To me ultimately all of these are "labels". It doesn't necessarily matter how you label something. I can tell you with high certainty that when I was a teenager

To me ultimately all of these are "labels". It doesn't necessarily matter how you label something. I can tell you with high certainty that when I was a teenager, it wouldn't have made any practical difference whether I thought the piece about "Vegan meat being as good as the real meat" was an ad or it was an opinion. Neither of those would've been "the truth" for me. Even if it it's an ad, it is still an opinion. And if it's an opinion, it could just be opinion from a vegan propagandist. I may have marked it as opinion just because I have no good way to tell for sure that it's paid for, based on that screenshot, unless I know exactly what the terms above mean and I'm familiar with. I assume I wouldn't have been able to Google during the survey. All of these survey questions are about how you label something, while ignoring common sense completely. And you could orchestrate any sorts of metrics results depending on what content you provide and how you form the question. Whether the above is an ad or an opinion, I wouldn't as teen have believed that vegan meat was as good as the real thing unless I've tried it myself. The label doesn't matter, what matters is what do you start to take as fact or belief based on the content given. The correct question should've been "To what extent does this article change your belief/opinion about vegan meat being as good as the real thing?". If you want to test the true thing, ask questions where answers to those questions actually matter in implicating certain beliefs, not just how good people are knowing at exact definition of certain labels. That's anti common sense and literacy. > I would caution against arbitrarily discounting information because you don't like its "vibe." I mean I looked at the questions and tried to figure out how I would've approached them as a teen, and what I would've answered. I did it on the basis of a skeptical vibe, because of the initial titles and everything was trying to portray a certain narrative which is not very scientific. So then of course I was biased to play devil's advocate, but none the less, I believe that these results don't carry much meaning and the conclusions that are made, is not something that can really be made from this particular data. It would be harmful to consider an AD an actual factual news report, but this is what very few did. Also considering opinion as a factual news report would've been bad, but again only very few did. If you look at harmful vs harmless labelling then the stats don't look that bad at all. Someone considering the piece about elections and Taylor Swift an entertainment instead of opinion. This is pretty harmless. I do still remember what I was like as a teen, I remember my thought process, and I can still relate to myself at that point.