3 ms·

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?
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        This is a fair critique! I think that's a badly designed question. The questions most people are talking about in this thread, however, are not.
        mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I get these kind of thoughts about most of the questions there, and starting from the headline picked by fastcompany. E.g. the first task where they had to ID an ad based on there being certain text such as “WP BrandStudio” and “Content from Safeway.” and then "Only 50%" of teens specified it's an ad. While 30% thought it was opinion, which is a valid and harmless guess to me if you have never heard of those terms. So 80% picked the harmless option in my view. Next task as well. In my view 86% had the harmless option. So overall I think depending on the questions you can get very different results, from which you can make very different conclusions. And based on the overall "vibe" I get from the study it seems like they were set out to prove this and not do a fair study on the topic. There being a title like "Commentary: Could Taylor Swift be the biggest election influencer of them all?" and the correct answer being an "opinion". It just seems like a "pondering essay" of some sort rather than opinion. I wouldn't call an essay an opinion. I understand that it is labelled as "opinion piece", but I don't see it to be harmful to not be able to label it as such when to me the label intuitively doesn't seem accurate. Only 12% marked it as news.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

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?
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      This is a fair critique! I think that's a badly designed question. The questions most people are talking about in this thread, however, are not.
      - mewpmewp2 2y ago
        I get these kind of thoughts about most of the questions there, and starting from the headline picked by fastcompany. E.g. the first task where they had to ID an ad based on there being certain text such as “WP BrandStudio” and “Content from Safeway.” and then "Only 50%" of teens specified it's an ad. While 30% thought it was opinion, which is a valid and harmless guess to me if you have never heard of those terms. So 80% picked the harmless option in my view. Next task as well. In my view 86% had the harmless option. So overall I think depending on the questions you can get very different results, from which you can make very different conclusions. And based on the overall "vibe" I get from the study it seems like they were set out to prove this and not do a fair study on the topic. There being a title like "Commentary: Could Taylor Swift be the biggest election influencer of them all?" and the correct answer being an "opinion". It just seems like a "pondering essay" of some sort rather than opinion. I wouldn't call an essay an opinion. I understand that it is labelled as "opinion piece", but I don't see it to be harmful to not be able to label it as such when to me the label intuitively doesn't seem accurate. Only 12% marked it as news.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]