808
‘It’s mindblowing’: US meteorologists face death threats as hurricane conspiracies surge
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
808 points (99.3% liked)
News
23287 readers
3622 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A perfect example of this is that recent claim that Geico stopped providing insurance for the Tesla “Cybertruck.” Tons of people, including many here on Lemmy, were quick to believe and share this story. A handful of users pointed out that the source couldn’t be verified, but those comments were drowned out by all the “Ha, take that, Musk!” comments.
It just goes to show that everyone is vulnerable to misinformation. If we want to claim to be well-informed, we have to question everything - even (or especially) the stories that reinforce our existing beliefs.
Well, this is interesting. I did come across that story but wasn't interested enough to question it. Other than the larger point you're making, I couldn't care less. However, reading the Snopes article, the only evidence to the contrary is "A Geico corporate spokesperson told Snopes via email that the company has "coverage available nationwide for the Tesla Cybertruck."" which feels a little flimsy to me. It would be nice if they'd post something on their site or socials to confirm.
So some unknown person makes an unsubstantiated claim on Xitter. A recognized and mostly respected fact checker, Snopes, picks it up and contacts Geico where one of their agents denies it.
It's abundantly clear the original claim was a fabrication, likely meant to feed the anti-elon crowd, so why are you assigning the same credibility to both sides? How does some unknown person on Xitter have anywhere close to the same credibility as both Snopes and Geico?
This is precisely what's happening in the Conservative circles. They're being presented with stories that are consistent with their world view so they don't question it but they rarely see the retraction of a story that was dis-proven. If they do see the retraction they ignore or downplay it, often by requiring some higher standard of proof.
So much of the "news", regardless of the topic, is a jenga tower of partial truths, misdirections, and outright lies.
Geico has not said anything publicly, one way or the other. I would generally lean towards believing Snopes but, with such little evidence other than "someone told us otherwise", I could very easily see this being retracted. I mean, they could at least mention the name of the "corporate spokesperson".
I think we should all be more skeptical of everything we read. It's not at all rare for a reputable organization to retract a statement, as you've suggested yourself.
I wrote that comment on my lunch break at work and, of the immediate links that came up when I searched for a supporting article, Snopes was the most readily available and reliable source I had at hand. It's a site with a long history of debunking claims via thorough research, and yes, they cite their sources. Just scroll to the bottom of the page and click "Sources." It's just above the author's credit.
If you've found any evidence of Geico dropping coverage of all Cybertrucks (not just individual vehicles/owners, whom may be dropped for a myriad of reasons), I'm eager to hear it. In the meantime, enjoy checking any of these links that all say the same thing - that the author reached out to Geico, and Geico confirmed to them that they do cover the Cybertruck.
Of course, there's always the option of just calling Geico for yourself. But debunking the same rumor over and over again is exhausting, and I feel bad for whoever is having to answer all these calls. At this point, Geico said their part. The burden of proof is now on those making the "dropping coverage" claim.
The beliefs we hold by analysing information may not be the actual state. The only thing a blank slate logical mind can do is that to think a bit, verify multiple sources and get to a conclusion. Multiple sources points to different views having some reasonable practicality. Blank Slate refers to a neutral unbiased mindset.