... to not believing everything you see on the internet
2. if there is a source, click it. people sincerely reblogging those ‘shocking’ posts where the source leads to a rickroll or something, and they don’t know because they never clicked it: this one is for you
3. if you’ve clicked the source, look at what it is. is it the onion? Is it the daily mash? look at the other articles on the site and look for the ‘about’. please don’t be one of those people who takes the onion seriously.
4. if you’ve clicked the source and it’s not satire, how reputable is it? bbc news is a lot more reputable than supermystichoroscopesforonly99p.com. who is saying it matters. this can be hard if you don’t know much about the site, but a bit of research can help. wikipedia is a dodgy one because whilst anyone can edit it, lots of articles are under strict surveillance and will quickly get edited back. if you see a claim on wikipedia that looks strange, refer back to point one. wikipedia sources/ cites too.
5. anecdotes are not evidence! someone going ‘one time my dog ate a can of woofers dog food and died two days later’ doesn’t suggest woofers kills dogs. the plural of anecdotes is not data. sure, when 100 people are all going ‘hey, this thing makes XYZ awful things happen?’, listen, but don’t take one person’s experiences as gospel
6. ‘idk, some news article’ is not a source. ‘I saw it in some random interview a few weeks ago’ is not a source. ‘I can’t remember’ is definitely not a source.
7. if something seems too good, bad or weird to be true, maybe it is! a two minute google search may help!
8. basically ignore the daily mail bye