy to read them. Just keep in mind that I'm already prepared for what I described in my previous post. If you instead feel that doing so is a waste of your time, I won't be offended.
 
Top