God bless you and keep you from harm, this day and forever.
>14065407
Most of the information we receive today does not come to us directly from the natural world. It still comes via the optic nerve to the brain, but the source is digital media displayed on a monitor or device screen.
Less that 10% of the average person's daily information input is direct sense experience of the natural world. What we imagine we know about the greater, outside world, our fellow humans and the universe is all acquired from TV "news" or "entertainment" programming - TV, movies, games VR and MR are how we form our understanding of greater surrounding social, economic and political reality.
We are entirely dependent on the integrity of MSM/legacy media for our understanding of the reality we share, and legacy media has betrayed us, engaging in massive deception and running 'psyops,' or 'Information Operations,' stories which use information in ways engineered to divide, confuse and terrify us.
Over 90% of all the information we take in about the world, about our reality, our fellow citizens, friends and neighbors, comes to us through a legacy media or big tech driven SCREEN.
*The average American household has only 2.75 people, but 3 TVs and 6 Internet devices.
*The average American family spends more money each month on media consumption than on groceries or electricity.
*The average American consumes 12-15 aggregate hours of digital media per day.
*The average American child consumes more than 10 hours of digital media per day.
*The average American smartphone is checked every 6-12 waking minutes.
With the emergence nonlinear networked communication it became possible to control individual and group information environments at all levels. Modern technologies have made "kinetic war" obsolete.
Information warfare destroys people and countries from within. By controlling the minds of citizens, by exploiting conditioned response with prepared information packages targeted individuals or nations can be (and have been) brought to take ANY specified action (including 'genocide') voluntarily.
Non-linear or Information war tactics involve turning enemy nations against themselves by infiltrating and subverting moral values and gradually degrading the whole information infrastructure, from popular entertainment to text books. Occult materials (eg. Catcher in the Rye) are introduced into high school required reading lists. False history and false flags arelegitimized, self-destructive behaviors are promoted as fashionable, mental illnesses and perversions like pedophilia are normalized by stages, while subversive 'educational' programs like "common core" are promoted to turn kids off learning.
Cultist media gradually, over decades, reduces the public vocabulary, promotes social division, emphasizing inequities, fanning the flames of old grievances, using false flag terrorism to foster or rekindle resentments, falsifying historical records to provide evidence for a shameful cult created US history that never happened. Destroying the story of a nation destroys that nation; the nation falls apart.
Mind war, non linear war, is a highly developed form of conflict, with tested doctrines and a protean tactical repertoire. We don't hear about IO, mind war and it's power and tactics because our entire information distribution infrastructure; the entertainment industry and social media/ tech companies are all controlled by a subversive confederacy of deep state criminals.
It is well to remember we have ALL been deceived. Some may learn sooner, some learn later; but whenever you do, remember fellow citizens still trapped in the matrix of lies and fears and taboos created by sophisticated IO operators for purposes of social control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_warfare
https://archive.org/details/AlgebraOfConscience
The beaver is a weird animal to choose for national symbol.
When threatened it was believed to bite its own balls off and flee while the enemy was occupied. That's why the Latin name is Castor Canadensis.
We designed an online game in which players enter a fictional social media environment. In the game, the players “walk a mile” in the shoes of a fake news creator. After playing the game, we found that people became less susceptible to future exposure to common misinformation techniques, an approach we call prebunking.
In a cross-cultural comparison conducted in collaboration with the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Dutch media platform DROG, we tested the effectiveness of this game in 4 languages other than English (German, Greek, Polish, and Swedish).
We conducted 4 voluntary in-game experiments using a convenience sample for each language version of Bad News (n = 5,061). We tested people’s assessment of the reliability of several fake and “real” (i.e., credible) Twitter posts before and after playing the game.
We find significant and meaningful reductions in the perceived reliability of manipulative content across all languages, indicating that participants’ ability to spot misinformation significantly improved. Relevant demographic variables such as age, gender, education level, and political ideology did not substantially influence the inoculation effect.
Our real-world intervention shows that social impact games rooted in insights from social psychology can boost psychological immunity against online misinformation across a variety of cultural, linguistic, and political settings.
Social media companies, governments, and educational institutions could develop similar large-scale “vaccination programs” against misinformation. Such interventions can be directly implemented in educational programs, adapted for use within social media environments, or applied in other issue domains where online misinformation is a threat.
In contrast to classical “debunking,” we recommend that (social media) companies, governmental, and educational institutions also consider prebunking (inoculation) as an effective means to combat the spread of online misinformation
https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/global-vaccination-badnews/
The misinformation they used in their experiment was the most shared climate article in 2016. It’s a petition, known as the Global Warming Petition Project, featuring 31,000 people with a bachelor of science or higher, who signed a statement saying humans aren’t disrupting climate. This single article lowered readers’ perception of scientific consensus. The extent that people accept there’s a scientific consensus about climate change is what researchers refer to as a “gateway belief,” influencing attitudes about climate change such as support for climate action.
However, there is more to this story. Beyond misinforming people, misinformation has a more insidious and dangerous influence. In the van der Linden study, when people were presented with both the facts and misinformation about climate change, there was no net change in belief. The two conflicting pieces of information canceled each other out.
Fact and “alternative fact” are like matter and antimatter. When they collide, there’s a burst of heat followed by nothing. This reveals the subtle way that misinformation does damage. It doesn’t just misinform. It stops people believing in facts. Or as Garry Kasporov eloquently puts it, misinformation “annihilates truth.”
Science’s answer to science denial
The assault on science is formidable and, as this research indicates, can be all too effective. Fittingly, science holds the answer to science denial.
Inoculation theory takes the concept of vaccination, where we are exposed to a weak form of a virus in order to build immunity to the real virus, and applies it to knowledge. Half a century of research has found that when we are exposed to a “weak form of misinformation,” this helps us build resistance so that we are not influenced by actual misinformation.
Inoculating text requires two elements. First, it includes an explicit warning about the danger of being misled by misinformation. Second, you need to provide counterarguments explaining the flaws in that misinformation.
In van der Linden’s inoculation, he pointed out that many of the signatories were fake (for instance, a Spice Girl was falsely listed as a signatory), that 31,000 represents a tiny fraction (less than 0.3 percent) of all U.S. science graduates since 1970 and that less than 1 percent of the signatories had expertise in climate science.
https://theconversation.com/inoculation-theory-using-misinformation-to-fight-misinformation-77545