5 ms·

But they weren't asking about Reuter or Coca Cola, they were asking about screenshots on a mobile phone, correct? So they should've made the decision based on

But they weren't asking about Reuter or Coca Cola, they were asking about screenshots on a mobile phone, correct? So they should've made the decision based on the logo in the header? If they only look at the logo in the header, sure. But if they scanned the whole thing, they would've seen that Coca Cola is claiming to set a goal. Setting a goal is nothing, anyone can do it. There's no point in trying to doubt it. Reuters on the right is verifying Coca Cola on the left by claiming that Coca Cola indeed set this goal. But they are also making other claims, which make it potentially be false. But Coca Cola here is more credible because: 1. The facts are that Coca Cola is announcing a goal. It's the original source. 2. Reuters is reporting on the original source (potential for error), and then they are making additional claims which may or may not be right. "Coca Cola" being criticized. Who is doing that criticism, yada, yada. Reuters is making much stronger claims that are much more difficult to verify. Overall Coca Cola's screenshot by any logical measure is more reliable/credible here.

llamaimperative 2y ago
You are way, way overthinking this. The entire study is multiple results all pointing to kids not understanding how incentives distort content. > They did better at recognizing Google’s “sponsored” results as ads, but about 40% of teens said they thought it meant those results were popular or of high quality. Emphasis mine
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  It's both, these results are paid for, but also they are the ones most likely to receive the clicks aka most popular. Ad Rank = Max CPC Bid x Quality Score. You can pay, but still your ads won't be shown, while if you have good ads they will be clicked most at shown in front most frequently. They really should word these exercises better. Here 80% of the kids got it right, because both of those factors influence it. You need both.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    I suspect you don't spend much time around your average kid, do you?
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      I am a kid myself however.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        Right, and you're completely deluded about what this study is saying.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I think it's making the age old claim every generation makes that "the youth nowadays are ruined".
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        The correct rebuttal to that claim is not "they say that all the time!" but "the claim is untrue and here is why." That is what you attempted to do, so credit there, but you failed in that effort because fucking obviously the surveyed teens are not pointing to secondary or tertiary effects of micro-optimizations in ad auctioning algorithms when they say "Sponsored post means more trustworthy content!" Sometimes bad things do happen. Sometimes things get worse for people. You can't brush it all of by just saying, "well yeah they said bad things were happening before though and actually they're still pretty good." It totally is worth applying a bit of discount factor due to the effect you're pointing to, but that should not be even close to a 100% discount. The article isn't "making the claim that x," it's showing data.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I'll make more arguments: 1. The questions / answer options are flawed and there's multiple interpretations. 2. The study itself looks to have certain biases on what is right or wrong. Binary biases when life and World is much more complex than that. 3. The study based on the structure seems set out to prove the point they wanted to prove. 4. Many teenagers don't even care about the questions/answers or are edgy and will respond however they want without thought. And that's fine, that's normal for teenagers. 5. Countless of unfounded speculative statements based on those metrics. Here's one more example of the study that seems ridiculous to me: The highlighted conclusion: """More than 8 in 10 teens misjudge strength of U.S. press freedoms, compared with the 2024 Reporters Without Borders ranking""" The scoring method --- Notes: Results based on the 1,102 teens who responded to this question. Items may not sum exactly to 100% due to rounding. Rankings of 1-10 were categorized as "much stronger," rankings of 11-44 were categorized as "somewhat stronger," rankings of 45-65 were categorized as "close to/exactly," rankings of 66-100 were categorized as "somewhat weaker" and rankings of 101-180 were categorized as "much weaker." Source: SSRS survey for the News Literacy Project conducted online from May 17 - 28, 2024, with 1,110 teenagers ages 13-18 nationwide. --- Basically they had to pick US as the 45th to 65th out of all the countries in the World for press freedoms ranking. And if they didn't pick in that range, it's counted as "misjudging". That's ridiculous. Why did they pick this range specifically? It's ironic to me that this is a study on media literacy.

llamaimperative 2y ago

You are way, way overthinking this. The entire study is multiple results all pointing to kids not understanding how incentives distort content. > They did better at recognizing Google’s “sponsored” results as ads, but about 40% of teens said they thought it meant those results were popular or of high quality. Emphasis mine

mewpmewp2 2y ago
It's both, these results are paid for, but also they are the ones most likely to receive the clicks aka most popular. Ad Rank = Max CPC Bid x Quality Score. You can pay, but still your ads won't be shown, while if you have good ads they will be clicked most at shown in front most frequently. They really should word these exercises better. Here 80% of the kids got it right, because both of those factors influence it. You need both.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  I suspect you don't spend much time around your average kid, do you?
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    I am a kid myself however.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      Right, and you're completely deluded about what this study is saying.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I think it's making the age old claim every generation makes that "the youth nowadays are ruined".
        llamaimperative 2y ago
        The correct rebuttal to that claim is not "they say that all the time!" but "the claim is untrue and here is why." That is what you attempted to do, so credit there, but you failed in that effort because fucking obviously the surveyed teens are not pointing to secondary or tertiary effects of micro-optimizations in ad auctioning algorithms when they say "Sponsored post means more trustworthy content!" Sometimes bad things do happen. Sometimes things get worse for people. You can't brush it all of by just saying, "well yeah they said bad things were happening before though and actually they're still pretty good." It totally is worth applying a bit of discount factor due to the effect you're pointing to, but that should not be even close to a 100% discount. The article isn't "making the claim that x," it's showing data.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I'll make more arguments: 1. The questions / answer options are flawed and there's multiple interpretations. 2. The study itself looks to have certain biases on what is right or wrong. Binary biases when life and World is much more complex than that. 3. The study based on the structure seems set out to prove the point they wanted to prove. 4. Many teenagers don't even care about the questions/answers or are edgy and will respond however they want without thought. And that's fine, that's normal for teenagers. 5. Countless of unfounded speculative statements based on those metrics. Here's one more example of the study that seems ridiculous to me: The highlighted conclusion: """More than 8 in 10 teens misjudge strength of U.S. press freedoms, compared with the 2024 Reporters Without Borders ranking""" The scoring method --- Notes: Results based on the 1,102 teens who responded to this question. Items may not sum exactly to 100% due to rounding. Rankings of 1-10 were categorized as "much stronger," rankings of 11-44 were categorized as "somewhat stronger," rankings of 45-65 were categorized as "close to/exactly," rankings of 66-100 were categorized as "somewhat weaker" and rankings of 101-180 were categorized as "much weaker." Source: SSRS survey for the News Literacy Project conducted online from May 17 - 28, 2024, with 1,110 teenagers ages 13-18 nationwide. --- Basically they had to pick US as the 45th to 65th out of all the countries in the World for press freedoms ranking. And if they didn't pick in that range, it's counted as "misjudging". That's ridiculous. Why did they pick this range specifically? It's ironic to me that this is a study on media literacy.