>>10825623That is a good rebuttal, but consider the following: Misinformation and Information are not symmetrical strategies. Misinformation relies upon credibility, but also upon playing off the confirmation biases and innate curiosity of the targets. It's the difference between giving a lecture and performing a magic trick.
Confirmation Bias is when you have seen things which confirm your beliefs, and so when you are presented with a case involving them, you may not look critically at the actual case because you've seen it so many times before that you just assume it to be true. I.E., niggers commit a metric shitton of crimes, so when you hear "3 youths beat elderly WWII veteran to death in parking garage in Alabama" you just assume that it's three niggers.
But it isn't ALWAYS three niggers. There's a 1% chance that it's actually 3 white teens and they just didn't mention race in the title.
Misinformation uses vague language and vague predictions that could be interpreted multiple ways but which appeal to existing biases in order to subvert actual information. Q is a great example because it tells us something that we already kind of believe to be true, and it's vague enough that when you see something that you can interpret as having been predicted by Q, your confirmation bias kicks in and you don't examine it critically, which further reinforces the narrative.
Information is just direct. You express the subject in the most direct way possible to AVOID any alternate interpretation, because you have to penetrate a gigantic nebula of disinfo in order to be hard at all.
