-
Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
- Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral
How to know what is real
- Thread starter TBRS1
- Start date
I tend to consider virtually all online content creators' most primary motivation to be one tied to a personal income, first and last. Whether they project honesty and sincerity or none at all.
Not that they all have ill intent, but to never lose sight of their most basic purpose.
Not that they all have ill intent, but to never lose sight of their most basic purpose.
When I was a child, there was a thing called "advertising." In junior high school (15 years old), I was taught how advertisers lie.
Now we have a thing called "influencers," but people fail to i.d. them as undercover advertisers, and assume those "influencers" somehow have magical access to the true schnitz.
Kids are probably not taught about advertisers anymore anyway, nor are they taught the sacred art of media literacy.
The world is weird. People are weird.
I post content online for fun. That's all. Not monetized in any way. Lots of us out there.
Point taken. But I'm addressing more serious- commercial and political subjects, and less the frivolous ones in terms of monetization. Presentations created by experts, though sometimes paid by "clientele" to further obscure their origins.
Intellectual honesty over commercial products is another concern of mine. Where blunt criticism of various products may or may not be genuine, having origins from competitor products as well.
Yet either way there seems to be a staggering number of them who use deception to promote a click-through. Whether it translates into income, disparaging your competition or merely 15 minutes of fame.
Last edited:
Easy to spot. Just don't subscribe unless they're offering real value or worthwhile entertainment.
I've never subscribed to any channel on general principle. My bad.
As for how easy they are to spot, it depends on one's powers of observation and suspicious nature.
Often reflecting how lucrative criminal fraud remains online in various capacities. Some being highly resistant, while others may be highly susceptible. In the US most any attorney general's office will be quite transparent in explaining how problematic forms of fraud can be in every state.
"Fraud is the most common crime reported in Canada, affecting about 7.8% of the population, while in the U.S., approximately 31% of adults experienced fraud between 2021 and 2023. The financial losses from fraud in Canada are significant, but the U.S. has higher victimization rates and a greater variety of fraud schemes."
- Duck Duck Go AI Search Assist
Last edited:
Which becomes quite a "wild card", depending on the nature and quality of deception, apart from technical knowledge of such media that frankly most people lack and have no interest in pursuing. Much like so many methodologies used in counterfeiting checks.
I stop viewing the second someone pushes a product or service.
Understandable, but what if your primary interest is in looking at the specifications of a product where a so-called expert either gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down opinion?
Most of the presentations I look at are relative to software, hardware and consumer electronics reviews. When they inherently involve a product or on select occasion, a service. Though on occasion when I see a tagline that starts out with, "Don't Buy This!", I would agree with you. Overt click-bait capitalizing on consumer fear.
In the old days I always stuck by Consumer Reports....though in modern times even their credibility wanes on occasion.
Last edited:
I will frequently look for online reviews.
Unfortunately, even those can't be fully trusted. They are frequently constructed by an A.I. that just summarizes a lot of junk advertising.
Sometimes I look for information about a topic I am well versed in, just to laugh at the slop that comes out.
It is both funny, and sad.
My real concern with this dynamic did not start with video presentations. It started with "irregularities" of examining product reviews of products retailed from Amazon. Finding both logistical errors likely committed within Amazon as well as product reviews that seemed overwrought to a point of appearing suspicious to me. That such posts may be on a commercial level where competitors have no problem making the expense of purchasing a competitor's product only to falsely disparage it.
Agreed though...it is a little weird- and discouraging when AI simply parrots the words of advertising pitches that are easily found through conventional search engines.
Go to more than one source plus read online reviews. That's how I decided to skip over the Canon EOS R5 Mk II despite the glowing influencer reviews. It's great if you're an influencer also using it for video. They've made the sensor less useful for still photographers. I'm further ahead purchasing a new-old stock R5 Mk I.
Reminds me of the primary source I went to years ago for digital cameras. Not a video source, but what I thought was lot of decent information about all kinds of products involving photography. Though so many years later I'm still happy with my Canon EOS1000D. Nothing fancy, but it gets the job done well enough for me.
However this website ceased to exist after 25 years.
DPReview is closing after 25 years
Full disclosure - my daughter makes a good living writing online product reviews.
She is actually given products to test and review.
I know this because she gives them to me if she doesn't want to keep them.
Checking at least 2 different sources of information - especially if they come from vastly different sources - is a very good practice (if the reviews are too similar, gotta look at a few more sources because of the possibility of a scam).
One of the good things about cameras (and other tech) is that there are generally reliable sources of info from organizations that are paid by users/subscribers (such as Consumers Report).
Pop health products, though, are a whole 'nother matter. They tend to be "tested" by the people selling them.
She is actually given products to test and review.
I know this because she gives them to me if she doesn't want to keep them.
Checking at least 2 different sources of information - especially if they come from vastly different sources - is a very good practice (if the reviews are too similar, gotta look at a few more sources because of the possibility of a scam).
One of the good things about cameras (and other tech) is that there are generally reliable sources of info from organizations that are paid by users/subscribers (such as Consumers Report).
Pop health products, though, are a whole 'nother matter. They tend to be "tested" by the people selling them.
In Australia we have an organisation that tests products and puts out real information about them. They were quite successful in pointing out quite a few dangerous products and since then have become such a trusted source of real product assessment that they've become a government funded institution.
This originally started as the Australian branch of the American Choice Magazine in 1959 but in Australia it was so successful and so concise in it's findings that it earned government backing as well as the trust of the community.
Australia's leading consumer advocacy group | CHOICE
For us this happened in grades 6 and 7, along with teaching us about private clubs, secret societies and fascism.
They're still around. There was enough outcry they were sold instead and are still putting out good content.
I do miss the Phil Askey days, though. Also Michael Reichmann from Luminous Landscape.
We didn't get secret societies or private clubs. We did get anti-Nazi, but, until recently, most Americans wouldn't have been able to describe "fascism."
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
-
Moving to different department, dreading a 'going away' with colleagues- Started by Mono
- Replies: 6
-
I realize one reason why I have been so obsessed with past transgressions.
- Started by Metalhead
- Replies: 5
-
-
-