True or false? Organic or synthetic?

You correctly identified accurate information and scientific disinformation 10 times out of 11. That's a neat 91%!

Oh bum!
I forgot to copy the other part, and now I can't remember what I guessed.

You correctly identified real people and computers 4 times out of 11. That's 36%.
Not so clever now.

I forgot to share the Facebook post before I followed the link that I copied here, and the questionnaire had no facility to backtrack. By then I had lost the FB page.

We are a pretty canny lot on misinformation, but not so good on practicalities, are we?

I havent even the faintest idea why a computer generated statement would be used.
Should I have an inkling?

Maybe those spam posts that are meant to look as though they are from real posters, praising something that cured some medical condition overnight that other treatments had had no effect on, and adding a link to the website where (surprise surprise) it can be bought? Someone can set up a site to search for mentions of key words in social media sites like GN and automatically join up and post spam like that. They usually have weird usernames that are just random letters and numbers.

11/11 and 6/11, I’m ok with that.

They are called bots.

I got 64% but then I am supping a rather large G and T.
Cheers. ?

91% for misinformation

36% for computer generated, not so good…..

I was 11/11, just as I hoped and 8/11, just as I suspected!

73% for misinformation
55% for computer generated...
Mind you, I did it whilst watching Question Time. ?

7/11 for misinformation
3/11 for real people
Oh dear ; it has been a long day.

I was in the 80% range for misinformation but did much less well on computer generated.

Made me think that more information should be available to help people understand how this all works and how to distinguish.

70% Misinformation
73% Real people.

It seems that so far I am alone in thinking that there is an ulterior reason behind the questionnaire. I wouldn’t take it at face value. Possibly someone, somewhere, is gathering data about attitudes to vaccinations or gullibility or something similar.

100% for misinformation, but it was my field of expertise!
30% for computer speak !!!

91% and 73%

91 and 91 but it wasn't a very interesting survey. I can't remember exactly but there were a couple of oddities in the information stuff - one was where we aren't certain I think.

11 out of 11 (imo, bull-shit is easy to recognise). 8 out of 11- 73 %. I wish they’d revealed which was which re. real people or computer. Did everyone fill in why they picked what they picked re. the accurate info/mis-info?

I did, mostly that real information is usually clear and coolly presented, while misinformation tends use loaded words to appeal to the emotions of the reader and generate an immediate and unconsidered response. Lots of rhetoric like "It is disgusting that . . " or, on the other hand, references to people with professional-sounding qualifications who have confirmed the "facts" given, but if you investigate further they turn out to know very little about the subject, or to have extreme bees in their bonnets.

I scored 11 out of 11 for misinformation, and 8 out of 11 for the bots.

I thought it was a lot ore difficult than expected. I have to be able to spot misinformation in my work, so would have been disappointed with a low score, but bots are very 'clever', and people's communication skills are very variable, so I don't think it's easy to spot them.

I filled the box in, and said that I think about how I would verify information, and if I realised I couldn't (as in it was impossible regardless of whether I had the means at my own disposal) then I assumed it was false. Emotive language is not a signifier of misinformation, or the other way round. Someone with sinister intent can very easily mimic cool or passionate language to hide their intent - it's much less about style than about whether it can be verified.

I scored 11 out of 11 for misinformation and 6 out of 11 for the bots. Must say discerning which comments were computer generated was just a guessing game for me! I had absolutely no idea.

Yes, the language used is very much under the control of a clever marketer, though quite a lot of the conspiracy theories seem to be passed on by people who are not all that clever about actually thinking about the cause they are espousing. The best defence against false information is to check where the idea came from to start with, and find out whether the originator is to be believed by reading the peer reviews of the studies and the data quoted.