Gregs24
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2018
- Threads
- 23
- Messages
- 4,532
- Reaction score
- 2,845
- Location
- Wiltshire UK & Charente FR
- First Name
- Greg
- Vehicle(s)
- Mustang V8 GT, Ford Kuga PHEV
I think that is a perfect example - using part of the information in a way that is designed to give a different impression. If you use part of the information to support your view, but ignore the other part which qualifies it then you are just lying to yourself anyway. It's a bit like saying we scored 2 goals today and are winners, but ignoring that the other side scored 3, so you lost.Honestly, I never understood the fascination people seem to have with Twitter. At the end of the day, it’s now his platform and I have no objections to him running it however he sees fit. It’s not like the people who rely on it for credible info are going to do any actual research anyway. If they can’t get their favourite conspiracy theories published there, they’ll simply keep searching until they find it.
If it succeeds, fine. If it fails? Also fine.
The harder part is determining what actually constitutes ”misinformation”….
For example:
It‘s been claimed that the covid vaccines seem to increase the risk of myo/pericarditis in males of certain age groups.
Based on the studies done so far, that appears to be (at least mostly) true. BUT, it fails to mention that the risk of these issues is MUCH higher as a result of infection in the absence of vaccination and that the actual seriousness of the condition is far greater in unvaccinated individuals.
Misinformation or simple omission of facts? To me it’s the former, but I’m sure others will just want to hear the first part and ignore the second part because it allows them to continue believing what they already believe, whilst also “propping up” those beliefs.
Sponsored