JLA wrote: ↑
Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:01 pm
...and regardless of the source - it is pretty useful stuff for most people.
Isn't that exactly the problem across nearly all platforms right now, though. (Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, email, etc.) People sending bad information mixed with good information, without citing sources or citing irrelevant sources, all in order to sound credible. Not that this started with the current public health emergency, but is simply the latest reason we're receiving "forward to everyone you know" message of dubious premise.
How does anyone read the phrase "recommendations of a colleague who has a friend (can't understand the name that she gives) who works in the main hospital"
and choose to spend any more or their time on this. That reads like every spam email you've ever had forwarded to you. She's a person, who has a colleague, and that colleague has a friend, and that friend holds an unspecified job -- could be janitor, could be receptionist, could be doctor -- at a hospital in the Canary Islands, and that person in turn has information from an unspecified source.
We want this person's third-hand
take on what to do, which they received from someone of unspecified credentials
, why exactly? Being accepting of such things is how misinformation is able to spread. It's how people end up using phrases like "what I heard"
, or "everyone is saying"
, or "the doctors here all asked how I know so much about this stuff"
when trying to justify the unsubstantiated and unscientific statements they're making.
Nothing is "regardless of the source", especially in something this important. If you don't know the source, you have no basis on which to weigh the significance of the information. "But she seems like a nice lady"
or "these sound like things people will appreciate"
are irrelevant to being an actual good source of information that is worth propagating. Given the damage we can see misinformation doing to our lives these days, our standards need to be better than that.