Ask Slashdot: Should Web Browsers Have 'Fact Checking' Capability Built-In? 240
Reader dryriver writes: There is no shortage of internet websites these days that peddle "information", "knowledge", "analysis", "explanations" or even supposed "facts" that don't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny -- one quick trip over to Wikipedia, Snopes, an academic journal or another reasonably factual/unbiased source, and you realize that you've just been fed a triple dose of factually inaccurate horsecrap masquerading as "fact". Unfortunately, many millions of more naive internet users appear to frequent sites daily that very blatantly peddle "untruths", "pseudo-facts" or even "agitprop-like disinformation", the latter sometimes paid for by someone somewhere. No small number of these more gullible internet users then wind up believing just about everything they read or watch on these sites, and in some cases cause other gullible people in the offline world to believe in them too. Now here is an interesting idea: What if your internet browser -- whether Edge, Firefox, Chrome, Opera or other -- was able provide an "information accuracy rating" of some sort when you visit a certain URL. Perhaps something like "11,992 internet users give this website a factual accuracy rating of 3.7/10. This may mean that the website you are visiting is prone to presenting information that may not be factually accurate." You could also take this 2 steps further. You could have a small army of "certified fact checkers" -- people with scientific credentials, positions in academia or similar -- provide a rolling "expert rating" on the very worst of these websites, displayed as "warning scores" by the web browser. Or you could have a keyword analysis algorithm/AI/web crawler go through the webpage you are looking at, try to cross-reference the information presented to you against a selection of "more trusted sources" in the background, and warn you if information presented on a webpage as "fact" simply does not check out. Is this a good idea? Could it be made to work technically? Might a browser feature like this make the internet as a whole a "more factually accurate place" to get information from?That's a remarkable idea. It appears to me that many companies are working on it -- albeit not fast enough, many can say. Google, for instance, recently began adding "Fact check" to some stories in search results. I am not sure how every participating player in this game could implement this in their respective web browsers though. Then there is this fundamental issue: the ability to quickly check whether or not something is indeed accurate. There's too much noise out there, and many publications and blogs report on things (upcoming products, for instance) before things are official. How do you verify such stories? If the NYTimes says, for instance, Apple is not going to launch any iPhone next year, and every website cites NYTimes and republishes it, how do you fact check that? And at last, a lot of fake stories circulate on Facebook. You may think it's a problem. Obama may think it's a problem, but does Facebook see it as a problem? For all it care, those stories are still generating engagement on its site.
What means this 'trustworthy'? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should I trust the people you say I should trust to say who I should trust?
Re:What means this 'trustworthy'? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could always check out the people doing the fact checking for yourself. Maybe even have the option to use different fact checking sources, like you can select different search engines.
For the average person some warning would be helpful, not just on political stories but on stuff like anti-vaccination sites and religious cults. Most browsers already have warnings for sites that are thought to be scams (of course you don't trust them either I guess) so why not flag other kinds of harmful content? As long
Re:What means this 'trustworthy'? (Score:5, Interesting)
My only concern is that this fact-checking will not extend to the claims of Google advertisers. Can you imagine the crying if it did? "No, this smartphone will not give you 14 hours of battery-time" or "It's not really waterproof"? We might actually get the chance to see if a free market could really work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What means this 'trustworthy'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should I trust the people you say I should trust to say who I should trust?
Not only that, but the example sources are a bit laughable. From TFS:
one quick trip over to Wikipedia,
Ah yes, the encyclopedia that ANYONE -- including vandals, trolls, morons, and folks with agendas -- can edit. Seriously??
Snopes,
The site that started out back in the day as somewhat reasonable, but which seems now to have issues. It's still better than most, but I've found crap on there in the past (not political stuff that's debatable, I'm talking scientific errors).
an academic journal
Uh, first, how many people head to academic journals to do fact checking? Second, how many people have access to those journals? Third, the purpose of academic journals is often to present research in progress, which is often not the final word or consensus on something, just a current scholar's or lab's particular result. You really need experts to interpret specialist literature.
And then the idea just keeps getting worse. Again from TFS:
What if your internet browser -- whether Edge, Firefox, Chrome, Opera or other -- was able provide an "information accuracy rating" of some sort when you visit a certain URL. Perhaps something like "11,992 internet users give this website a factual accuracy rating of 3.7/10.
Seriously? TFS just finished telling me of how millions of internet users are continuously hoodwinked by "inaccurate horsecrap," and now you want me to believe a rating system generated by those same internet users?!?
I could go on with detailed critiques, but let's cut to the chase:
Is this a good idea?
No.
Could it be made to work technically?
No.
Might a browser feature like this make the internet as a whole a "more factually accurate place" to get information from?
No. A browser feature doesn't magically make the internet "more factually accurate." Nonsense will always be out there no matter what.
I'm not opposed to someone trying to generate a browser plugin that tries to do something like this, though I can't imagine how it would be implemented to be useful. But definitely NOT a core browser function.
Fact-checking is REALLY hard work. And frankly, even the best sites make errors. How do you rate a webpage if it is largely accurate, but still has known (minor) fact errors? Or is this only for targeting sites that are known to disseminate nonsense and disinformation? What if those sites also carry some articles that are largely accurate?
I can't see how this ends up working without significant bias, overgeneralization, inaccuracy (in which case it's useless), and limited coverage. And even if it ends up roughly working well, what about all the "legends" that aren't in Snopes? -- like the way academic journals and experts sometimes have a different consensus about stuff than the interpretation you'd see in a book for a pop audience. We like to think the world can be easily parsed into self-contained "facts" that are objectively verifiable, but frankly there's a lot of interpretation that goes into most stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Very well said.
Nonsense will always be out there no matter what.
This one weird trick that your browser mislabels as false made this housewife millions. Firefox hates her!
Fact-checking is REALLY hard work. And frankly, even the best sites make errors. How do you rate a webpage if it is largely accurate, but still has known (minor) fact errors? Or is this only for targeting sites that are known to disseminate nonsense and disinformation? What if those sites also carry some articles that are largely accurate?
Heck, some of the "fact-checking sites" are sites that are known to disseminate nonsense and disinformation, but also carry some articles that are largely accurate. Beware political fact-checkers.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be possible to mark a claim as "controversial" and link to a page of search results about it. Even that would be abused though, soon everything would be labeled controversial.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, the encyclopedia that ANYONE -- including vandals, trolls, morons, and folks with agendas -- can edit. Seriously??
I trust an encyclopedia that anyone can edit more than I trust an encyclopedia that no one can edit.
Snopes ... I've found crap on there in the past (not political stuff that's debatable, I'm talking scientific errors).
Can you provide an example?
Betteridge strikes again! (Score:3)
Your comment makes it clear that, once more, Betteridge's Law of Headlines is completely correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comment makes it clear that, once more, Betteridge's Law of Headlines is completely correct.
[citation needed]
Take the people out of it altogether (Score:2)
A trustworthiness / fact-checking service should be done by algorithms; FOSS algorithms that can be argued about and validated for neutrality by anyone.
Certain political parties that for the sake of avoiding trolling shall remain nameless would be vehemently opposed to this, since the truth has a well known liberal bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Who fact checks the fact checkers? (Score:3)
First and foremost, you're probably looking at a major free speech concern the second something is listed incorrectly. You've got to quantify partial truths, exaggerations, etc. You've got to be able to fully reference the fact checkers themselves and on top of that you've got to monitor their sources for accuracy that could later change things. Verified vs unverified info gets crazy with journalist using anonymous sources or protecting their sources. Others, such as leaked info from inside an organization that leaves no means of actually fact checking it becomes even crazier.
Then you take a historical topic that requires a lot of study and context to fully understand what a statement on the subject even means and that's left to the devices/spare time of the people who are supposed to be doing it.
Distinctly complicated road to hoe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No (Score:2)
No
Stop scope creep. A browser should be a BROWSER. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stop scope creep. A browser should be a BROWSER.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No and HELL NO (Score:4, Insightful)
No one is truthful, everyone lies. Seek the truth yourself and make an informed opinion on what you read on various sites.
No and HELL NO and OF COURSE NOT! (Score:3)
Your TV does not cook you dinner.
Your car does not raise your kids.
Your cell phone does not do your laundry.
Of course your browser should not check facts for you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your TV does not cook you dinner.
Your car does not raise your kids.
Your cell phone does not do your laundry.
But systemd does everything!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And research to back up that research, and so on and so forth. I have to go replicate a bunch of seminal physics experiments now so that I can believe E=mc^2
I have finite time, and frankly for most things, finite levels of giving a shit. I want a best opinion going forward. "Just research everything yourself" doesn't work as a philosophy.
Insane (Score:5, Informative)
Any browser that does this will instantly stop being my browser.
Show me websites, then fuck off.
No. Just No. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We just had a Slashdot article [slashdot.org] about only 1 in 4 articles on Wikipedia being free from bias
Being free from bias is not the same as saying that it is factually correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Being free from bias is not the same as saying that it is factually correct.
That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Re: (Score:2)
More like Stalin, seeing as how they lean left so hard they're practically falling over.
Needs to properly bubble results (Score:2)
Yes, we desperately need this, but we need to make sure that there's a tailored subscription process before use so that the "correct" facts are used by the checking process. I want to make sure that my specific political views, religion, and cultural expectations are reflected in the "objective truth" as shown by teh interwebs.
Nope! You have to have it builtin! (Score:2)
AI doesn't mean you have to ditch your NI (natural intelligence, if any!)
That's what your brain is for. (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but fact checking is what your brain is for.
Use it.
Glad I could help.
Sure, which one ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would that be the New-York Times fact-checker, or the Fox News fact-checker ?
Like others said... (Score:3)
Of course not.
Most halfway normal and educated people have no problems with discerning reality from imagination and propaganda, and the rest will not believe in extra 'checked' facts anyway. Yes, on the Internet conspiracy crackpots can easily find forums on which they reinforce their world views but they're not a new phenomenon. Most of them probably need a bit more sleep, the feeling of being needed and a bit less sorrows much more than facts.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Hell no, and Go fuck yourself. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dont let the title mislead you here, not trying to troll.
The issue this article is really about, is about people not having the time to self-educate, and as such, not having time to fact check their media consumption.
Firstly, this is feature creep in the browser. The browser allows you to consume the information of your choosing. It should not interfere in one's choice of information to consume, so "No."
This is a consequence of being overworked (Notice that this is for the United States, land of the 1-week a year "vacation."), and having insufficient time for personal improvement activities.
When there is a "Now you no longer have to do all that troublesome and time consuming fact checking and self-improvement, because you can use our convenient Truthiness App instead!", you just produce a channel by which "truth" (the political kind!) can be disseminated to the masses without question. So, "Hell no."
It also obviates yet another challenge against the time demands of the corporate interests against their workers, because now they dont really need all that time to themselves for self-improvement. Which brings us to the obligatory "Go fuck yourself."
The real solution is to stop robbing people of personal time, because that is what causes this problem to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, even though I see the value, I still say No.
Because people who keep seeing fact checks will ignore them.
If you're a believer in homeopathy, having a big banner that tells you it's not real does absolutely zilch for you. If you're a Trump supporter, seeing banners telling you where he's wrong won't help.
These people will just ignore those messages and even worse, distrust them. And then they'll spread their distrust around to make the whole thing pointless.
The truth about the Internet, is instead of
Re: (Score:2)
I see this as well:
Say I see something I know to be false being said online. I don't need a fact checker, I already know it is false. What I want to do is understand why the person making the statement is saying this known false statement.
So, I start researching the rhetoric-- only to be treated be an endless barrage of reminders that what I am researching is not factual, when in fact it is. I don't care about the face value of the statement, I am researching why people said it. It is true that they said
Re: (Score:2)
Since Wall Street Doesn't... (Score:2)
Web Browser != Web Police (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a browser.
It's sole function is to act as a gateway to information contained out on the web.
Period.
I do not need someone else ( or their magic algorithm ) to determine if what I'm looking at is:
1) The whole truth
2) A partial truth
3) Not even close to the truth
4) A National Enquirer worthy article
5) Approved for viewing in my country due to the subject matter
For what passes as the News these days ( and the folks who control them ) know this:
I would prefer my information to come to me unfiltered, uncensored, unbiased and sans any sort
of tracking to determine what I am reading or watching at any given time. I will make up my own
mind if I find it factual or otherwise.
It's bad enough I have to read a dozen different news sites ( across several countries ) to get multiple
viewpoints on the same story just to even out the bias since any single source tends to spin it one
way or another depending on the wishes of the parent corporation who happens to own the news
outlet in question.
Just . . . no.
Maybe, if there were even the slightest bit of journalistic integrity left, we would instead focus on
getting the damn facts straight BEFORE releasing the story instead of everyone scrambling to be
the news equivalent of your typical forum " First Post ".
As for relying upon opinionated blogs, Facebook, and the plethora of other news-wanna-be sites out
there, trust what you read and see at your own risk. Just remember their sole function in life is to
get you on their site. Eventually, it will self correct once enough folks figure out the sites are peddling
nothing but bullshit.
They'll simply quit showing up.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are like many people here, you are using someone else's magic to determine if what you are looking is an ad or not and filter accordingly.
A bullshit filter is not that different from an ad or a spam filter.
No, they're too bloated already. (Score:2)
What a fantastic, multi-faceted tool! (Score:2)
Don't out and out preclude people from reading certain material -- just smear it with a big warning that it's the "wrong" way to think. Much more subtle than China/N. Korea/etc.
And think of the efficiencies. Today, the journalistic cadre actually has to go to the trouble to write out why something is "wrong," and then hope readers find it. Imagine the leverage if they could just declare the "right" framework once and have it applied across the board to the "wrong" sources!
Building on that, just think how
With a browser like that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Truth is difficult to pin down. In some cases truth is legitimately subjective.
A browser like this would inevitably just be another layer of bias and indirection, so the problem will just become one of "who watches the watchers?".
For example several sites have stated that snopes, traditionally the internet bastion of fact-checking, has a strong political bias.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06... [dailycaller.com]
http://www.angrypatriotmovemen... [angrypatriotmovement.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That would be better phrased as "right wing sites (themselves already deeply biased) believe that Snopes has a strong political bias". And their "proof" of that are extended ad hominem attacks against a single staffer and (mostly) unsupported claims. They few claims they do (laughingly) support generally use other, equally deeply biased, sites to "prove" that Snopes is wrong
Re: (Score:2)
One man's bias is another's firmly-held conviction. You seem to think that all left-wing sites are truth and anyone who disagrees is biased. I could argue the complete opposite. People just need to make up their minds, but an avowed left-winger running all of Snopes' "fact checking" means that it's obviously biased. I had always suspected that site but now I know why it didn't smell right.
Re: (Score:2)
An interesting conclusion given I said nothing about the left. And one that, along with the rest of your reply, proves the truth of what I said.
And no, bias and conviction are not the same thing. That's another lie spread by the right in an attempt to avoid the truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes truth is legitimately subjective.
Re: (Score:2)
We're aren't discussing truth, we're discussing facts. Opinions can be subjective, but the truth rarely and the facts never. As I said above, the right wing nutjob sites tell you differently, because that's how they avoid inconvenient facts - by telling the credulous that they're malleable and subjective.
Re: (Score:2)
obligatory https://xkcd.com/250/ [xkcd.com]
Most people aren't interested in actual facts (Score:2)
Doesn't solve the problem... (Score:3)
Whether the people accept the data straight from TV, unverified web sites or a system of so-called fact checkers the underlying problem still exists. People relying on other people to think for them. The best method would be to teach and strive for critical thinking and for people to do some checking of their own, but in our instant gratification based society of today that is unlikely to happen.
No. (Score:2)
It's a monumentally stupid idea. And it is the worst day to ask about it.
The obvious reason is that whomever controls what is presented as facts, suddenly is perceived as having an ironclad grip on truth, and is by default perceived as unbiased. We've just seen (only by accident!) what happens when the media is trusted with this. Because this is election day, this will be a controversial statement, but in the light of several years, it will not be.
There are plenty of other problems- it means that referen
Wikipedia (Score:2)
Speaking of Wikipedia being an "unbiased" source of information (OH THE LAWLZ), check out this article on why your idea is absolutely the worst possible way to implement things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Um... (Score:2)
Why don't we just lock everybody's homepage to https://www.factcheck.org/ [factcheck.org] and be done with it?
Won't work (Score:2)
...the human ability to bullshit, and to obfuscate that bullshit, is evolutionary: there's a direct and obvious competitive advantage to anyone who can do so.
To detect it would take massive heuristics capable of dealing with vagueness and uncertainty, and coming to conclusions that are at best only probable; I suspect that any such algorithm would ITSELF be vulnerable to confirmation bias, just like a person.
What happened to MS's Tay? She turned into a nazi sex robot within 24 hours. http://www.telegraph. [telegraph.co.uk]
No. (Score:2)
Your question is as absurd as asking if the Golden Gate Bridge should be made of actual gold.
"Obamacare premiums will rise" Mostly False (Score:4, Informative)
Beware the fact-checkers. In 2012 Politifact said the assertion that Obamacare premiums will rise was "Mostly False" [twitter.com]. This is demonstrably wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Second, we don't know if [Politifact is] biased or merely made a mistake
This supports my (implied) assertion that fact-checkers are no less fallible (or no more reliable) than the original news or opinion source. The idea being proposed is to allow people ("...You could have a small army of "certified fact checkers" -- people with scientific credentials, positions in academia or similar...") to act as gatekeepers of facts. These gatekeepers would be no less susceptible to bias or corruption than you or I. The findings of fact-checkers should be accorded no more weight than the
Nauseating (Score:2)
Nauseating that such a thing would even be considered by a crowd that once prided itself on both doing and thinking for yourself. Who fact-checks the facts, for fsck's sake?
Almost every IT person I know, when queried in private or in groups sympathetic to their political views, would happily 'fix' voting software if given the opportunity.
I don't trust ANY of these bastards farther than I can throw them. Nor any of YOU for that sake!
short sighted (Score:2)
who's facts? Yours or mine? (Score:2)
Big brother watching me? No thanks. (Score:2)
Sounds to me like some lefty who doesn't like people thinking differently to him wants to tell unsuspecting users that their favourite sites don't toe the line of the left-wing, liberal agenda, and that they need to be "reeducated".
No thanks.
How? But more importantly, why? (Score:3)
Even if it were possible to somehow get an unbiased fact engine (and I personally don't believe this is possible yet because all sources of information that would be the pool for this engine are human created), we would still be left with the problem of why?
I really don't believe that people are motivated by facts in any real sense.
Also, fact does not necessarily mean universal truth. For example, it is a fact that the sky is blue. But what if you are color blind? That is a fact that may not be true to you. You can have everyone in the world telling you that the sky is blue... but you know that it isn't. Which is the truth?
All I see this "facts in the browser" thing to be is a power grab to get people to think the same way as some other people.
Look, some people would look at this election and see a country divided. But I don't see it that way. I just see people with different personal truths. Half the population cannot be "wrong" and the other "right". Only different. Different is a good thing.
Quit trying to find technical "solutions" to ideological "problems"....
Most Good Browsers Have This Feature (Score:3)
Most good browsers have this feature built in. You just need to know how to find it:
1. Type 'snopes' into the address bar.
Does it bring up the Snopes website?
2. Type 'Politifact' into your address bar.
Does it bring up the Politifact website?
If you answered yes to these questions, then your browser supports fact-checking natively.
What I would really like to see is some kind of measure of reputability. Not a measure of how much people trust a particular resource, because that turns into a faith-based exercise. But some kind of algorithm that measures the degree to which other sources rely on a particular source of information, and how frequently they reference it relative to other sources. Kind of a PageRank for information sources. It would hardly be a perfect measure, but it would help people learn to assess the source.
If nothing else, it would pull the rug out from under the Macedonian troll site cottage industry.
nonsense (Score:2)
Emacs syndrome. Just make a plug-in (Score:2)
Keep things simple, make it an optional plugin. Stop cramming so much bells and whistles into browsers. It's a recipe for slowness, bloat, bugs, and difficulty in changing directions in the future, as too much baggage has to be ported.
No. (Score:2)
You know what they should support? Dates. If not mentioned on the page, then filtered out of the headers, the headers of any subsequently loaded material, their EXIF data, yomama, or whatever. I don't know how many times I searched for a solution to a problem on the web, and found one, but then realised that I needed to know the date that such a page was produced at. Because I just couldn't tell whether or not that solution was relevant to me And the date would not be on the page. Terrible!
Giving people too much credit (Score:2)
While on the surface this seems like a good idea, there is no getting through to ideologues. People flock to those questionable web sites because they provide a narrative that those people want to hear. It re-enforces their world view.
A browser fact checker would be derided as a tool 'of the man' or whatever other such nonsense. A censorship tool meant to marginalize and diminish those who dare to speak truth to power.
Having said that, a fact checker would go a long way towards helping those who are stil
It all depends on your perspective (Score:2)
Useless (Score:2)
Related... (Score:2)
The Clintons both want "internet gatekeepers" (Score:2)
1) Bill Clinton...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
2) Hillary Clinton...
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... [freerepublic.com]
> "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because t
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't see the value in outsourcing all your thinking to corporations like Google, Apple, etc.?
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: No. (Score:2)
I'd like to see something like this just so we can bury Dr Oz, mercola, foodbabe, and naturalnews for the frauds that they all are.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, don't insult garden-variety charlatans by lumping them in with food babe.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't see value in outsourcing my thinking, because I actually think and adjust my reasoning when presented with solid evidence that contradicts my point of view. However, I definitely see value in outsourcing the thinking for the sorts of people who repost these things, because on the whole, they don't adjust their reasoning when presented with contradictory facts, and they mostly just waste the time of peo
Re: (Score:2)
There's a real problem with the word "truth" in your comment too. Given that most public policy is simply arbitrating competing interests and even scientific "truth" is far from it (I give experimental physics a pass he
We have always been at war with Oceana (Score:3)
Everyone knows this.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Christina Hoff Sommers's videos, Factual Feminist, being modded away because they "offend".
Errrrr, Christina Hoff Sommers's crappy videos [youtube.com] haven't been modded away. You can still watch them. What do you even mean by that statement?
Yes, there are a bunch of people running around flagging videos they don't like as inappropriate, but nothing is being 'modded away'. Stop whining.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I challenge you to name any US mainstream news outlet that compares favourably to the BBC in terms of objectivity and bias.
The BBC may be a dung pile, as the saying goes, but Aunty Beeb grows very good roses.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Obama thinks it is a problem??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama's problem is that he pretty much jumps on every sensationalist headline that involves social justice topics without ever bothering to look into it first, making him a highly divisive president.
For example, that kid that supposedly made a clock, only he didn't, he just took one apart, and he did deliberately try to make it look like a bomb. Did Obama give a shit? Nope, instead he just basically labeled his fellow Americans as a bunch of racists, and for no good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Many felt that Obama would help mend racial division across the country. Important questions include:
- Are we less racially divided than we were in 2009?
- Despite that answer, have the actions by Obama helped the cause, hurt it, or shown indifference?
Re: (Score:2)
more BS about clockkid I see.
I bet the first thing you ask rape victims is what they were wearing too.
If you pull apart a clock and make it look like a suitcase bomb, don't be surprised if the first reaction is that you're treated like someone who made a suitcase bomb.
Re: Obama thinks it is a problem??? (Score:4, Insightful)
no im pointing out the truth.
when cops shot black people in the back, he didn't immediately back the cops. got called divisive.
when a florida man started a fight with a black kid and then killed him, he didn't immediately support Zimmerman. and got called divisive.
the country is literally in the best shape its been in in decades and your moronic conservatives are running around like the country is falling apart, and now you've elected trump, a man who truly is divisive, who is the most openly racist, misogynistic, and otherwise bigoted person to run since David Duke, who is more corrupt and less qualified than Reagan ever was. basically everything you idiots have ever falsely accused Clinton of, Trump actually is guilty of .
no.
the primary opposition to Obama for 8 years has been rooted in his skin color, and conservatives have willfully ignored reality for 8 years.
Obama was not divisive.
Conservatives were, because they couldn't handle having a black guy in the white house.
Re:Obama thinks it is a problem??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama constantly speaks untruths. Maybe he should have a fact checker next to him.
Remember that puzzle where there's one guy who always lies, and one guy who always tells the truth, and they look the same? Politics is like that, except it's missing that second guy. (Wow, my .sig is on-topic for once.)
Re: (Score:2)
Politics is like that, except it's missing that second guy.
The second guy isn't there because he didn't get elected. There are plenty of honest politicians, they just never make it past the school boards and city councils.
Re: (Score:2)
http://quotefail.com/quote/bar... [quotefail.com] ?
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem with herbal medicine (in the western tradition), is that dosage is not reliable.
It isn't that there arent active compounds in the plants, or even that the treatments cant be effective-- the problem is that they are not reliably effective.
Further, it requires that the practitioner essentially be a pharmacologist. Most people have no god-damned clue about how a drug (herbal or otherwise) works in the body, and thus have no fucking clue about interactions, minimal effective dosage, et al.
Throw