Twitter 'supersharers' of fake news tend to be older Republican women About 80 percent of the fake news shared on Twitter during the 2020 US presidential election came from just 0.3 percent of users, according to researchers from Israel and the US. These "supersharers" were disproportionately likely to be older, Republican women from Texas, Florida, and Arizona, according to a study published in …
Can these accounts somehow be auto-blocked or flagged? Is there an equivalent to web page ad blocking for Twitter/X?
And then let us know when the researchers publish their findings about Facebook. The signal to noise ratio there seems to be very low, and there seem to be many more angry reporters on that site.
Advocating blocking older women's accounts is both sexist and ageist. If you restrict it to Republicans you are also adding political discrimination. Your post is also titled "Pasty keyboard warriors" which could be interpreted as a suggestion that they are white too, so lets add racial discrimination too. Fortunately you didn't need to flag them as Christian so we can't add "religious" to complete the set of possible discriminations.
I'm not worried about stupid little names that people what to use in order to swat other people into silence. I'm tired of it. If, say, you're a bigot and white, female and conservative...too bad. Conservative loudmouths are not the only people who should be allowed to double-down. Both sides, liberal and conservative, throw out names to try to silence people when those very people call out their bad behaviors - society needs to grow a backbone, stand up, and take their SLAPP attempts on the chin and say "Thank you, you're still worth dirt".
This post has been deleted by its author
O've been on the other end of that proposal. People have used massreporting to have people limited. That has been a tactic used by chinese accounts according to 'the china show' on youtube. It is also a tactic of russian bot farms the guys have noted on both twitter and youtube.
Who is limited, applying one size policies is likely going yo lead to a shoutinv match whatever is decided but...what we should consider is trump's offer to musk of a senior position in his cabinet and how that might influence the x algorithms...
Foreign bots may still be involved by giving likes. Such likes make useful idiots feel important and encourage them to share more.
If a tiny percentage of "old women" has such large impact, what could be done with an army of bot accounts, or algorithmically manipulated Tiktok?
Social media sharing is a kind of lazy journalism, because re-sharing is effortless. Thus social media should introduce damping coefficient to re-shared content. Important news will find their way through non-lazy journalism and analytic articles.
This is actually a very good idea. The problem with things being shared and re-shared is that they can grow exponentially, and those things that reaffirm one's beliefs tend to get shared without thought (that's human nature, and not a left vs right issue). What happens is a positive feedback, where things get reposted faster than they fall out of view, whereas, this needs a negative feedback to balance this.
The problem with social media, is that the positive feedback is amplified by those things that can be monetised (paid for posts getting shown more, for instance), and it is actually against the interests of the social media platforms to throttle misinformation, because they stand to gain from any monetisation.
Things that people engage with more, completely regardless of the truth of their content, lead to more advertising impressions. It is not in the financial interests of the platform providers to implement measures to de-platform dangerous misinformation if it is popular misinformation, and they actively oppose any measures to legislate for this responsibility. Money talks.
This isn't even necessarily a deliberate policy, but is a natural emergent property of the idea of social media as a "neutral carrier". This is why legislation is required to regulate social media content, but then there is the careful line to tread between countering dangerous untrue but convincing misinformation and creating dangerous censorship of true, but unpopular information. What is needed is a mechanism to remove clearly untrue material from general circulation, whilst allowing an open process where the content that has been removed (where it isn't downright illegal) can be reviewed by the general public, to prevent abuse of such a system.
After all, everyone is (or at least should be) happy that there is a need to prevent and quickly remove things like child pornography, but even when you move onto things like "terrorism" you run into the "one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter" issue.
The underlying problem is that the internet is still very much an emerging platform, and things that would be deemed to be completely socially unacceptable, or illegal, in meatspace are utterly unregulated in cyberspace, even after 30+ years of the web as we know it. The fact that the platform is trans-national has a lot to do with this, but regulation in larger jurisdictions, or in the jurisdictions in which the main social media sites are hosted would go a long way to ameliorating this.
Are you a parody account, or really such an angry and bitter little man?
It's funny how "righties" got fed up of truth social because there weren't any "lefties" for them to troll.
You guys are the biggest whiny little crybaby snowflakes that exist. Have you stopped crying yet because Trump got found guilty for crimes he was guilty of?
Are you a parody account, or really such an angry and bitter little man?
Partly. I do parody the loony left because it's easy. It's also amusing and entertaining for me, even though the left's response tends to be very predictable. Like your ad homs. I guess you missed all the anger and bitterness directed at Trump, or Musk when he took over your echo chamber. And I'm 13.0634 linguine.
It's funny how "righties" got fed up of truth social because there weren't any "lefties" for them to troll
Hmm.. Righties. I kind of like that. Being on the right side of truth, as opposed to those sinister lefties. Plus as those great Australian philosophers one sang, if G-d's on the left, then I'm sticking to the right. But you make one of the classic mistakes politicians make. Assuming 'social media' has any influence on me, or millions of other voters. They may spend millions on FacePalm or Twitter/X campaigning, but it has zero influence on me because I don't use those services. The only time I take an interest is when there's news about how those campaigns backfire, like the good'ol Hamilton 68 dashboard. Or even this article. A few Republican women ended up having more 'influence' than expensive campaigns.
You guys are the biggest whiny little crybaby snowflakes that exist. Have you stopped crying yet because Trump got found guilty for crimes he was guilty of?
Projecting again. November's not far off and there's the potential for more reaction and livestream reactions like there were in 2016 when Trump won last time. So much salt! So much whining and gnashing of team. Of course then came a few billion in property damage as those crybaby snowflakes took to the streets, attempted to burn down federal buildings, assaulted police officers. Hopefully this time around, they'll just accept the results and deal with it.
As for Trump being found guilty, the good thing about the justice system is the accused has a right to appeal. So a Democrat donating judge may have declared Trump guilty for now, but the appeal may find him not guilty. After all, there were no charges for the alleged felonies committed, no misuse of campaign funds (not that that was charged) and any misdemeanors for false accounting had passed the statute of limitations, and shouldn't have been charged in the first place.
What will you do if, or when Trump is found not guilty? Meanwhile, the investigation into Biden's mishandling of classified information continues. The investigator declared that Biden wasn't competant to stand trial. Written testimony declared during the interview, Biden was rambling and forgetful. Not exactly news to anyone who's seen his public appearences. But the investigation is calling for the tapes of that interview, which the Democrats are resisting for some reason. Can't think why. I can't think why Biden wasn't charged anyway given he had no legal right to those documents, and possession of classified information without authority is usually a strict liability offence. But then Clinton wasn't charged either. Trump.. well, he's different, so there's another big show trial ongoing.
This article made me laugh.. then sigh.
The problem with limiting the "loud ones" on social media and online is that social media and online services largely make money from relatively small groups being able to reach very large audiences.
Whether it's indie games, specialist financial advice, recipes for healthy food or any other product or service, we don't sell things "democratically". I'm not sure there's an argument that says we should, either, because we get massive efficiencies of scale this way.
So calls to "turn down the volume" on super sharers quickly become calls to select specific demographics or groups for restriction... and in turn that involves handing the ability to restrict groups to someone we trust to only turn down the volume on the "right" groups. We swiftly get into a discussion about what constitutes an unacceptable group... and anyone failing to see the problem with this has clearly skipped a few history lessons.
Yes, political obsessives are a problem online. We see a similar phenomena in many countries. Is fanatical support for the SNP a sign of desired political change, or delusional nationalists?.. Finding a solution to these social problems probably involves more than a technical quick fix.
The issue is back to the old adage "with great power comes great responsibility" except now it does not. Both the promoters of crap / false news / bogus financial advice / bollocks medical advice, and the media companies who financially benefit, have no responsibility for the consequences.
If we made social media companies automatically responsible in financial terms for any false advertising above, say, 100 people total, suddenly this sort of problem would be fixed.
"If we made social media companies automatically responsible in financial terms for any false advertising above, say, 100 people total, suddenly this sort of problem would be fixed."
That would mean that Social Media companies would have to hire legions of experts in all fields to go through each user post manually, check it for accuracy and also confirm the grammar isn't ambiguous or that the meaning would invert with a small inflection if it were repeated out loud. What percentage of staff did Elon fire, chase away and encourage to quit when he bought Twitter? People that are experts in all sorts of subjects would likely not want to work for an Elon or Mark when they could get a real job with long term prospects.
Well, given that it's Xitter, the answer is obvious: the "specific demographics or groups" would be "all those who aren't willing to pay enough to have the restrictions taken off".
Personally I don't see the problem with limiting users to a maximum of, say, five retweets per day. There may be accounts who have a genuine need to do more than that, but in that case they should be willing to stump up a couple of grand for the privilege. Even Musky would like it, because it's a whole new revenue stream.
So if they had been on the left promoting the latest ideological fad ,, very loudly, would they also have been considered for quieting down ?
The politicisation of everything will be the downfall of the US. Americans should now be worried about the beast from within more than the beast on the outside.
"The politicisation of everything will be the downfall of the US. Americans should now be worried about the beast from within more than the beast on the outside."
That's exactly what Ken Burns said to the Brandeis graduates. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n1OqPzIKH4) He also said that there is no "other" - when we begin to distinguish between "us" and "them" we've already missed the point.
As hard as it may be to believe, I feel that we still have more in common with each other than differences. If we can just find ways to get back to the time when it was OK to "agree to disagree" and treat each other with at least a small amount of respect we should be able to just get on with it.
"As hard as it may be to believe, I feel that we still have more in common with each other than differences."
Yes, I completely agree, but
* Social Media has effectively turned many people into a "me me me " rather than "we we we" group of sheep.
* Politicians spend most of their time dividing the population in order to gain potential votes.
* The Main Stream media absolutely loves the divisive "news", it's appears to be their main source of income...
* Hollywood has moved on from subtle moral story-telling to down right hard core politics, thereby ensuring that the kids hate everything and everyone.
* The Wokesters and SJWs, ie the middle people with too much time on their hands, are bullying everyone into utter confusion whilst suffering none of the side effects.
The solution : "All" the loud voices need to be calmed down and people need to be once again taught to think for themselves. People need to get out into the world and see and meet other people, get back to having meals together and removing the unnecessary politics from their lives. Politicians need to be reminded that they work for us and not for their wallets and the MainStream medias need to return to actual reporting rather than the 3rd class click bait attention grabbing nonsense..
Oh and those tele-reality shows need to be banned.
"* The Wokesters and SJWs, ie the middle people with too much time on their hands, are bullying everyone into utter confusion whilst suffering none of the side effects." Oh dear, seemsyou are seriously guilty of what you are ranting about.
Social Media has effectively turned many people into a "me me me " rather than "we we we" group of sheep.
I think you have just neatly described "right vs left", aka "the individual" vs "the group". The problem is that anyone advocating for one side over the other tends to characterise the other as an extreme. Both extreme individualism and extreme communism are harmful. To those on the right, everyone on the left is Joe Stalin, and to those on the left, everyone on the right is Adolf Hitler. It should be apparent to anyone with a brain that both extreme ideologies have obvious flaws.
I've met plenty of people who are quite hard to either the left or the right, and I have to say, on balance, those on the far-left tend to be less obnoxious (just) than those on the far right, but I wouldn't want to be either.
Most people actually fall somewhere in the middle. The problem is that, at the moment, in the UK at least, whilst the majority of the population falls somewhere slightly to the left of centre, our government is somewhere quite a long way off to the right, playing the same "demonise the minority" games that history has shown us do not end well for anyone. We are seeing far right-wing politics dominated by lies because the extreme element of the right wing is in power; however, if we had an equally far-left government, we would likely be seeing a preponderance of bullshit from that direction. The voice of sanity is to call for politics to re-centre itself to some sort of social democratic norm. One day, we might even get some electoral reform so that the system can't be so easily exploited by those willing to tell lies to get what they want.
"I feel that we still have more in common with each other than differences."
Unfortunately there's an advantage in being able to persuade people that they're one of "us", that those over there are "them" and then setting up as the champion of "us" against the machinations of "them". As there will be someone equally active doing the same thing in the other group there'll be no shortage of evidence to bolster the argument.
The US seems to be in a particularly difficult position to avoid this, There needs to be at least some part of the state which is above politics and the legal system needs to be part of that. It becomes easy for someone like Trump to characterise a trial he's lost as politicised if officials such as At tourneys General are elected and judges are appointed by elected governors or presidents. It also helps if head of government and head of state are separate offices with the latter able to gain respect across the board as the role needs to represent the common good.
The populists and RWNJs abandoned the notion of correct long ago, unless you're happy to count "whatever moulds the most recent occurrence to my worldview" as a substitute for objective truth. Cognitive dissonance is hard to come by when you find cognition painful.
I suspect you neglected to include the /sarcasm tag, probably under the idea that everyone would recognise that what you posted, was intended to be read with a degree of sarcasm. Alas, never underestimate many peoples failure to recognise this when it is blatantly obvious.
Yes, my "leftist line of thought" was sarcastic, but it's also true of some of the rabid leftists. There's a couple in my neighborhood that think that way.
I am a classical liberal, personally. I buy neither crackpot conspiracies, nor divisive propaganda. (I hope.)
The problem with the stupid, is that they're too stupid to know that they're stupid and are thus filled with confidence of their superiority.
So illuminating them only makes the stupid brighter for those of us who can already see them.
Yes... I did deliberately use 'brighter' to describe stupid people. :)
which is surprising to me. I don’t have Twitter or X but don’t live under a rock either so how about… a TTL on each Tweet/Xeet so it can be shared once. (Or twice). Of course someone could reconstruct the tweet/xeet to ‘reset’ the TTL but I’m guessing the average person wouldn’t bother (or know how to).
Good idea or bad idea?
My concern would be that this makes citizen journalism severely challenging. I would err on the side of every idiot being able to parrot anything they believe is correct over a system that means when an individual uncovers evidence of genuine wrongdoing, they are hampered in their ability to share it. Simply keeping the ability to bypass the restrictions by rewording is insufficient because that obfuscates the source.
a TTL on each Tweet/Xeet so it can be shared once. (Or twice).
Well, it's an idea, but then that kills some real public usefulness in my rural area. Immediate news of school closures, or a road accident blocking one of the sparse roads is usually disseminated by Facebook. Also garage sales, birth and death announcements, small businesses promoting themselves, etc. The local newspaper is moribund, the larger news channels don't bother unless it's a tornado they can get nice dramatic pictures from. For all it's flaws, Facebook does serve some purpose.
> ...the democratic conceit that people have an equal voice in public debate – a debatable proposition in the US given that media ownership has long conveyed disproportionate social influence.
Mainstream media has been telling people what to think for ages now. Glad to see someone call this out; it's a warning to every Western nation. The education systems are the places that should guard against this, but our society is already so broken that we can't agree on what should and shouldn't be taught.
The red flag here is talking about "mainstream media". Because - what other kind is there, exactly?
All media, to some extent, "tells people what to think". If you get all your news from a single source, or from a pool of like-thinking sources, you'll inevitably end up with a very skewed view of the world. That goes for Guardian readers and Fox viewers alike.
'The red flag here is talking about "mainstream media". Because - what other kind is there, exactly?"
The other kind is the small dedicated echo chamber forums where the bacteria proliferates at light speed.
It is the book club, the forum and the YT influencers, The Young Turks, The Ben Shapiro's etc
The red flag here is talking about "mainstream media". Because - what other kind is there, exactly?
Here's a red flag, semi-literally, from a member of the MSM that also happens to be a state broadcaster, and is bound by it's Charter to be neutral. And it's a bit of an odd story-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1eewd5xgjgo
Election fraud claims being reviewed by police
Police are reviewing claims of election fraud they have received relating to "concerns around marketing material".
... The BBC understands Robert Largan has not been contacted by Derbyshire Police, which has not confirmed if his advertisement is the subject of the review.
Err.. wut? If the police haven't confirmed, how can they be sure the 'marketing material' is being reviewed? There could be other marketing material but the Bbc only seems to talk about the advertisements. But that's the strange position the Bbc finds itself in. See also-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0wwepv5l6xo
When Europeans vote in elections for the European Parliament this coming week, their choices will reflect the national mood in 27 different countries.
Right and far-right parties are set to make gains, but the picture is widely different across the continent. Here is a snapshot of what to expect from BBC correspondents ahead of the vote.
Count how many times the Bbc mentions 'far-right'. Which is the polar opposite of the typical Bbc viewpoint, but if it truly is the 'national mood', it'll be an example of democracy, and a rejection of the 'far left' viewpoints that the Bbc tends to represent. Which could be awkward if the UK's national broadcaster isn't representative of the national mood. But this is a problem for other members of the MSM. CNN's ratings have fallen faster than even Dr Who.
Way to prove you didn't read the articles.
The first is quite plain if you bother to think critically about it.
1) Police are reviewing claims of election fraud they have received relating to "concerns around marketing material".
2) It comes after the Conservative candidate for High Peak in Derbyshire, Robert Largan, put out a social media post on Saturday in red Labour colours saying "Labour for Largan".
3) The Conservative Party said: “The materials clearly carry imprints, as required by electoral law."
So claims are being reviewed. The police have not said WHOSE marketing material is under investigation, but there is word there is one taking place. Robert Largan says he has not been contacted about it. That's it.
The second is the same.
"Right and far-right parties are set to make gains, but the picture is widely different across the continent."
And then it goes on to explore various concerns in a selection of the countries within the EU. Come on, now.
Way to prove you didn't read the articles.
I think questioning the article and citing from it would be one way to prove I did..
So claims are being reviewed. The police have not said WHOSE marketing material is under investigation, but there is word there is one taking place. Robert Largan says he has not been contacted about it. That's it.
Says who? The article focuses on Largan's material, but also says the police have not confirmed Largan is the subject of any complaint or review. The clear inference is that Largan is the subject, but the article presents no evidence, or evidence that there's any review at all. Maybe some Labour supporter made a complaint, got a crime number and pushed the story to the Bbc. Police may not have told the complainant that there's NFA because as the article and you point out, it's clear it's Conservative marketing.
And then it goes on to explore various concerns in a selection of the countries within the EU. Come on, now.
Why would the Bbc be concerned, if the 'national mood' in various countries is drifting away from far-left parties to the right? That's just democracy in action. That the Bbc can't read the 'national mood' is pretty obvious in some of it's content. I mentioned Dr Who because that's just an example of this. It's new series has unleashed RTD's creative freedoms to take one of the Bbc's best loved brands and re-imagine it, with some help from Disney. He's taken it in a direction that goes against the 'national mood'. In interviews, he's said that for any viewer that rejects his vision, 5 more would watch. How's that working out in the ratings? Lowest ever according to some reports. But that's true across a lot of media.
Warner Bros spaffed $300m+ on Furiosa: A Mad Max tale that doesn't include Mad Max. It's turning into another flopbuster because audiences are bored with girlboss movies. And it's much the same with Disney and the way it's destroying it's Star Wars franchise. Rather than making bank pushing content to the franchise's traditional audience, media companies are fixated on messaging and diversity, and making content that only really appeals to a small minority. For the Bbc, they may not care about ratings and poor performance because thanks to their funding, performance doesn't matter. For Warner and Disney, missing the 'national mood' clearly has direct financial consequences.
'far left' viewpoints that the BBC tends to represent.
Have you ever actually read or watched anything from the BBC? Because that statement suggests not, more it is parroting the nonsense from Central Office that considers anybody to the Left of Thatcher to be raving commie leftist.
Mainstream media has been telling people what to think for ages now.
All media does this, it's just that mainstream media has at least some semblance of regulation that intends to prevent it from being pure disinformation, unlike the alternative.
It's therefore legitimate to wonder whether anyone espousing the alternative has an agenda to push such disinformation, in an unregulated and uncontrolled manner, for their own nefarious purposes.
If you don't trust the "mainstream media", the natural response would be to push for greater transparency, and greater regulation of the media, in order to promote truth over disinformation; oddly enough, these are exactly the things that those who bleat on against "the MSM" espouse, thus exposing their own disingenuity through their own words.
You might as well wear a T-shirt with [CITATION REQUIRED] written on it.
While idiots making frequent loud and dramatic claims on social media is a problem ( no real surprise there tbh) the underlying problem is the people who read stuff on social media and (choose to?) believe it.
Not just fake news, either. Think of the people being duped into buying fake goods and service they've seen advertised on Facebook. The holiday lets and hotel rooms that don't exist or aren't what the accompanying advert claims. But story after story appears on consumer TV programmes of suckers paying cash for holiday accommodation that has been faked up. Or bought goods that turn out to be shit or dangerous ( or both). Because they "saw it on Facebook".
"Because they "saw it on Facebook"."
Or YouTube. It's become so inexpensive to advertise scams, junk and dangerous information with no supervision that it's scary. Walmart advertising has convinced a whole swath of the population with money to spend that the lowest price is the best value so when somebody sees anything for less, they don't ask questions, they just dish out their credit card number.
Did anyone check to see if there are any supersharers dishing out shedloads of "legitimate" news? Just curious.
The problem doesn't really lie with the supersharers. They, presumably, believe the material they're posting, and they surely have the right to share their opinions with others, regardless of how bat shit crazy they are. Any society that seeks to limit the free expression of opinions - North Korea, anyone? - has already lost, and is not one I would want to be part of. Similarly, people must be free to read those opinions if they wish.
The problem is a severe lack of critical thinking in the population at large. People are not really encouraged to think for themselves, to analyse what they are told and reach their own conclusions about it's veracity. As a result, they don't have much experience of doing it; it's generally easier and simpler to simply believe the material put out by the news network of your choice, and that is definitely the way politicians like it. Unfortunately, when their allegiance switches to a purveyor of fake news, they are not equipped to identify it's inherent fallacies and are quickly persuaded that they have stumbled on some hidden truths. Naturally, being good citizens, their instinct is to share that truth with their friends, and a supersharer is born.
The only possible solution (unless one is prepared to bludgeon freedom to death) is to teach people to question, to reason, to check and double check facts, but that will never happen. The last thing any government wants is an electorate that is actively trained to see through bullshit. Instead, measures will be introduced to limit the reach of supersharers and freedom will die, unnoticed until some politician does something really bad that people need to reveal, only to find that they can't.
> The problem doesn't really lie with the supersharers. They, presumably, believe the material they're posting, and they surely have the right to share their opinions with others, regardless of how bat shit crazy they are. Any society that seeks to limit the free expression of opinions - North Korea, anyone? - has already lost, and is not one I would want to be part of. Similarly, people must be free to read those opinions if they wish.
Yes yes yes yes yes yes yes. And yes. The problem isn't these "supersharers," who are very few in number. It's the non-super readers who base their own opinions on what they read from random idiots on social media. The supersharers would not be an issue at all if nobody paid attention to them; and conversely, their followers would probably hold similarly ridiculous opinions even if the supersharers did not exist. Eliminating the supersharers would solve exactly nothing.
The supersharers wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't an algorithm amplifying their reach and pushing their posts into other people's timelines.
If there was simply a chronological timeline then people wouldn't be sent down rabbit holes in the name of engagement, they would have to actively seek out nonsense which as passive consumers which lap up any old crap on the screen in front of them they wouldn't do.
And arguably the algorithm is an editorial decision that the social network has made, something the hallowed section 230 doesn't allow for if they're not supposed to act like a publisher.
This, exactly.
If you promote or suppress content, you're not a "platform", you're a "publisher". That's what publishers do. Arguably it's the only thing they do, the start and end of the business that for centuries we've called "publishing".
If companies like Xitter want to be treated as common carriers, then they should be required to act like common carriers. Directing content according to the directions of the person posting it and the person viewing it, no more nor less, and not "boosting" it to drive "engagement".
"If you promote or suppress content, you're not a "platform", you're a "publisher". "
I like this observation and taking it one step further, it makes the platform/publisher subject to more and stricter laws. I don't see a problem with a Social Media platform censoring personal attacks, outright dangerous information and posters encouraging people to break the law, but once that curation gets into banning opinions, the bottom should fall out for them. Any sort of boosting of the previous should also make the platform liable whether it's algorithmic or human driven.
“<snip> but once that curation gets into banning opinions,”
Yes OK, I promise you that I absolutely understand and get what you mean, but hypothetically imagine that my genuine opinion is that ingesting large amounts of elemental Arsenic results in better skin conditions and increased longevity.
Now in an ideal world, any reasable person should think ‘hang on, Arsenic is a really, really toxic substance, and there is no way that I’ll follow this ‘advise’. Alas we don't live in an ideal world, and some people will be incentives to follow this advice.
Now furthermore imagine that I happen to be a ‘foreign agent’ I post the same ‘opinion’ but my intention is not to pass on what I genuinely believe to be true, but to actively cause as much distress or death as I can?
As a platform, how do you tell the difference, should you tell the difference, maybe you should allow it anyway on the grounds that any readers are rational people and can tell what is rubbish and is intended to harm them?
Tough problem either way, isn’t it? Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't
If someone posts that opinion, then a reader should see it if, and only if, (1) they explicitly request posts made by that specific account in the relevant timeframe, or (2) they search for it using relevant hashtags and search terms.
If they do either of these, they'll see the post surrounded by relevant context that will help them to understand it. If, at that point, they choose to go off and acquire arsenic (ignoring all safety warnings they'll surely encounter in the process) and chorf it - well, I'd say the platform's hands, at least, are clean.
BUT - if they see the post in a sidebar labelled "trending" or whatever - the context is gone. Now the "platform" is promoting it. And at that point, the platform becomes responsible for the content.
"but hypothetically imagine that my genuine opinion is that ingesting large amounts of elemental Arsenic results in better skin conditions and increased longevity."
That falls under "dangerous" as it's a slightly slower form of Russian Roulette with a firearm. I would never see it as an opinion.
"Advice" not "Advise". It's that whole noun/verb thing.
"The only possible solution (unless one is prepared to bludgeon freedom to death) is to teach people to question, to reason, to check and double check facts, but that will never happen”
But isn’t that what ‘education’ is/was supposed to do? Maybe ‘critical thinking’ should be a compulsory module on both sides of the Atlantic. Although I can see problems with implementing it; ‘hang on, this <insert religious dogma here>, it's rubbish isn’t it?’
In the US, as I understand it, you do have a bit of a problem with religion getting tied up with politics, which is ironic as you, supposedly have laws banning this, whereas, over here in the UK, we ’technically'’ have a state religion, but, in practice any candidate for political office who dares to mention their ‘religious views’ as being relevant is likely to get short-shrift.
We did, tentatively, teach critical thinking in the UK in the 80s. But it was firmly trampled on by "back-to-basics" campaigns. So, for example, secondary school History did a lot of work on evaluating historical evidence. But the pressure to move back to teaching dates and battles got it killed off. And non-exam subjects like "Philosophy for kids" or thinking skills were starved of funds and used as evidence to attack teachers as a bunch of wishy-washy lefties.
We really do need to instate a three part, 12 unit course in Critical Thinking and make passing it mandatory for high school graduation. Unfortunately, the politicians will never make it a law, because if they did every crooked one of them would be voted out of office within 8 years.
A side benefit is that the trolls around here would not have anything to do.
We did, tentatively, teach critical thinking in the UK in the 80s. But it was firmly trampled on by "back-to-basics" campaigns. So, for example, secondary school History did a lot of work on evaluating historical evidence. But the pressure to move back to teaching dates and battles got it killed off.
I think I was fortunate to miss most of those reforms. Plus my father was a historian and teacher who took early retirement when those happened. I think the push to rote learning was a huge mistake, and it's reflected in society now. It might suit certain sections of society (marketing, politicians, scammers) to have a population conditioned to blindly accept 'facts', but it's also very damaging to have a generation that hasn't really been taught to think for themselves.
Personally, I think philosophy should be a mandatory subject, after all as wiki puts it-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
Major branches of philosophy are epistemology, ethics, logic, and metaphysics. Epistemology studies what knowledge is and how to acquire it. Ethics investigates moral principles and what constitutes right conduct. Logic is the study of correct reasoning and explores how good arguments can be distinguished from bad ones. Metaphysics examines the most general features of reality, existence, objects, and properties.
Which could include why wiki isn't always a reliable source. But politicians keep harping on about 'misinformation', how it's the greatest threat to democracy, and the public should be innoculated against it. Philosophy pretty much has all the answers. If people were taught to think for themselves and think critically, they'd be more capable of spotting misinformation, whether that's official or not.
"Personally, I think philosophy should be a mandatory subject...."
We're governed by a heaving mass of graduates mostly qualified in various combos of Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, and you think that any of those subjects should become mandatory? I'm all for banning the subjects, burning the books, and possibly the graduates as well.
A bit of a straw man argument.
No doubt the PPE graduates in parliament are arguably perfectly aware of what is wrong with their arguments. But their interest is in power, acquisition of. And wealth, ditto.
OTOH "Philosophy for Kids" though was for kids The key is in thinking skills.
It was about asking Important Questions and reasoning answers. Not studying the works of Ancient Greeks and Romans and seeking ways to persuade the public and gain power. Though maybe it would help to recognise that when it's being done to them.
No doubt the PPE graduates in parliament are arguably perfectly aware of what is wrong with their arguments. But their interest is in power, acquisition of. And wealth, ditto.
Therein lies the real problem. Philosophy also includes ethics, but that can conveniently overlooked in the pursuit of power and wealth. Rather than politics being a noble career and public service, it can become a self-serving enterprise that allows PPE grads to become very wealthy. This is probably where real reforms are needed, ie cracking down on conflicts of interest and lobbying. It's also where being wealthy should counter this. So take Sunak as an example. Smart guy, PPE grad with a first, Fulbright Scholar for his MBA, successful career in finance. Oh, and also married very well. So in theory, competent and less likely to be corruptable.
Then take, say, Ed Milliband. Another PPE, although dropped that and graduated with an upper 2nd, then MSc in Economics, and then straight into politics. Then ended up lumbering the UK with the most expensive and disastrous bits of legislation in our history, the Climate Change Act. Mostly written for him by Bryony Worthington, a Friends of the Earth campaigner. But then given a gong and elevated to the House of Lords, and promptly created her own lobbying company to promote carbon credits. Not bad for an Eng.Lit grad.
At least the UK has had some reforms, ie the House of Lords switched from life peers to working peers, who in theory should know what they're talking about and could add wisdom to reviewing legislation from that 'other place'. But of course it was promptly stacked with lobbyists like Baroness Worthless.
Oh it does. It's just less extreme in some ways.
Religion forces it's way into politics in entirely unacceptable ways. But at least multiple religious alternatives tolerated by law, if not all sections of the population.
Politics is strongly devisive and polarising, and often bound to the dominant religion, Christianity. But you get two parties to choose from, rather than no choice at all.
On the flip side you have a country like France where religion is very explicitly split from politics to such an extent it is near enough banned from anything government related.
Wearing any sort of religious symbol (necklace for example) is not allowed.
Please give me a list of all the US presidents who were not practising members of the Christian faith. Go on, I'll wait.
The fact is, that in the US, if you don't profess to possess religious faith of some flavour, it essentially makes you unelectable. The opposite holds true in the UK, where more than half of the population registered themselves as having "no religion" in the last census. It's one of the very few ways in which the UK is still a progressive society with all the backwards steps we have taken in the last decade-and-a-half.
"The fact is, that in the US, if you don't profess to possess religious faith of some flavour, it essentially makes you unelectable. "
This is what makes me a real weirdo. If any candidate is overtly religious, I won't vote for them as I have no idea where their loyalties lie. I agree that anybody not professing some sort of Christian faith in the US is highly unlikely to be elected. The question is whether that's real or just worn for camouflage.
When the then President, who lost, was going around claiming the election was stolen, somehow fraudulent, and firing off loads of legal actions (exactly none of which went anywhere), and may well have egged on an insurrection against his own country...
...is this really a surprise?
Now he is a convicted felon (of course, that too is a stitch up, right?) and is still a strong candidate for the next one to inhabit the White House.
There is something very wrong when, instead of working with whoever is currently leading the country, people are far more willing to dive into conspiracies and alternative realities (aka blatant bullshit) to explain why things are the way they are.
This problem, sadly, is not unique to America, and many places are holding elections soon. Be worried.
"There is something very wrong when, instead of working with whoever is currently leading the country"
When you build a house your don't ask your great grandfather to come along and do the foundations.....It is very important that whoever is at the top is actually capable of doing the job.
The whole world looks at the USA and thinks what the fuck happened that they got themselves in such a state.. Joe Biden couldn't run a piss up in a brewery, he's well past his prime, if there ever was any. When we look back at his political life, he never actually did anything, he was never a 1st class politician, he was always in the back seat where nothing was happening..
Those who are truly in control are ensuring that they retain their power and most notably their finances. And who are these people, it's the huge corporations that deal in Billions or hundreds of Billions of dollars and they don't really care whether the president is republican or democrat they still have the same lobbying power...
The fact that everyone is concentrating on Trump/Biden is a mere sideshow in order that no-one actually looks behind the scenes.
"When we look back at his political life, he never actually did anything, he was never a 1st class politician, he was always in the back seat where nothing was happening.."
Perhaps that's why the Democratic party ran him. His closet wasn't bursting with obvious skeletons until things began to break with his drug addled son and the dam bursting on entities paying for access to Joe.
I get the feeling that many career politicians are nothing more than self-serving narcissists and the political parties have a hard time finding somebody to back that won't embarrass them on the evening news. With Big Data and easy to access news files, it's getting easier to spot inconsistencies in politician's lives. Somebody having been in politics their entire adult life shouldn't have a net worth in the tens of millions of dollars regardless of whether it's in their name or a spouses (old money excepted, obviously).
Given the number of people willing to hurl allegations of all manner of things, but largely self-interest against anyone standing for any political assembly it's very likely that the only ones who'll put up with it are self-serving narcissists. Beware of creating the exact thing you don't want.
"Somebody having been in politics their entire adult life shouldn't have a net worth in the tens of millions of dollars regardless of whether it's in their name or a spouses (old money excepted, obviously)."
Why the f*** should old money be excepted? Old money gives you every bit as much self interest as the hoping-to-be-new-money, but with a dynastic side order of nepotism.
"Why the f*** should old money be excepted? "
Nepotism is a different topic, but I'll agree the "old boy's network" isn't a good thing. If I chose really good ancestors that endowed me with plenty of assets, it should be clear that I didn't acquire them through back room deals. How they might have amassed the money has nothing to do with my behavior. For a career politician to become very wealthy on a higher than average salary gets very suspicious as the work they do can have serious impacts on a nation's fortunes. When the old bastards tried to corner the market on Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice in "Trading Places" by getting access to the crop reports before anybody else, while funny, illustrates the sort of position politicians are in. They see that information, they might pass laws restricting water so groves of trees have to be left for dead. A word to a spouse or their investment manager .....
When the old bastards tried to corner the market on Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice in "Trading Places" by getting access to the crop reports before anybody else, while funny, illustrates the sort of position politicians are in. They see that information, they might pass laws restricting water so groves of trees have to be left for dead. A word to a spouse or their investment manager .....
Both the Pelosis and the Clintons made their money by being highly sophisticated and canny investors. Nothing to see there, moving swiftly on.. Same with the Bidens. Art sales, book deals, nothing to see there either, and certainly no 10% for the Big Guy. They're not at all motivated by money. Not even when Joe 'Whatever it takes!" Biden snubs Zelensky's pity party in Switzerland to go attend a fund raiser with a bunch of Hollywood celebs. Money comes first.
(At some point, the media might dig into Zelensky's rather large property portfolio. Which apparently added a £20m mansion in London recently. Not too shabby for a low paid 'Servant of the People'.)
This is a fair point. And an issue with all politics. By definition a political leader is someone who seeks power- which makes them worrying.
Add in that the ones who do well within party hierarchies tend to not be the laid back gentle souls - but are the ones who manouver, ingratiate and backstab to build a power base.
Why the f*** should old money be excepted? Old money gives you every bit as much self interest as the hoping-to-be-new-money, but with a dynastic side order of nepotism.....<different poster>.....This is a fair point. And an issue with all politics. By definition a political leader is someone who seeks power- which makes them worrying.
Maybe the ancient Chinese had it right, of having eunuchs as ministers. The thinking was that without offspring, they'd be more trustworthy. Maybe we should try that in the US and the UK. In the case of Johnson, we should enact it retrospectively simply because he deserves it.
"until things began to break with his drug addled son" Ex addict, which was well known.
"and the dam bursting on entities paying for access to Joe." Only according to MAGAts who had no facts and who were soundly mocked.
I get the feeling that many career politicians are nothing more than self-serving narcissists and the political parties have a hard time finding somebody to back that won't embarrass them on the evening news.
Why does every democracy have "career politicians"? 1. Incumbents have an edge. The devil you know... 2. Name recognition brings votes. this is independent of the incumbency thing, which is why old actors (cough...Reagan...cough) and reality tv faces get in. 3. Experience in fund raising strongly favors someone with a track record, and a track record in office is a strong aid to gathering more voters. 4. Congress and Parliament have complex rules and traditions that take a period of learning to use in one's favor, so the first term is not going to be more than figuring out where the loo is and what form to use to get a new office chair, let alone who to speak with to get one's agenda advanced.
Regan had a good political career prior to being president. He'd been in an official position since the late 60s.
Trump is hated by the political class as he isn't 'one of them'. Hillary was very much 'its my turn, I deserve it' and this is partly why she lost.
One good explanation for why there are lifers in politics like Pelosi and Moscow Mitch is because if they leave before they die their corruption might get exposed.
There's also the issue that when politics was only for amateurs only the rich could take part. It was a hobby and status symbol for the wealthy, like playing polo or chasing foxes from horseback. Somehow it's been ratcheted up so that now it's mostly back to that.
What you say is absolutely true, people are willing to dive into conspiracy theories.
The fact that the CIA has been responsible for many fuck-ups that they covered up and then got caught out for doesn't help.
When your government is responsible for MK Ultra, the deliberate non-treatment of black men who had syphilis, the military poisoning of an entire city to "see what happens" . . . well let's just say that conspiracy theories are unfortunately not entirely unjustified.
When you pollute the waters of truth at the highest level, you reap the harvest for apparently a long time.
I don't know if these superspreaders would change anyones opinion but does propagate assertions whose veracity could be easity falsified but never are, so you are awash in a sea of lies. I strongly suspect both ends of the political spectrum are equally culpable.
The fabric of US society is unravelling before your eyes and I would seriously consider Ken Burns' is warning about this fairly imminent threat.
JFK once suggested Americans ask: "what can I do for my country."*
The US is now light years from that sentiment.
* Inaugural Address 1961 which began with "We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end as well as a beginning--signifying renewal as well as change."
Trump's great power is that he literally does not care whether what he says has any basis in reality whatsoever. Or even if it's consistent with what he said 30 seconds earlier.
Most people are not equipped to deal with habitual liars, as they generally assume "they wouldn't be allowed to say it if it wasn't mostly true".
That's a major part of the problem with modern politics in many countries. There's little to no consequences for a politician or political party who misleads or even tells outright lies.
For example, it took months to eject Boris for lying to the House, and there were never any consequences for his lies to the population.
It's a lot more effort to refute a lie than to tell one, and thus there is a continual pressure on politicians to dissemble, mislead and lie.
Trump's great power is that he literally does not care whether what he says has any basis in reality whatsoever. Or even if it's consistent with what he said 30 seconds earlier.
TDS has entered the chat. So Biden's uncle was shot down and eaten by cannibals. Easy enough to 'fact check', he wasn't, his plane ran out of fuel and he drowned. Or other brothers enlisted after Pearl Harbour. They didn't, service records showed they enlisted before. And that list goes on.
Some of those are easy enough to 'fact check', others get harder. So there was Blinken's work to get 51 intelligence officials to sign a letter saying Hunter Biden's laptop was 'Russian misinformation'. It wasn't, it was authentic but that took time to confirm. And people still seem to believe the misinformation meme. Much the same is true of the 'Steele Dossier' and other misinformation claims spread during the 2016 US election. Those were 'superspreader' events because they were part of election campaigns, and dutifully amplified by a gullible MSM.
And then there's this lot-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Securing_Democracy
Of 'Hamilton 68' fame. Or infamy. But one of the many 'fake news' and 'misinformation' outfits that sprang up to make money and spread misinformation. Or counter it, depending on who you believe. Which is the problem. How do we know who or what to believe? In an election, the biggest spreaders of misinformation will be the political parties. It's obviously in their interests to spin their version of the truth in the best possible light. Then campaigns will use astroturfers and sockpuppets to amplify their messaging. In an ideal world, the MSM could catch some of the most egregious misinformation, but sadly, they seem to have become part of the problem.
And it's getting worse, so goverments announcing crackdowns and new legislation to 'prevent misinformation', which could actually mean only allowing official misinformation, and limiting people's ability to counter this.. Which is getting worse by the day. Ursula von der Liar wants to 'shield' the EU if she's elected again-
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/05/14/von-der-leyen-pitches-plan-to-shield-eu-from-foreign-interference-if-re-elected
The Shield would be tasked with detecting and removing online disinformation - building on the work of the EU's digital rulebook, the Digital Services Act (DSA) - and "inoculating" the bloc against malign influence by enabling Europeans to recognise threats.
An N95 mask for Europe! But innoculation is something misinformation peddlers have been promoting. We'll be 'innoculated' with fragments of lies and then somehow be able to be immunised against the big lies. This is presumably already being trialled with misinformation, like Ursula being under investigation for her vaccine deals, election spending etc.
@Jellied Eel
You won't be popular with that post, a lot of people around here no longer seem to want to hear any truth that doesn't agree with their ideologies..
But more and more of them are starting to wake up to the fact that ideologies is not what provides the next meal. I also believe that we are at a junction in time where the fantasy crowd are going to soon become complete societal pariahs, they will no longer be accepted due to their arrogance and utter lack of common sense.
You won't be popular with that post, a lot of people around here no longer seem to want to hear any truth that doesn't agree with their ideologies..
I'm used to it. The angry thumbs tend to come out in force when I try and get people to question their belief system.
I also believe that we are at a junction in time where the fantasy crowd are going to soon become complete societal pariahs, they will no longer be accepted due to their arrogance and utter lack of common sense.
I don't think it will go that far, but we live in interesting times. Like I said, governments are increasingly using propaganda, misinformation and censorship to shut down any dissenting opinions and stifle debate. This is dangerous, and part of the good'ol sleepwalking into fascism. Or a toxic combination of 1984 combined with 'They Live'. But it's also fairly basic psychology and crowd behaviour. People tend to be trusting, and trust their peers, or what they think is news. Then as in cult deprogramming, people can find it very hard to accept that they've been mislead. Plus the education system doesn't seem very keen on teaching critical thinking any more. There already seems to be some pushback against ESG, but hopefully it won't go as far as making people pariahs. They'll just find themselves unemployable if they can't think for themselves. AI will soon be able to do the drones jobs after all.
Have you two actually got anything of worth to say or are you just going to carry on spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies onto the Internet hoping to reel in more gullible to the cause, claiming that those who aren't so weak of mind as to believe this nonsensical bullshit are dividing the country, and sucking your own dicks?
Sarah Palin back in the day looked positively sane compared to this.
Have you two actually got anything of worth to say or are you just going to carry on spouting conspiracy theories and outright lies onto the Internet hoping to reel in more gullible to the cause, claiming that those who aren't so weak of mind as to believe this nonsensical bullshit are dividing the country, and sucking your own dicks?
Once more, an anonymous and very much coward leaps in feet first to add nothing to the conversation except insults.
So what did I say that was either a consipiracy theory, or an outright lie? If you believe in stuff like the 2016 'Russian disinformation', then Mueller's investigation found that pretty much all of that came from the Democrats. Mostly one person who couldn't handle the fact that she lost the election and keeps looking for someone else to blame. But if you're suitably weak minded, you can be a mug and buy a mug from her stating she was 'right about everything'. Except of course why she lost.
But if you're suitably weak minded, you can be a mug and buy a mug from her stating she was 'right about everything'. Except of course why she lost.
Hillary Clinton Officially Wins Popular Vote by Nearly 2.9 Million
I suppose you're going to say that was fake news too.
I suppose you're going to say that was fake news too.
Nope, she's still a loser. Convince the US to change their entire election system and she'd still be a loser.
So, those lies and 'conspiracy theories'. Any luck? Also your insult. Not everyone is fortunate to be as well endowed, but you can always ask your partner for a magnifier and tweezers. It's a bit like when the Biden campaign advertised for a meme manager recently, thus further demonstrating the left can't meme. Many on the Internet submitted portfolio entries though.
Nope, she's still a loser. Convince the US to change their entire election system and she'd still be a loser.
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen:
- She lost the vote because meaning the conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories but they're really true.
- Concrete evidence she did not lose the vote.
- No, she still lost and the conspiracy theories are still true.
What's the point of this?
And every post has yet another conspiracy theory or talking point tacked onto the end to deluge the forum with yet more lies and bullshit.
And there we have it ladies and gentlemen:
Yep. You're demonstrating you're also a loser. And a sore one at that.
- She lost the vote because meaning the conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories but they're really true.
Your words, not mine. I said she lost the election, not the vote. Many years later, despite evidence that her Russiagate hoaxes were actual conspiracies and not conspiracy theories, you still seem to believe in those.
What's the point of this?
Simple really. It helps me demonstrate to anyone that might actually be interested just how deluded and obnoxious extreme TDS sufferers can be slinging strawmen and ad homs everywhere. And of course you're still a coward who's too afraid to put a name, any name to the words you spew...
"Simple really. It helps me demonstrate to anyone that might actually be interested just how deluded and obnoxious extreme TDS sufferers can be slinging strawmen and ad homs everywhere. And of course you're still a coward who's too afraid to put a name, any name to the words you spew..."
You're getting desperate again.
You don't understand TDS, it is the severe cognitive impairment that prevents people from seeing just how profoundly stupid, incompetent and corrupt that trump truly is
What if it isn't derangement at all, but simply that Trump's behaviour mirror things many voters share? Fat, boorish, angry, shouty, sub-average intellect, misogyny, disagreeable, opinionated, abusive, immune to logic, incapable of polite disagreement. You can find plenty of people with a fair sprinkling of those attributes in any down market bar, anywhere in the world. What the Orange buffoon offers US redneck voters for near enough the first time, is a president that matches their behaviours.
Insulting half the voter base is what lost Hillary the election.
Fat - OK, Joe wins this
boorish - Joe is the very embodiment of 'I tied an onion to my belt'
angry - Lots of fist shaking from Joe
shouty - Many occasions where Joe has shouted into the mic, they don't call him Old Yeller for nothing!
sub-average intellect - Where did Joe come in his law class?
misogyny - Showered with his teenage daughter and married the babysitter
disagreeable - The reports from his staff about his behaviour in the white house back this one up, as do previous points
opinionated - If you don't know who to vote for you ain't black
abusive - Its not just his dog that bites
immune to logic - inflation is going to pop up a little and go right back down
incapable of polite disagreement - didn't he coin the term 'ultra maga extremists'?
What if it isn't derangement at all, but simply that Trump's behaviour mirror things many voters share? Fat, boorish, angry, shouty, sub-average intellect, misogyny, disagreeable, opinionated, abusive, immune to logic, incapable of polite disagreement. You can find plenty of people with a fair sprinkling of those attributes in any down market bar, anywhere in the world. What the Orange buffoon offers US redneck voters for near enough the first time, is a president that matches their behaviours.
Yep, that sums you and other TDS sufferers perfectly. Except I'd add microcephalic and microphallic to your list of attributes as well. But yes, you and other TDS sufferers are so full of hatred. Remember that summer of love after Trump got elected? Remember CNN and the "fiery, but mostly peaceful' protests? Remember the armed insurrection in Seattle where TDS sufferers did a Crimea and declared independence from the USA? Remember them marching on the Whitehouse, shouting that Trump must go because Hillary told them he stole the election?
Pepperidge Farrm remembers.
But the absolute best thing TDS sufferers did is carry on attacking Trump. His name became a dog whistle to those "Fat, boorish, angry, shouty, sub-average intellect, misogyny(sic), disagreeable, opinionated, abusive, immune to logic, incapable of polite disagreement" so every time his name is mentioned, one or more of those attributes shines through. Every time a new Trumped up charge was laid, he rose in the opinion polls. TDS sufferers have generated publicity worth billions.
If only the TDS sufferers had just ignored him..
"If only the TDS sufferers had just ignored him.."
They can't. Entire departments rely on the ad revenue of Trump living rent free in so many heads.
I have asked the question before but never got an answer as to just why there is so much visceral hatred for the guy. It is not normal to have people falling to there knees and screaming into the sky in such a way. I know shortened muskprat will claim strawman again but such things didn't happen in 2008 or 2012. There were no roving gangs of black clad masked republicans smashing shop fronts and torching dumpsters. I think the links between panti-fa and the democrat establishment have something to do with this. U-haul trucks rolling up filled with protest signs, improvised riot shields etc. shows there are much larger forces at play. Heck they admitted it in the Time article after 2020 saying that there were groups ready to start direct action if Trump had won.
I have asked the question before but never got an answer as to just why there is so much visceral hatred for the guy. It is not normal to have people falling to there knees and screaming into the sky in such a way.
Something the Dems copied from Goebbels is how to use propaganda and psyops to work a crowd. Throw in a bit of Pavlov, and constant repetition and the response becomes ingrained. It's just a combination of learned behaviour and learned helplessness. If you don't stop Trump now, Democratcy gets it. Trump and 'extreme MAGA Republicans' are the greatest threat America has ever faced. Then add in the education system churning out smooth brained, infantilised youth and keep indoctrinating them.
It's created an environment that's been great for Sky News Australia's "Lefties losing it" segment, but less great for America. It's also been great for police videos showing traffic stops of the entitled generation who claim 'You can't do this!' and "I know my rights!", when clearly they do not, which is again the fault of the education system. And having watched a few of those, I feel sorry for the officers that have to deal with those people. I also feel sorry for the people of Boston-
http://files.suffolkdistrictattorney.com/The-Rachael-Rollins-Policy-Memo.pdf
with their mayor proposing to decriminalise shoplifting, larceny, disorderly conduct, receiving stolen property, driving with a suspended license, breaking and entering with property damage, wanton and malicious destruction of property, threats, minor in possession of alcohol, marijuana possession, possession with intent to distribute, non-marijuana drug possession. None of those are victimless crimes, but then Democrats rarely care about those unless they're the victims. I guess when Wu's house becomes a crack den and fencing centre, she'll probably change her mind.
Heck they admitted it in the Time article after 2020 saying that there were groups ready to start direct action if Trump had won.
One of the most bizarre events was the pair of lawyers who made a bunch of petrol bombs, tried to find suckers to throw them and eventually used them themselves to torch a police car. Luckily nobody was in it. I guess their legal training skipped that manufacture and possession of petrol bombs is considered a destructive device by the ATF.
It was a minor miracle that those two lawyers got locked up. They both wailed and screeched about how it was the NYPD's fault that they firebombed the car though. Many of the protesters were released and I believe NY actually paid compensation to some in the end.
What we see with bills like the one in Boston, the no cash bail reforms and experiments like Portland and the bay area is an infantilisation of an entire group. Its not their fault, they can't help it, we must not demonise them etc. The result being that people no longer fear the police as their lives lack any consequences. I saw a horrific video where some 'kids' had stolen a car and one was hanging out the window and they sideswiped a parked car. Not sure the kid survived that! Or the two kids who ran the old boy off his bike in Vegas and killed him. One of the pair was caught on bodycam saying he will just be released as they can't do anything to him. Well they are being tried as adults now.
I'm not sure how ANYONE can think that being drugged out of your skin and shitting in the street is a good way to live. But the far left get their white-knight warm fuzzy feels from enabling such things.
I still say the shadowy cabal that fortified 2020 was behind all the 2016 rioting. Either that or the weak minded lefties had some mass formation psychosis.
Well, we've just seen more violence from the left as ol' Nige Farage got a milkshaking. If someone had done that to Dianne Abbot there would be utter uproar but as it was Nige the usual bunch are celebrating on twitter. I have no doubt that Kemi Badenoch is a legit target for them as in their mind she has forfeited her minority status by aligning with the 'wrong' people.
If the left didn't have double standards they'd have no standards at all.
- She lost the vote because meaning the conspiracy theories are not conspiracy theories but they're really true.
She lost the election and that's all that counts, it's just the way the American system works. Nothing conspiratorial there..
You do realise that the number of votes is not what wins the election ?
"You do realise that the number of votes is not what wins the election ?"
Not the nation-wide total, but a winning count on a state by state basis to earn enough electoral votes which are based on the percentage population of those states.
Nobody has proposed a better system that prevents candidates from being elected to office by pandering to a handful of the most populous cities. There's also a wide disparity between the wants and needs of a city dweller to somebody that lives in a much less dense rural area. The Founding Fathers had to be very creative to find ways to balance the fear of small states that they'd be pushed to the side. This is why the US government has a House, based on population, and a Senate, 2 Senators per state. The House was made less powerful than the Senate as a balance. I can't say that any of that is perfect, but the hue and cry is for abolishment without putting forward any rational replacement. What happens after the revolution is far more important than the revolution. The current example are cities that defunded their police departments along with prosecutors that won't prefer charges when what's left of the police catches a criminal. There are reports of home invasion robberies where the victim calls 911 only to be told there are no police that can be dispatched to help them. Can police misbehaving be a problem, yes. That doesn't mean that the baby goes out with the bath water.
What's the point of this?
What is the point of.. you?
JE is a troll, a massive one.
Says the person who's just posted 20 one-line posts in an hour.. I'm not a troll, although I do confess I enjoy challenging leftie's version of reality. It is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel (with an RPG) though.
No it’s not ‘fake news’ it’s established that Hillary got more votes than Donald, so arguably more people wanted her to be President and so she should have been.
But that’s not how the US Presidential College system works, and anyone can argue that ‘it’s not fair’, and ‘it shouldn’t be like this’, but it is what it is and surely everyone standing for President and every voter ‘should’ understand this and accept that this is how it works - don't like it, fine advocate and work towards a Constitutional Amendment to change it!
Arguable, yes, a minority of voters were in favour of it but, like it or not, Trump was the legitimately elected President from 2017 for the next four years. Because that’s the way the system works, don’t like it, fine? You are a democracy, it is within the power of the people to change it, it won’t be easy. In fact it might not, necessarily, be a good idea to do so - there is some benefit to your existing system, but ultimately if you, the American people wan’t to change it, then you absolutely can!
"as opposed to winner takes all."
Yes but, that's more of a flourish than an elimination of the Electoral system. A purely popular vote would be entirely the largest city's wishes and also biased heavily on the East Coast where the population density is higher.
Sure and I wasn't suggesting such a change, just highlighting one of the many areas where both federal and state laws apply. It should be fairly easy and could be interesting to see what the last few elections would have thrown up if other states followed such practices.
TBH I think the electoral college for the presidential election is probably less of a problem than the combination of gerrymandering, short terms and overrepresentation of smaller states in the House. Other federal countries have tended to have more success with a separate chamber representating states and a clearer separation of responsibilities. But I don't think things have got bad enough yet in the US for the pressure for reform to be great enough and this might indeed never happen.
JFK: ”My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
Trump,et al : "My fellow Americans, ask not what you can do for your country, ask how much your country can subsidise and support you, whilst you avoid doing anything remotely meaningful in life."
BIDEN : "My fellow Mexicans, ask not what you can do for your cheese factory, ask how much your cowboys can shake their cooties, I once had an uncle who was a Cowboy in Poland, unfortunately he got shot by a Guatemalan sheepherder while running the New York Marathon, true story"
Since Trump's support is far more male than female, and men tend to be more "hotheaded" when it comes to political stuff - and the people who showed up to riot on Jan. 6 were overwhelmingly male.
I guess after menopause they aren't so worried about the right to an abortion - a right I'm sure plenty of them exercised when they were younger!
Since Trump's support is far more male than female, and men tend to be more "hotheaded" when it comes to political stuff - and the people who showed up to riot on Jan. 6 were overwhelmingly male.
Not sure it's that strange. Women tend to be more social and have a wider circle of friends or acquaintences than men. One thing to be certain though is some political animal somewhere is feeding the tweets into an AI in an attempt to replicate their successes. It's the kind of game astroturfers have been playing for years.
Hmm.. during the Jan 6th completely legal and sanctioned by the 1st amendment protest wasn't it the case that two women were murdered by police, one was shot and another beaten to death.
You'd probably also find that the majority of women are not big fans of infanticide and do not support, and certainly do not celebrate, abortion up to the time of birth. Only the truly deranged post on twitter about how happy they are after a 30 week abortion.
Abortions at 30 weeks or later are comparatively rare: from 30 weeks gestation to 18 years of age, gun deaths in the United States undoubtedly exceed abortions .
Almost 80% of US abortions take place in the first 10 weeks of gestation; almost 20% take place in 11-21 weeks, and about 1% (fewer than 5,000 in 2021) take place after 21 weeks (see, for example: Kortsmit K, Nguyen AT, Mandel MG, et al. "Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2021". MMWR Surveill Summ 2023;72(No. SS-9):1–29. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7209a1 ).
Given that the incidence of abortion declines rapidly with gestational age, the number of abortions at 30 weeks or later is undoubtedly much less than the number of children/teens (<18 years old) killed by guns in the United States (https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years).
"gun deaths in the United States undoubtedly exceed abortions"
Ah the statistics no-one likes to mention. The demographic with the highest number of abortions is also the same one that has the highest number of 'child' gun deaths.
(child in quotes as most of them are teenagers and also armed)
I'm aware that the vast majority of abortions are early on and most people support that. However there is a very small and VERY vocal minority who think that they should be allowed up until birth and foolishly this group gets listened to. When you have people going on TV and performing a 'Salute to Abortion' most people think something is very wrong yet politicians seem to think this is what people want.
"However there is a very small and VERY vocal minority who think that they should be allowed up until birth and foolishly this group gets listened to. When you have people going on TV and performing a 'Salute to Abortion' most people think something is very wrong yet politicians seem to think this is what people want."
This should be the least of your worries. The people who oppose abortion will never accept it at any stage, and one should not make excuses for them. They are relentless and they will not stop until they have their way —including ending birth control. That body of people is a larger and even more vocal body of people who think they have a supernatural being on their side. Many of those crazies are determined to have their end of days on the plains of Armageddon so that they can join their imaginary friend in eternal rapture. Your concerns about post-30-week abortions are —at best— utterly misplaced.
The right-wing evangelicals jumped on to the anti-abortion bandwagon in the late seventies, allowing them to hijack the issue from Democrat-aligned Catholics. MAGA is merely a recent incarnation of this, led by a certain god-fearing man of rectitude — although he (and some of his followers) seem to realise that the anti-abortion policy is somewhat limited in its appeal.
Well it is established and known fact that the origins of planned parenthood were in the KKK and democratic party.
What a lot of people overlook is that for the likes of Amazon and Google it is FAR cheaper to pay for a few days off and transport to/from an abortion clinic than to offer proper medical cover and parental leave.
> "Well it is established and known fact that the origins of planned parenthood were in the KKK and democratic party."
...And so what? There are few (if any) fields of contemporary human activity that don't have unsavoury (to put it mildly) roots in the past. Some —like religion— maintain much of their unsavoury nature to this day.
> "What a lot of people overlook is that for the likes of Amazon and Google it is FAR cheaper to pay for a few days off and transport to/from an abortion clinic than to offer proper medical cover and parental leave."
And a lot of people overlook the rights of other people to live their lives without being controlled by superstitious control freaks.
1) Require people to always post under their real names or have a way that everyone can map their screen name to their real name.
2) Slow down the rate of forwarding
This deals with 'foreign influence' which judging by the fuss our NGOs are making about a foreign influence registration law in Georgia (their one, not the one in the US) suggests that we really like 'influence campaigns' when we're doing it. (Obviously any dishonesty by the source would lead to instant blocking.) A 'foreign influence campaign' really isn't evil when we know up front that the material is coming from the BBC, DW, Voice of America, Russia Today or any one of the numerous government or quasi-government sponsored sites.
The bored old ladies that like to spread conspiracy theories need a life (apart from sitting in the house with the A/C on full hammering away on their computer). If reposting / liking needed more than a click then this would slow down the tide of noise.
Require people to always post under their real names or have a way that everyone can map their screen name to their real name
I'm sure marketers would love for verified ID required for all social media participants, they'll be first on board with that idea!
The article talks about supersharers of fake news, but sharing fake news isn't illegal. Many of them probably are posting under their real name, and have no problem with people knowing that they're doing it. So how would it stop them?
Requiring ID might stop those who are inciting violence, or grooming children. It won't stop those spreading fake news. Sure it'll impede foreign actors looking to help that spread, but if it is originating with old biddies in Florida or Missouri it'll still spread just not quite as readily.
Slowing down the rate of forwarding might help in theory, but how do you implement that? Someone hits "share" or "retweet" and is told "sorry you can't do that, this story has already been shared 1500 times in the last hour. Please try again later." What do you think the response is when someone sees fake news that hits their political hot button and they can't wait to share it with their friends? Now they're being told they CAN'T so in their minds not only does that make it MORE true, dark forces on the other side are acting to prevent you from sharing it so you need to go out of your way to make sure to do everything you can to spread it! Can't share on Facebook and Twitter? Post it on Snapchat and Tik Tok! Email and text it to your friends. Shout it out your back door at your neighbors!
"'m sure marketers would love for verified ID required for all social media participants, they'll be first on board with that idea!"
Will that lead to people posting less of what they really think and just conforming to group-think so they don't look like they are off the graph?
There's still a small chance you can post anonymously so all of your thoughts and opinions aren't instantly searchable by a prospective employer or customer.
Sorry they wasted all that research but it appears that they're pointing out that one group did a whole lot of misleading folks while folks from the other camp, whatever that may be, posted nothing. If these women misled 5% of voters and the opposition misled 5% of voters, it cancels out as if nobody misled, right?
Overly simplistic view of my point, of course but I believe that about sums it up. IIRC, one of ol' Elon's stated goals for purchasing Twitter was that its Democrat-oriented userbase was running amok with wild claims. Whether that's true, I have no idea. I wasn't there. So I discount this research not based on any political affiliation I may have but its failure to acknowledge that there was anything being posted to counter the claims these old bags were making, when of course we know they were. You can't say one word online without someone else saying how full of crap you are, so it certainly was happening at Twitter in 2020.
Since Democrats won the 2020 election it appears to make little sense to point out what unsavory shenanigans Republicans were up to back then unless that's not its point at all. Perhaps it's a "preemptive foreshadowing", as in "Hey, look what these clowns got up to last time. Need to keep a close eye on them here pretty soon."
Overly simplistic view of my point, of course but I believe that about sums it up. IIRC, one of ol' Elon's stated goals for purchasing Twitter was that its Democrat-oriented userbase was running amok with wild claims. Whether that's true, I have no idea. I wasn't there
This is a good insight into what was going on, and the way people were creating the 'Russiagate' hoax, namely the infamous Hamilton 68 dashboard-
https://www.racket.news/p/cti-files-4-the-hamilton-68-connection
THE BULLSHIT IT IS” The #TwitterFiles uncovered that Hamilton 68 was a fraud as well, as according to internal Twitter correspondence, Morgan’s “dashboard” was not “tracking Russian propaganda” and “Russian disinformation,” but a group of 600-odd accounts overwhelmingly composed of ordinary people in places like the U.S., Canada, and Britain. “I think we need to just call this out on the bullshit it is,” said Twitter Trust and Safety chief Yoel Roth.
A misinformation campaign so bad that even Twitter staff detected it. But the MSM, especially the NYT did not, and ran with it, amplifying the effects of the misinformation campaign. Eventually the Mueller report investigated and found that actual Russian 'bot' or misinformation had far less impact than gargbage like Hamilton 68. But astroturfing and political campaigning has always used tricks like this, and one downside to Hamilton 68 is it showed political operators how effective this kind of misinformation campaigning can be.
Or not, because obviously if you don't use Twitter/X or Facebook, you're largely immune to it.. Unless a gullible news org picks it up and runs with it.
Since Democrats won the 2020 election it appears to make little sense to point out what unsavory shenanigans Republicans were up to back then unless that's not its point at all. Perhaps it's a "preemptive foreshadowing", as in "Hey, look what these clowns got up to last time. Need to keep a close eye on them here pretty soon."
I think this explains everything-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
In the dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, thoughtcrime is the offense of thinking in ways not approved by the ruling Ingsoc party. In the official language of Newspeak, the word crimethink describes the intellectual actions of a person who entertains and holds politically unacceptable thoughts; thus the government of The Party controls the speech, the actions, and the thoughts of the citizens of Oceania
With politicians of pretty much all parties trying to take on the role of Ingsoc by countering 'misinformation' and thus preventing thoughtcrimes. Of course 1984 was supposed to be a warning, not a playbook for the politicians currently passing legislation and turning the EU (and UK) into Oceania. It's quite scarey how prophetic Orwell was-
Any sound that Winston made, above the level of a very low whisper, would be picked up by the telescreen; moreover, so long as he remained within the field of vision which the metal plaque commanded, he could be seen as well as heard. There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork.
Hey, Siri, are you listening? If not, the mic in your monitor, phone etc might be. Plus everything we do online is being tracked and monitored, sold to analytics companies and data aggregators who build profiles on every citizen of Oceania. Plus it's a huge business opportunity with a lot of companies going after the money being dangled to detect, counter or elimate 'misinformation' and wrongthink.
Let us not forget that Time magazine published an article detailing exactly how the 2020 election was 'fortified' by a 'cabal' (their words!) to ensure a democrat win. It is even admitted that huge groups of rioters were on standby. It is hard for it to be any clearer that the 2020 election was very carefully and very deliberately rigged. But the TDS suffers cannot see this as they won and that is all that matters. When you have a far left org called 'by any means necessary' you know what you are dealing with and it isn't nice.
The problem is more that people believe stuff they read on the internet from sources as unreliable as social media.
Schools should have compulsory courses on critical thinking and general how to identify poor information and this should be done early, no later than 10 years old.
Won't fix it but at least it is a start
I see the comments here have, predictably, turned into the cesspit of right-wing talking points that might be expected every time objective research demonstrates that stupidity and gullibility are more prevalent on the right of the political spectrum. No shit, there is disinfo on the left as well, just as not everyone on the right swallows bullshit so easily, however, what the article is reporting, are observable facts, rather than loud opinions on the internet. This is only proven in point by the number of loud opinions posed in response, as if these will disprove the research, which is itself, largely about teh propagation of those loud (but wrong) opinions, and how they are distributed demographically.
You can almost see "social media" eating itself in response, in real time...
"largely about teh propagation of those loud (but wrong) opinions"
The issue is that it is the political left which defines 'wrong' (generally as 'anything that hurts our feelings') but when you look at the situation from a more logical perspective the vast majority of fake news comes from the very vocal political left. The skew is simply that they have defined themselves as arbiters of 'the truth'.
We are observing the results of the participation trophy, never been told no, coddled upbringing where everyone has had to tiptoe around you for fear of you throwing a temper tantrum if you don't get your way. I've yet to see a right leaning group walking through a residential area at 4am banging drums and shining lasers and bright lights into windows to wake the occupants or painting graffiti and smashing windows of local businesses and university buildings or setting fire to apartment blocks.
...or, it's nothing at all about "right vs left", but actually about what is observable to be objectively true; in this case, that older right-wing women in certain US states are, for some reason, much more likely to spread things that are objectively false on Twitter?
This is exactly my point; anyone falling even close to that demographic is here tying themselves in knots trying to spin this as "yes but the left". Just like your comment above. I suspect you even know this, as you chose to post your comment anonymously.
I've yet to see a right leaning group walking through a residential area at 4am banging drums and shining lasers and bright lights into windows to wake the occupants or painting graffiti and smashing windows of local businesses and university buildings or setting fire to apartment blocks.
In the 1930s, gangs of German right-wing supporters went round smashing windows, waking the occupants, daubing graffiti et al. I expect you're about to claim that Nazis were socialists now, or perhaps you have't studied enough history to have heard of Kristallnacht?
I know I'm inviting a cry of "Godwin", but anyone about to do so should consider that actual valid comparisons to the Nazis are exempt from reductio ad Hilterum, and this particular AC is inviting that comparison by claiming to never have had it occur to him.
Note as well, that I'm not supporting any such actions being taken, whether they are by people on the left or right of the political spectrum, I'm just pointing out the sheer nonsense and bone-headed stupidity of this particular straw man argument.
"Nazis were socialists now"
Well they do have certain parallels with modern leftist socialist dogma. They both hate a certain Abrahamic religion, like sterilising the mentally unsound, dislike any form of criticism and move to violence at the drop of a hat.
So basically your only response to my statement was a 'but the nazis' strawman. You don't actually have a defence for the far left who have been doing exactly that for the best part of the last 7 years with a peak in 2020. There is the constant 'but the far right' claim but where is the evidence? There are thousands of hours of video of the far left smashing and destroying but virtually none of the 'far right' doing similar. About the worst the 'far right' has done was arrange a cleanup crew to help some people in Baltimore tidy up their street and of course the far left screeched and screamed about how racist it was.
The simple observable fact is that the far left activist class is a bunch of spoilt petulant tantrum throwing NPCs who know nothing apart from death and destruction and the 'far right' as you like to call them are the ones building everything. If the huge cities suddenly ceased to exist the world would continue. If MAGA country vanished the world would starve.
You don't actually have a defence for the far left blah blah blah
You literally don't know what a straw man argument is, do you?
Your claims have absolutely nothing to do with my post, and I see no point in following you down your rabbit hole. It's enough to point out that you made a straw man argument, and that it was a straw man argument, and also demonstrably a false one. You said you couldn't think of an example of something happening, and I gave you a very strongly historically documented example of it. Beyond that, I couldn't give a monkey's ass about your claims.
My point is that this sort of research brings out exactly the sort of rubbish comment you have posted, because people will do and say anything before accepting that the things they are saying and doing are provably wrong. You can argue yourself round in circles all day long, all you are demonstrating is that you can argue yourself in circles all day long. My observing you doing this is in no way an indication that I wish to join in your circle-jerk.
You made the strawman with the 'but the nazis' claim. You were trying to argue in circles.
My statement was that it is the far left doing the destruction in the USA, this is a true observable fact. There is a death toll and insurance bill for the summer of love. It was not MAGA republicans who gunned down two black kids in a car in the CHAZ, killing one of them, not sure if the other survived. It was not MAGA republicans who shot and killed an 8 year old near a Wendy's in Atlanta. It wasn't a MAGA republican who shot David Dorn and then burnt down the store. It wasn't a MAGA republican who walked up behind someone in Portland and shot them in the back of the head unprovoked. Its a long list of established facts.
Let me guess, you are highly likely to be the type to say 'the parties switched sides' if anyone makes the Democrats = KKK argument. Right? Maybe what really happened is that the Nazis switched sides? Now that is a strawman as we all know the Dems are still the party of the KKK and that national socialism, Italian fascism and communism were just 3 variations on a theme.
In the 1930s, gangs of German right-wing supporters went round smashing windows, waking the occupants, daubing graffiti et al. I expect you're about to claim that Nazis were socialists now, or perhaps you have't studied enough history to have heard of Kristallnacht?
Err, well.. The Nazis were erm.. National Socialist German Workers' Party. But like in many things, those that ignore history are condemned to repeat it. Despite thinking themselves as 'anti-fascist'.
Bullshit. Racist hatred of Jews in Europe runs deep. And runs all the way through Europen history. It's never been confined to any one political strain.It is only fairly recently (1960s) that the Catholic church gave up on that stance, officially. But even within the Vatican 11 declaration there were standouts who waned to retain the Christian (Catholic) Doctrine that Jews were cursed and who resisted the declaration against antisemitism.
Leicester has a university and a concert hall named for De Montfort. Who's hatred towards Jews was clear and demonstrable.
1265
You have to ignore history to believe that the Nazis were socialists.
Plus ca change. You have to do the same to believe the Democrats are socialists, despite the way the emulate the fascist tendencies of their role models. Don't forget the US was rather late to WW2, and FDR's 'New Deal' has been criticised for it's interventionist nature and fascist tendencies. At least the Democrats of today have had more success in controlling both Party and Executive, along with the judicial system.. But like the 'New Deal', Bidenomics hasn't exactly been great for dealing with the recession. Other than attempting to redefine a recession of course.
Any study based on Twitter makes a fundamental error in its sampling: Twitter is, never was, representative of any national population. It's sole advantage (for journalism) was relatively easy access to the shithose and the soundbites by the attention-seeking twats using it.
2020: you are a racist if you claim Covid leaked from a lab
2023: Yes, it likely leaked from the Wuhan lab
2020: Chris Cuomo says 'You are not a horse, do not take ivermectin'
2024: Chris Cuomo says 'I've been taking ivermectin to treat long covid'
2021: inflation will be transitory, money printing won't cause inflation
2022: inflation is a good thing
2023: inflation is your fault for wanting a pay rise
2024: inflation is still not coming down to where we want and it was caused by money printing
In exactly the same fashion as disenfranchised youth complain about their worthlessness and lack of value to society - by vandalising and breaking things that other people do value, these super sharers are asserting that their lives have meaning. The ability to spread destructive misinformation, "know" (and share) secrets which probably have been totally fabricated by wannabe campaign writers, all give a sense of power to people who just dont have it.
After all, as Frank Herbert mentioned in Dune, If you can destroy something, you have control over it.
The greatest crime the internet is responsible for - is giving stupid people a voice..
Your statement would have some validity if the 'misinformation' they were spreading was, in fact, actually misinformation. What happens is some bit of info gets spread on the interwebs, the regime vehemently denies it and sends in the brownshirts to dogpile and in 12-18 months time the very same regime is saying 'we never denied <fact>' and is trying to re-write history.
We've seen this time and time again with Biden and his team of handlers. Heck, Jen Psaki had to edit her book due to blatant untruths in it.
'Biden didn't look at his watch during the transfer of fallen soldiers, only after it was over'
Well, yes, he did, multiple times, and it is on video AND timestamped photos from the event.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
