The majority of “misinformation” I’ve seen (entirely on reddit) isn’t straight up lies. It’s more like reposting an old article on a current topic or leaving out information.
When Harvard announced remote class plans, Reddit had a front page article on r/all about it - but it was an article that was a month old about their old plan.
It would be so easy for people to read that title (old info), have their friend ask if they saw the news about Harvard, and then have basically been manipulated by misinformation.
Well, that's a bit broad interpretation of 'manipulated'.
If someone legitimately didn't know that there was more recent information, and made that post, it would be reasonable to post the more up to date info in whatever way makes it most helpful.
Any information you get from anywhere but your own senses needs to be checked in proportion to its timeliness, relevance, sources, bias, all the usual.
It's only that the current Internet speed has so much potentially coming at you that makes it a more complicated triage plan.
> The majority of “misinformation” I’ve seen (entirely on reddit) isn’t straight up lies. It’s more like reposting an old article on a current topic or leaving out information.
IIRC, that's a key tactic for spreading disinformation. It's most disruptive when it contains 1% truth and 99% lies than when it's 100% lies.
Take PizzaGate for instance: the pizza parlor in question exists, has a lot of connections to various politicians, and was directly talked about in the leaked Podesta emails. Those facts add a little bit of believability that makes it easier to suck people into the big lie.
When Harvard announced remote class plans, Reddit had a front page article on r/all about it - but it was an article that was a month old about their old plan.
It would be so easy for people to read that title (old info), have their friend ask if they saw the news about Harvard, and then have basically been manipulated by misinformation.