Billynoneck wrote on 01/08/22 at 18:11:02:


And you fit right in! Welcome, I’ll order a beer for you. What are you having? Wait, let me guess. A citrus flavored craft IPA brewed by a carbon neutral, environmentally friendly, local brewer with full profit sharing for his employees and a rescue dog that roams the plant that this batch was named after.

Eegore wrote on 01/09/22 at 02:17:23:

WOW, and you think, 'Red Car/Bank Robbery',
Is  bad ?????

Billynoneck wrote on 01/09/22 at 02:34:47:

100%

MnSpring wrote on 01/09/22 at 10:03:27:



Yes my position is I have no intent in trying to have a discussion with someone that is so blinded by their views and what they have been told to be true that they refuse to listen to any other views.

I'm just trying to point out some base facts that apparently most don't understand or want to understand

Coopers Extra Stout.

"I do wonder how much the internet is to blame with a lot of the older folks not understanding how algorithms work and not understanding just how easy it is to fall into a complete echo chamber online and just not notice"

 There is a ton of information regarding this.  Attributed primarily to the Digital Literacy Gap.

 One thing is that we can see almost every "like" "share" copy/paste etc. of almost every action on the internet so it gets easier to tell who is accepting the most information.

 Averaging out the last 5 years of data regarding shares, likes etc. and things like copy/paste to forums like this the average age for accepting and sharing blatantly false information is 62.  By blatantly false I mean information that is admitted and shown to be false by the people that fabricated it.

 The latest whistleblower content proved 12 people are responsible for 73% of all anti-vaccine content on Facebook.  Again, 73% of vaccine content will be posted by these people using AI spambot tech to fabricate "information".  Logistic and count components of negative binomial logit hurdle predicting counter-media content sharing on Facebook indicates millions and millions of data-points showing this.  Of course most false content news-based were shared by Title of the content and not by clicking the actual link.

 Talking to my younger cousins, and looking at meta-data it is pretty clear most people, 30 or younger tend to not believe most everything online, or at least more skeptical of the things they see.  In my cousins case they, just for fun, make up posts, create websites and fill them with completely untrue garbage to get people riled up.  It's their version of egging a house.  Most people 30 and up just outgrow this.


"older users skewed the findings: 11 percent of users older than 65 shared a hoax, while just 3 percent of users 18 to 29 did. Facebook users ages 65 and older shared more than twice as many fake news articles than the next-oldest age group of 45 to 65, and nearly seven times as many fake news articles as the youngest age group (18 to 29).

https://www.statista.com/topics/3251/fake-news/#dossierKeyfigures

https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/9/18174631/old-people-fake-news-facebook-shar...


 There are of course outliers, such as SARS information where the demographic is reversed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/technology/young-people-more-likely-to-bel...

Would that POV, depend on,
a Political position ?


 Not in my experience.  We have had this discussion multiple times already.

 When we had to get signatures to recall politicians that imposed gun-control measures we learned the Red Car style analogies didn't get signatures.  Most people (People being humans we interacted with specific to gun-control measures) responded to different strategies as they simply thought banning Red Cars was just a ploy to make things sound worse than they are.

 "Red cars aren't designed to kill people" is the general response, and the other most common was "Get to the point".  This was because nobody can relate to banning Red Cars.  It's just something everybody knows will not happen.  So my "poor argument" response is based on altering the viewpoint of people and only that with the exclusion of all other statements, assessments, opinions etc. of any kind.

 Just on that one thing - changing minds - in exclusivity, it is a poor argument.

 However this most likely won't sink in and we will still go over how I think the Red Car analogy is a poor argument for every type of gun control topic ever, instead of just accepting I mean it only if you want to change the general public's mind on any specific gun control measure.