I read the headline and my immediate thought was "is this controlled for socioeconomic class?"

I guess I'm reading the paper

What exactly are you arguing against, here? I don't waste time on people who try to strawman me.

J.K. Rowling's anti-trans rhetoric and activism has enough influence to lead directly or otherwise to the further persecution and discrimination against an already marginalised minority group.

She at some point opted for or was identified by those with similar views as the term TERF, a 'trans-exclusionary radical feminist' (the acronym is arguably problematic). The queer community and queer allies use the term with a implied derogatory connotation. A number of TERFs who picked up on this connotation now believe that it is an insult, and do not wish to be labelled as such (despite TERFs coining the term themseIves).

First case; you cannot counter (in practice i.e. having an effect) the intolerant philosophies seen on these instances using rational argument as they do not appeal to rational thought. And because of this, not despite it, public opinion allows inhumane indignities to be acted upon marginalised demographics.

If you believe I used the term incorrectly please say so. Your phrasing comes off as you're someone who knows a thing, and wants everyone else to know they know.

Is this any better than Aegis?

This is a whataboutist counterpoint at best. Universities and their researchers are not a monolith.

A very interesting and crazy proposition, but I think you're asking the wrong question. There are definitely ways of removing distractions from your environment without resorting to something so drastic.

E.g. have you considered creating a user with restricted access to certain programs (example) and set up add-ons for web browsers that restrict access to certain websites?

I suppose I'll be watching two pile of snakes pretending to be people for the duration of which this plays out.

In my case I was ecosystem'd into RPM and Flatpak, so openSUSE makes me happy

I feel like a lot of people are missing the point when it comes to the MIST. I just very briefly skimmed the paper.

Misinformation susceptibility is being vulnerable to information that is incorrect

• @ach@feddit.de @GataZapata@kbin.social It seems that the authors are looking to create a standardised measure of "misinformation susceptibility" that other researchers can employ in their studies so that these studies can be comparable, (the authors say that ad-hoc measures employed by other studies are not comparable).
• @lvxferre@lemmy.ml the reason a binary scale was chosen over a likert-type scale was because
  1. It's less ambiguous to participants
  2. It's easier for researchers to implement in their studies
  3. The results produced are of a similar 'quality' to the likert scale version
• If the test doesn't include pictures, a source name, and a lede sentence and produces similar results to a test which does, then the simpler test is superior (think about the participants here). The MIST shows high concurrent validity with existing measures and states a high level of predictive validity (although I'd have to read deeper to talk about the specifics)

It's funny how the post about a misinformation test was riddled with misinformation because no one bothered to read the paper before letting their mouth run. Now, I don't doubt that your brilliant minds can overrule a measure produced with years of research and hundreds of participants off the top of your head, but even if what I've said may be contradicted with a deeper analysis of the paper, shouldn't it be the baseline?