To the equation itself, and at the risk of starting controversy, I think it's somewhat ambiguous. I've seen even mathematicians debate it, and I've seen a good way of describing it is that this is a language problem, not a math problem. It's intentionally written in a way that's somewhat open to interpretation. It's pretty much disingenuous from the start, since it's not written to be legible. It's a troll, and not good math. There are arguments to be made for either order, and they produce different outcomes.

This could reasonably be interpreted as 6/(2*(1+2)), and that is in fact how a ton of people were taught. It could also be interpreted as the "correct" version of 6/2*(1+2). Which version you'd use also changes if you substitute variables in place of an integer. It's just unclear, and that's why it confuses people. There are dumb people who get everything wrong, like this person (if she's not trolling), but I don't think everyone who gets this "wrong" is stupid. The whole thing is designed to output two different answers based on slight differences in methodology.

I find myself agreeing with the argument that the issue is with the statement itself, not which particular answer you output.

EDIT: For those interested, below are my favorite videos on the issue.

Also, "6/2(2+1)=1" master race!

The Problem with PEMDAS: Why Calculators Disagree
How School Made You Worse at Math
The Order of Operations is Wrong

To the equation itself, and at the risk of starting controversy, I think it's somewhat ambiguous. I've seen even mathematicians debate it, and I've seen a good way of describing it is that this is a language problem, not a math problem. It's intentionally written in a way that's somewhat open to interpretation. It's pretty much disingenuous from the start, since it's not written to be legible. It's a troll, and not good math. There are arguments to be made for either order, and they produce different outcomes.

This could reasonably be interpreted as 6/(2*(1+2)), and that is in fact how a ton of people were taught. It could also be interpreted as the "correct" version of 6/2*(1+2). Which version you'd use also changes if you substitute variables in place of an integer. It's just unclear, and that's why it confuses people. There are dumb people who get everything wrong, like this person (if she's not trolling), but I don't think everyone who gets this "wrong" is stupid. The whole thing is designed to output two different answers based on slight differences in methodology.

I find myself agreeing with the argument that the issue is with the statement itself, not which particular answer you output.