A new misinformation quiz shows that, despite the stereotype, younger Americans have a harder time discerning fake headlines, compared with older generations

  • PaintedSnail@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think that’s the point. If you looked at a headline for something you already know about, then you already know if it bogus or not. If you already know how reliable the source is, then your exposure to risk of accepting bad information is reduced. The point is to see if you are susceptible to new information that is bogus, and if you can recognize when a source you haven’t seen before is unreliable.

    • Mane25@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But I wouldn’t believe or reject any of them based on the headline alone, the true answer for most of them is “I don’t know / can’t know”. They all sound equally plausible to someone with no knowledge of the topic.

        • Mane25@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I gave up when I realised the test was meaningless. There are a few I could tell were almost definitely false based on existing knowledge, but the rest would be 50/50 choices.

      • punkskunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the intent is for us to judge what would be “reasonable” or “likely”, rather than having specific knowledge of the headline.

        “Tornado rearranges DC highway into giant peace sign” could happen, theoretically, but it’s very unlikely to.

        “Government appoints new head of some environmental division”? Sure, that happens all the time and is pretty mundane.

        • Mane25@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Tornado rearranges DC highway into giant peace sign” could happen, theoretically, but it’s very unlikely to.

          That would be an example where I can apply my existing knowledge, I know enough about tornados, highways, and peace signs to know that’s statistically improbable.

          Whereas “Government appoints new head of some environmental division” I don’t know, sounds perfectly reasonable and plausible, but I couldn’t possibly say. In real life I could reason that a newspaper would have no reason to make up something so mundane (that’s why context is important), but knowing this is a test with fake answers makes it random chance.