Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j9p11p6 wrote

Reply to comment by ontopofyourmom in FDA’s Own Reputation Could Be Restraining Its Misinfo Fight by Wagamaga

[deleted]

−21

WarmFission t1_j9p1hjg wrote

If the debate is between factual evidence and studies versus “well I think”, the reality is obvious.

11

Durtwerdy12 t1_j9qkfw5 wrote

Do you even have the understanding to read a study or do you only rely on others to interpret it for you?

1

[deleted] t1_j9pxlop wrote

[deleted]

−3

WarmFission t1_j9pyzq9 wrote

If you’re going in with the preconception that Academia and by extent Institution’s data is invalid due to bias, you’re going to equate someone’s baseless notions and thoughts as legitimate ‘takes’.

2

ontopofyourmom t1_j9p2n8r wrote

I live with a reporter for the mainstream media (large public broadcasting station) and get to experience her job from the home office. Editorial meetings involve arguments about what to cover and how.

"Everything" includes a lot of bullshit opinions, and it's folly to assume we each have the background necessary to separate truth from falsehood across every topic.

4

Mouseklip t1_j9pa2vb wrote

You pivoted and continued to talk about nonsense. Classic “I have all the answers” response. Source: I live by a farm and know all about horseshit

−6

InfComplex t1_j9p4g5z wrote

That’s the point. There is nothing to believe because every authoritative source of truth is also pushing an agenda. The best we have is to use a secondary flow of information that “we” are in control of; we already have that in word of mouth. It ultimately just comes down to whether you want to trust the internet people who are “just like you” or the internet people that get to keep their platforms because they lie to you(and these are actually just the same group of people 90% of the time).

−7

freediverx01 t1_j9t9kzf wrote

The news media is not an original source, so your argument is irrelevant.

0