4 ms·

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

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
        These seem like conclusions you've arrived at, not arguments supporting those conclusions.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Do you think that the statement """More than 8 in 10 teens misjudge strength of U.S. press freedoms, compared with the 2024 Reporters Without Borders ranking""" Is a logical conclusion to categorize you to misjudge the strength if you don't put US in the 45th to 65th position from all the countries in the World? E.g. you put it as 40th or similar, it means you are "misjudging strength of US press freedoms"? I imagine they don't even know half the countries in the ranking beating US, and even less so would they know how the press is for each and of those countries. What position would you have guessed yourself?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

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
        These seem like conclusions you've arrived at, not arguments supporting those conclusions.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        Do you think that the statement """More than 8 in 10 teens misjudge strength of U.S. press freedoms, compared with the 2024 Reporters Without Borders ranking""" Is a logical conclusion to categorize you to misjudge the strength if you don't put US in the 45th to 65th position from all the countries in the World? E.g. you put it as 40th or similar, it means you are "misjudging strength of US press freedoms"? I imagine they don't even know half the countries in the ranking beating US, and even less so would they know how the press is for each and of those countries. What position would you have guessed yourself?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]