Storms Helene and Milton have triggered rise of misinformation stoked by Trump and fellow Republicans
Meteorologists tracking the advance of Hurricane Milton have been targeted by a deluge of conspiracy theories that they were controlling the weather, abuse and even death threats, amid what they say is an unprecedented surge in misinformation as two major hurricanes have hit the US.
A series of falsehoods and threats have swirled in the two weeks since Hurricane Helene tore through six states causing several hundred deaths, followed by Milton crashing into Florida on Wednesday.
The extent of the misinformation, which has been stoked by Donald Trump and his followers, has been such that it has stymied the ability to help hurricane-hit communities, according to the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema).
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
The gutting of the educational system is part of the far right extremism you’re describing: This is a systematic effort.
Being educated does not make you immune from propaganda (especially if your education was not quality in the first place) but giving everyone a quality education that teaches, among other things, critical thinking, absolutely does make people more resistant to disinformation.
From my experience, it seems to me that 99.9% of people commenting on the internet lack critical thinking. Looking at Reddit in particular, it’s the comments that are the most outlandish or “popular” and often having little or nothing to do with the story they’re commenting on that are risen to the top. No one cares about the actual news. They’re engaged with headlines and chit chat. If the story takes a turn, if it no longer “supports their narrative”, they turn tail and move on to the next thing to fume over.
We’re generally focused on the maga crowd in the context of this story but the truth is that we are all subject to and fooled by misleading content. And when you, as an actual intelligent person with actual critical thinking skills, or just someone who read the article, tries to call attention to the fact that a headline is misleading or outright wrong, you get downvoted. So, why is that the case?
Also, fwiw, I have a shitty education, I’m not very smart, but I believe I have better critical thinking skills than the majority of people.
A perfect example of this is that recent claim that Geico stopped providing insurance for the Tesla “Cybertruck.” Tons of people, including many here on Lemmy, were quick to believe and share this story. A handful of users pointed out that the source couldn’t be verified, but those comments were drowned out by all the “Ha, take that, Musk!” comments.
It just goes to show that everyone is vulnerable to misinformation. If we want to claim to be well-informed, we have to question everything - even (or especially) the stories that reinforce our existing beliefs.
Well, this is interesting. I did come across that story but wasn’t interested enough to question it. Other than the larger point you’re making, I couldn’t care less. However, reading the Snopes article, the only evidence to the contrary is “A Geico corporate spokesperson told Snopes via email that the company has “coverage available nationwide for the Tesla Cybertruck.”” which feels a little flimsy to me. It would be nice if they’d post something on their site or socials to confirm.
So some unknown person makes an unsubstantiated claim on Xitter. A recognized and mostly respected fact checker, Snopes, picks it up and contacts Geico where one of their agents denies it.
It’s abundantly clear the original claim was a fabrication, likely meant to feed the anti-elon crowd, so why are you assigning the same credibility to both sides? How does some unknown person on Xitter have anywhere close to the same credibility as both Snopes and Geico?
This is precisely what’s happening in the Conservative circles. They’re being presented with stories that are consistent with their world view so they don’t question it but they rarely see the retraction of a story that was dis-proven. If they do see the retraction they ignore or downplay it, often by requiring some higher standard of proof.
So much of the “news”, regardless of the topic, is a jenga tower of partial truths, misdirections, and outright lies.
Geico has not said anything publicly, one way or the other. I would generally lean towards believing Snopes but, with such little evidence other than “someone told us otherwise”, I could very easily see this being retracted. I mean, they could at least mention the name of the “corporate spokesperson”.
I think we should all be more skeptical of everything we read. It’s not at all rare for a reputable organization to retract a statement, as you’ve suggested yourself.
I wrote that comment on my lunch break at work and, of the immediate links that came up when I searched for a supporting article, Snopes was the most readily available and reliable source I had at hand. It’s a site with a long history of debunking claims via thorough research, and yes, they cite their sources. Just scroll to the bottom of the page and click “Sources.” It’s just above the author’s credit.
If you’ve found any evidence of Geico dropping coverage of all Cybertrucks (not just individual vehicles/owners, whom may be dropped for a myriad of reasons), I’m eager to hear it. In the meantime, enjoy checking any of these links that all say the same thing - that the author reached out to Geico, and Geico confirmed to them that they do cover the Cybertruck.
Of course, there’s always the option of just calling Geico for yourself. But debunking the same rumor over and over again is exhausting, and I feel bad for whoever is having to answer all these calls. At this point, Geico said their part. The burden of proof is now on those making the “dropping coverage” claim.
The beliefs we hold by analysing information may not be the actual state. The only thing a blank slate logical mind can do is that to think a bit, verify multiple sources and get to a conclusion. Multiple sources points to different views having some reasonable practicality. Blank Slate refers to a neutral unbiased mindset.
Reddit is infested with bots, especially on the larger subs. If things are at the top, it’s because someone paid for bots to get it there.
A lot of people posting online have multiple accounts (so you’re seeing the same person’s opinion over and over) or are bots. And a large amount of people are also literal teenagers, who can’t have much of a nuanced opinion because they don’t know much. If you really really want better discussion, you have to find small niche forums around your personal interests. One of my favorite forums to lurk is the Ray Peat forum (biochemistry), the users are likely mostly unique because they have to pay to have an account, and it’s noticeable how distinct everyone is. They also tend to argue a bit which is funny and interesting to me (“That’s not very Ray Peat of you”). I am convinced going back to old internet style individual forums is the best way to make sure you are speaking with real people.
Any larger social media like Twitter, Lemmy, etc, will be subject to more capitalism and advertising and spam, so yeah, you’ll feel frustrated and alone because it’s like you’re talking to an animatronic.
Unfortunately, I am not sure how to solve this with journalism and current events. There are likely journalists on Telegram and very secured channels networking, as well as more basic forums with news reporting. However, I’m not sure of any specifically that I could link.