Facebook Waited Too Long To Stop 10 Billion Pageviews of Repeat Misinformation Spreaders (ft.com) 168
Facebook could have prevented more than 10bn pageviews of prominent misinformation-spreading accounts in the US if it had acted sooner in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, a new report has claimed [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. Financial Times: The social media giant took a number of eleventh-hour steps to combat misinformation ahead of November's highly polarised election, such as demoting some misinformation superspreaders and blocking new political advertisements. However according to the US-based non-profit activism group Avaaz, if the platform had tweaked its algorithm and moderation policies in March last year, instead of waiting until October, it would have prevented an estimated 10.1bn additional pageviews on the 100 top-performing pages it classified as repeat spreaders of misinformation. The list comprised pages that Avaaz had identified as sharing at least three misinformation claims that were fact-checked between October 2019 and October 2020, with at least two of the posts falling within 90 days of each other. The report said that Facebook's delay in acting had been critical because it allowed prolific spreaders of misinformation to increase their online footprint dramatically, with some tripling their engagement over the course of the election campaign and even catching up with mainstream US media pages. It added that even after Facebook acted to block top-performing misinformation pages from October 10, the effect was inconsistent. While the average decline in interaction was 28 per cent, not all major figures were affected.
Perhaps it is time (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to stop arguing for more censorship and instead argue for less
Whatever helps advance Socialism (Score:2, Insightful)
When the Left were still in opposition, they were against censorship and for freedom of speech. Senator McCarthy, who tried to lean on private companies to stop hiring Communists, was — and still is — considered a disgrace.
Now that they are the Regime [washingtonpost.com] — able to survive even a hostile President — they want all the censorship they can get [senate.gov]. And they will get it too, with the help of propaganda-articles like TFA and the punishing regulations [washingtonpost.com] this propaganda allows them to impose withou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
McCarthy was, and still is, a disgrace because he saw "communists" where none existed and ruined people's lives just because. His actions were behind the issue with Milo Radulovich [wikipedia.org]. He accused people of being communists or communist sympathizers without any bit of evidence to support the claim (sound familiar?) and repeatedly lied about people in the new media, in
Re: (Score:2)
Can you give examples?
Dealing with something like COVID-19 or Communism, I'd rather err on the side of the caution.
I can list quite a few people, who lost their jobs due to the woke campaigns against imaginary racism — can you list names of those wrongfully accused of Communism-sympathies?
Re:Whatever helps advance Socialism (Score:4, Informative)
he saw "communists" where none existed
Can you give examples?
For example, his famous "list of 57 communists working in the state department" that brandished didn't actually exist. He said he had "penetrated the iron curtain of State Department secrecy" while hiding that most of the names came from the Robert Lee list that had contained mostly named that had been cleared. McCarthy constantly exaggerated the loyalties of the people on the list, converting "has some sympathies for communist causes" to "a communist." He was good at using rhetoric, but rarely produced any evidence towards a person.
I can say of the nine people charged by McCarthy at the Tydings committee, the evidence against four of them was very flimsy (and they were later cleared by loyalty boards), and the evidence against these five was even weaker:
Dorothy Kenyon, a feminist who did some work for the UN (good enough for McCarthy to charge her as a communist), who lost her civil service job as a result of McCarthy's allegations.
Esther Brunauer, who left Germany when the Nazis came to power, and converted previously-pacifist to more specifically anti-isolation and anti-Nazi stances at the start of WW2. After the war, she came under attack from isolationists, but Senator Joe Ball stated she was "perhaps the most violently anti-Communist person I know."
Gustavo Duran, who joined an anti-Communist faction during the Spanish Civil War. McCarthy claimed that in a picture from that time, he was wearing a uniform of the SIM - The Russian military intelligence. The uniform was actually the Spanish military uniform. No communist ties were ever proven.
Owen Lattimore, who made some pro-Soviet Union statements. Specifically, during World War II, he was in favor of the USSR's foreign policy of international cooperation against against the Axis Powers of Japan and Germany (before the US's entering the war), and due to that he published an article by a pro-Soviet writer who wrote favorably on Stalin's purge trials to strengthen the Soviet Union against the upcoming war on the Axis Powers. It was absolutely the biggest blunder of his career, and his own editorials arguing against allowing a communist takeover of China didn't erase that stain. Later reporting on how good things looked at a sanitized Russian labor camp did not help his position either. His writings were "superficial and uncritical", but McCarthy trumped up the charges and turned it into "Owen Lattimore is a top Russian spy." No proof was able to be produced, later declassification of intercepted Russian cables mentioned Lattimore, and a retired FBI agent 30 years later said they never had anything substantial against him.
Harlow Shapley was one of the nine people charged in the Tydings hearings, but I can't find much information here. Despite the report's statements, Shapley was not in the State Department, working as an astronomer with the Harvard College Observatory. He was known for his public contempt for HUAC, but these days contempt for that group is pretty reasonable.
Re: (Score:3)
The obvious metaphor is left-wing people calling others racists today. It's levelled without any evidence or for the most minor of transgressions (or just outright completely false), associating in any way with someone else deemed a racist, etc. We see daily stories of careers end
Re: (Score:2)
Right wing. Democrats are just another party of right wing assholes with a heavy syrup of virtual signaling piled on top. Didn't like Obama's drone strikes or bank bail outs? Racist. Didn't like Hillary's wars or taking bribes from Goldman Sachs? Sexist. Wont support Kopmala in 2024 for president? Racist and sexist.
Re: (Score:2)
In short, he was the forerunner of today's Republicans who spout the tripe of "socialism" when it comes to people, but who love the fascist policies of giving taxpayer money to corporations.
Or even more obnoxious, the people who accuse you of being a racist or a fascist or an agent of a foreign adversary, simply for just disagreeing with them. Or find it perfectly acceptable to condemn a man as a rapist on mere hearsay and zero evidence, where the place or even the year it occurred can't even be described.
Re: (Score:2)
And while McCarthy's hearings may have gone off the rails, it was not without substance. 90% of the KGB
Speech has never been free (Score:2)
The Republican legislature of Kentucky just passed a law making it illegal to insult a cop. Speech has never been free. There have always been consequences. Our system is supposed to protect us from our government infringing on free speech. Apparently the exception is our militarized law enforcement.
https://bit.ly/318a7sy [bit.ly]
Re: (Score:3)
Sure that fine... However the problem with Facebook isn't too much or too little censoring. But a lack of oversight and moderation. Free Speech doesn't mean all speech needs to be weighted equally. In a country of over 300 million people and a world of over 6 billion people. Most likely there will be people talking about really stupid things, that are just wrong, which are easily proven wrong.
When you come across false information being spread, treating on equal stance as proven factual information is j
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Re: (Score:3)
Which has what to do with Facebook?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook cannot infringe your right to freedom of speech.
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:4, Informative)
Since when is Facebook the government? Because what you cited applies only to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
What if we take the Bill of Rights to be a statement of core principles instead of just a list of things government can't do?
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:5, Informative)
Um, yes it can, because, you'll note, it isn't Congress. It's no different than me having the right to throw you out of my house if I don't like what you have to say. I'm not bound by the First Amendment, that's the Government.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the point being made is that they cannot restrict your free speech because you still have free speech regardless of what they let you post, you can still say what you want, publish books, make fliers, hand out pamphlets...
then again, I can't tell because this entire thread is just people making statements without context
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook cannot infringe your right to freedom of speech.
Our education system has failed us.
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook can infringe your right to freedom of speech. Even I can infringe your right to freedom of speech. For example, I can threaten to sue you if you speak, or I can blackmail you, or I can threaten you with violence if you speak. These things are illegal but have all happened in the US. Facebook can infringe on your freedom of speech legally, but that doesn't mean they did the right thing. They didn't.
Freedom of speech is not given by the government, it is a god-given right, even if you are an atheist.
Re: (Score:2)
First, if speech can be taken away (it can) it isn't a right.
You still have a "right," even if it is abridged or violated. That still is a right, and then that situation gets called a rights violation. I don't know that I believe in the concept of "natural rights," but plenty of people do and find that their can't be a moral justification for those violations.
Re: (Score:2)
The term "god-given right" (which could less controversially be called a "natural right") means that the right is more important than laws of man. So if a legal system or legislative body tries to legislate it away, the legislative body has made an error.
To think of it in judicial terms, the lower court must follow the higher court, and the natural rights are established by an authority above the highest court. They are inalienable. No whim of a king can remove them.
Re: (Score:2)
And really, it's not that a natural right is more important than law, it's that they derive from a superior source that legislation
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it can. The constitution is not involved here since the constitution gives a limitation on government not on private entities. This is similar to newspapers where they are allowed to pick and choose which letters to the editor to present on the editorial page for example. The government cannot even force Facebook to accept all speech because this would essentially mean that the government is restricting Facebook's free speech rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:5, Insightful)
Facebook waited too long to stop some Americans with free speech as an inalienable right from sharing information they felt was relevant to other Americans with free speech as an inalienable right - FTFY
What you feel is right has no bearing on objective truth. Here is the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
What you feel is right has no bearing on objective truth. Here is the problem.
And what *you* feel is right has no bearing on objective truth, either. Did you think of that? Or does your particular opinion have some privileged status that makes it automatically correspond to objective truth?
Wait a moment... How did the present-day structure of science get built, as the result of thousands of earnest researchers and theoreticians comparing their ideas and discoveries?
It seems that what people think, at least, often does have an important bearing on objective truth.
To make that work, pe
Re: (Score:3)
Well just like in your math class, your grade is based on your work that is shown.
Getting the right answer, for the problem isn't enough. Showing how you got to that answer is where validity comes in.
If say last year you were to say the Governor of New York is a Sex Offender. Basically because you don't like his politics. Then you are spreading Lies and Conspiracy theory, not because He wasn't, but because you are making up information just to try to get people to kick him out of office.
Now this year, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The woman who reported it. Better be backing up what she is stating with facts, that can be verified. Does she work for the Governor or has normal contact with them?
Reputable Journalist will often get more detail before they decide to post it on the news. But I don't think "Fake News" is a good tag towards these posts, but Unverified for information that has yet to be proven. Fake News is for information Proven False.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, that doesn't really seem to be a requirement these days....#MeToo, and "every woman has to be believed".
Nah, if you are a guy, you are guilty until proven innocent and even then...your reputation will never recover fully even if you have full evidence that exonerates you...which is pretty hard to come by in cases that generally boil down to "He said vs She Said"....
And that's if you're lucky enough to NOT get thrown out of coll
Re: (Score:3)
And therefore labeling something as a conspiracy is enough to convince quite a lot of people that it's true, sadly.
Yes, some conspiracy theories turned out to be true, but that doesn't mean you should start automatically believing things without sufficient evidence. Just don't be too proud to admit you're wrong sometimes. Remember, pride is one of the seven deadly sins. (That includes national pride, "Christian" Republ
Re: (Score:2)
They were modded down for showing their work? Or were they were modded down because their reference was the media who won't show their work?
Re: (Score:3)
Finally, when the forensic evidence at trial came out, turns out the real victim was trapped in a ground-and-pound by a 5'11" 158lb young adult, unable to escape and screaming for help as his head was being repeatedly struck and bloodied, before finally shooting once in self defense
Uh huh. Maybe George shouldn't have run after him with a gun. If someone were doing that to me, I might have tried to get the jump on him too.
Someone coming after me with a gun is a direct threat on my life, and yes, I do have the right to defend myself.
Re: (Score:2)
What you feel is right has no bearing on objective truth. Here is the problem.
Unless you are a mathematician, you don't deal with objective truth.
Exactly. We absolutely cannot trust anyone to define what is considered true in context of politics because such power, when misused, would lead to tyranny. The only solution available to us is to tolerate all speech, and that includes falsehoods, or risk much worse outcomes.
So make no mistakes, when these articles come out, and people defending these viewpoints post about misinformation, what they really mean is "Let us decided for you what is true" and not "Lets have a more robust truth-seeking mechanism
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. Facebook cannot be compelled by the government to allow all speech. It's a private entity. Now your view has merit that we really should just allow the lies and point them out. However pointing out the lies *also* pisses off a lot of people who claim that pointing out the lies is unfair censorship. I don't think things should be banned, but there are many out there who defined "banned" to mean lowering the rank of the posts or poster, or requiring a second click to see the post after a warn
Re: (Score:3)
There have been several things labeled as conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. Including ... that COVID came from a lab (which is why it can't spread well outside).
<sarcasm>No other virus spreads well outside, either. So I guess all other viruses must have been created in labs, too.</sarcasm>
Re: (Score:2)
Add in statistics and probability, then you could say that there is a level of certainty that some posts were lies and some posts were truthful, or that they had a certain degree of truthfulness.
Your argument that sometime conspiracy theories come true is like saying that somethings science gets things wrong therefore we can't rely Newtonian physics and that someday we may find out that astrology is real, etc. There's a level of certainty that will take a huge amount of evidence to overturn with many exist
Re: (Score:3)
"There have been several things labeled as conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. ... COVID came from a lab (which is why it can't spread well outside)."
LOL
Well these immunologist disagree [technologyreview.com]. But I'm sure journalists know better.
Re: (Score:2)
"There have been several things labeled as conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. ... COVID came from a lab (which is why it can't spread well outside)."
LOL
Well these immunologist disagree [technologyreview.com]. But I'm sure journalists know better.
Yep. That well-known Columbia University School of Journalism and Infectious Diseases. As well as graduates of the Google School of Medicine (grin)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's some pretty weak evidence that covid definitely came from a lab that you seem so sure about.
Re: Perhaps it is time (Score:5, Informative)
"There have been several things labeled as conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. ... COVID came from a lab (which is why it can't spread well outside)."
LOL
Well these immunologist disagree [technologyreview.com]. But I'm sure journalists know better.
No they don't. Did you even read your own source? The opinions expressed in the piece range from "We don't know" to "Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent .. and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife"
Re: (Score:2)
"There have been several things labeled as conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. ... COVID came from a lab (which is why it can't spread well outside)."
LOL
Well these immunologist disagree [technologyreview.com]. But I'm sure journalists know better.
Your link does not support your statement. There is a difference between "A is true" and "A cannot be proven false."
Re: (Score:2)
If they could find a good way to remove the outside actors -- the non-Americans -- then what you say might have some kernel of truth.
Re: (Score:2)
That's very Orwellian of you...
Re: (Score:2)
no, that should be "wrongthink".Get with the times.
Ridiculous definition of "prolific" (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:2)
Fake news lost.
The system works.
Facebook waited too long for censorship? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is free to allow or disallow any content they choose. In this case "misinformation" had real world consequences including deaths.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You really, really wanting the law to be different does not change the actual law.
Under your theory, removing child porn makes them a publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is free to allow or disallow any content they choose...
Film productions are incorporated, so when Democrats wanted to arrest and jail the makers of a movie [wikipedia.org] critical of then-presidential-candidate Hillary Clinton, they told us corporations were not people and did not have legal rights. Now that Democrats use their control of social media corporations to censor their critics, how dare you question the rights of corporations?
In this case "misinformation" had real world consequences including deaths.
We must have censorship or else people will die.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to add, "won't someone think of the children!" to your ridiculous plea.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad you included that link to the wiki page so I was able to see that your post is basically a lie. Very thoughtful of you.
It worse than that... (Score:5, Insightful)
... Facebook were 'trending' fake news on behalf of the Hillary Clinton Campaign during the election.
Caught them red handed - posted the DNS transfer history, Alexa webstats, and details of the PR company that created the fake news sites on the Facebook pages of the involved parties and within minutes they disappeared, only to reappear some time later.
Facebook is not Social Media - it's a surveillance, advertising and dissemination platform - tacked on to social media.
We need something decentralised that removes everything but users and user content.
Re: (Score:2)
We need something decentralised that removes everything but users and user content.
How? The spam problem is the biggest problem with decentralized networks, and it has killed more than one of them.
This just in .. (Score:2)
Wow. Shocker. I'm so astonished. Who could have foreseen this eventuality. :|
Bad assumptions (Score:2)
The consumers of the fake news would be just as stupid had those posts been censored.
What you want is a population that has enough critical reasoning skills and enough connection to reality that fake news postings on social media won't fool them. The censorship route is like a hot house that all the flowers within cannot survive without. Long term that is bad enough by itself but for obvious reasons you don't want any private corporation in control of the sunlight for obvious reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
The consumers of the fake news would be just as stupid had those posts been censored.
They'd be as stupid, but they would not be as misinformed.
What you want is a population that has enough critical reasoning skills and enough connection to reality that fake news postings on social media won't fool them
Which is why there have been cuts to education spending, the W administration passed a law to make teachers have to focus on standardized tests instead of things like "critical reasoning", and the ramping up of "college is indoctrination!".
you don't want any private corporation in control of the sunlight for obvious reasons.
When in US history has private corporations not been in control of the sunlight?
There's a problem with fact checking... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm starting to see more and more of this in "fact checks".
Someone makes a claim, like "all National Socialists hate Jews".
The fact checker tags it Untrue, and when you read the explanation is says something like "the contention 'all' is technically incorrect, five National Socialists were discovered who did not hate Jews".
While technically true, it's another sort of massaging of the facts.
Who checks the fact checkers?
Pageviews = $$$ (Score:2)
Facebook is only concerned about pageviews. That's how they make money. Why would they limit pageviews?
The only time they would even think of limiting pageviews of one type of misinformation is public blowback (which might limit other pageviews).
The only "good" censorship is self-censorship (Score:3)
There is absolutely no need whatsoever for any tech company to exercise censorship of end-user content unless it is illegal (such as child porn) or harms other users of the service (such as spam.) For all other kinds of content, the answer to "misinformation" is to let the user decide.
We already do this with ad blockers, parental controls, etc. The Facebooks of the world make it super-easy for users to nominate what they do see, they just need to do the same to help them select what not to see.
One man's disinformation is another man's secrets of the universe. Fine. The only legitimate answer to that is to let the user choose. Done and done.
Treat people like adults and get the heck out of the censorship business.
Liars (Score:2)
How about just booting the lying fuckers off facebook.
If they had tried harder (Score:3, Informative)
The people don't need the truth. They need The Narrative. It's for the best!
Follow the money (Score:3)
Good. (Score:3)
Just one question - what is "misinformation" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at a certain point lass spring, anyone suggesting people wear masks to reduce the spread of covid could have been tagged as spreading "misinformation". In 2002, the idea that Saddam didn't plan 911 or have WMD's would have been "misinformation". Last fall, the Hunter Biden laptop story was censored by tech platforms despite it being completely true.
So, this is mostly just misinformation about misinformation, and the people whining the most about it are the most guilty about misleading the public. Same
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly the dangerous claims that socialism, communism and social democracy (non-free systems) are sustainable, in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise.
So you have overwhelming evidence that Scandinavia doesn't exist? I'd like to see that because last time I checked they were right there. Maybe you're expecting them to get flooded by sea level rise?
Re: (Score:2)
"Social democracy" can mean whateverthehell you want. As such, it is a meaningless term.
Whatever you want to call the system they have in Sweden, it is (more than the USA) based on free enterprise and capitalism. No surprise, then, that the Swedes are doing ok.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden has no minimum wage
Sweden adopted a nationwide universal voucher program for education in 1992. Families can choose any school, public or private:
Sweden's public sector is efficient
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Danish exports (excluding services):
Pharmaceuticals: US$17.5 billion (16% of total exports)
Machinery including computers: $15.4 billion (14%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $9.7 billion (8.9%)
Mineral fuels including oil: $4.8 billion (4.4%)
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $4 billion (3.7%)
Meat: $3.8 billion (3.5%)
Vehicles: $3.1 billion (2.8%)
Furniture, bedding, lighting, signs, prefab buildings: $3.1 billion (2.8%)
Fish: $2.9 billion (2.6%)
Dairy, eggs, honey: $2.7 billion (2.5%)
I believe it is quite e
Re: (Score:2)
>>but substantial amounts of their GDP that pays for the cost of socialism is non-renewable and non sustainable.
Who cares? For a pittance of what we spend on military bases and private prisons for marijuana offenders, we could have a social safety net that puts the Nordic countries to shame. That is what the majority of Americans want. Not trillions of dollars for endless wars and oil subsidies.
Re: (Score:3)
It would have been much shorter for you to say
I have no idea what "social democracy" actually is, so I'm gonna make up something so I can call it bad.
Re: (Score:2)
You realize when you make up your own definitions for things those aren't actually shared by other people, right?
Democratic socialism is to socialism as JavaScipt is to Java.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the Democratic Socialists of America platform and tell me where it diverges from classical Socialism. Or I can save you time and let you know that it does not.
Re: (Score:3)
It would have been shorter, and far less accurate
Your claim is the equivalent of "JavaScript is the same as Java".
We have actual democratic socialists and actual democratic socialist countries in the world. When you make up something that doesn't come remotely close to those real-world institutions, you are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
The Scandinavian countries are textbook examples of "Social Democracy". Socialism itself is not monolithic, and Scandinavia has a mixture of social safety net and free enterprise. Social Democracy is not socialism as in central state planning (beyond the bounds of what pretty much every modern developed nation has these days), but it's higher tax rates fund a larger social safety net directly, as opposed to countries like the US, where private companies play a large role (particularly in health care).
Perhap
Re: (Score:3)
It's not my term. "Social Democracy" is a general term to describe many European countries. Heck, the party that split off from the UK Labour Party in the 1980s when that party drifted further left was the Social Democratic Party (SDP), which evolved into the Liberal Democratic Party.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This argument that democracy and republic are mutually exclusive systems depends on selective choices of definition. In this case you are choosing the sense of "democracy" that means "direct democracy", which of course is mutually exclusive with certain sense of the word "republic"; however neither the public nor political scientists use "democracy" or "republic" exclusively in those senses.
Here is the very first definition of "democracy" from the OED:
Re: (Score:3)
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, as a political system.
In the US, we have a Republic, not a Democracy.
Stop being daft with word games. The US is a democracy of sorts, arranged as a republic. However because of the electoral college and senate system combined with a healthy dose of gerrymandering, you actually have tyranny of the minority. It's like all the problems of a democracy except one faction gets a higher weighting.
Also, Scandinavia is not a socialist economy. It is a capitalist economy wit
Re: (Score:2)
The post you are replying to used the phrase "social democracy". Somehow you mutate this and read the word "socialism" in it somewhere.
Mistaking Scandanavian governments for socialist governments is a very common error in America, but the original poster did not make that error. He was accurate in not using the word socialism.
Socialism is an economic system for community control, a command economy. ...
The post you are responding to did not use the world "socialism".
...Also, Scandinavia is not a socialist economy.
Correct. And the person you are responding to never said it was.
Re: (Score:2)
One of my personal pet theories is that European nations are inclined towards an expansive view of what is a public good/service as a consequence of feudal traditions. America, being founded by people who were sick of being ruled by and dependen
Re: (Score:2)
You freaks who keep touting "Scandinavia" as your model HAVE NEVER EVEN BEEN THERE.
I've been to Norway by boat, you numpty. It's not that far (though they canned the ferry a while ago).
"Scandinavia" is no heaven that should be emulated. If it were, people who be falling over themselves to get there.
So what you're saying is that social democracy is the height of achievement? I don't get your point.
If you want the US to be like "Scandinavia", why not just move there?
From the US? Pretty sure I'd have to move
Re: (Score:2)
I feel it's my duty to not spread misinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
Breonna Taylor 'Asleep on a couch'
She was asleep on the couch until the gunfire started. Yes she woke up at that point. Hardly matters. It was a no-knock warrant in a class III firearms state (you can own AR-15s and MG-30s in KY) and they didn't announce they were police. Also, it was a shit raid as they knew the suspect wasn't there and did it anyway. Any way you look at it, its not good policy and just asking for exchanges of gunfire. But since Police are a public sector union, there will be no consequences for the folks who both al
Re: (Score:2)
The difference, if I recall correctly, is that there are actually scenarios that Al Gore could've won. Trump lost more than one swing state. He lost rather handily. His path to victory did not exist. But he did not concede in any meaningful way, in any meaningful time line but instead fought things to the bitter end. To my view of things Gore showed a lot of class and handled things quite well. It may be true that some democrat supporters were bitter but the situation played out much differently.
To pivot sl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Disinformation is a fact on both sides of the spectrum.
[Citation required]
Claiming an election was stolen goes back to Sore Loserman and the hanging chads in Florida, at least.
The post-election study of those hanging chads by that group of media companies, including right-leaning media like the WSJ, showed that Gore would have received the most votes in the counting methods that complied with FL law. Gore lost in 2 out of the 6 counting standards, but those were considered not likely to be used, because they were not in-line with previous FL supreme court rulings.
How about big lies like Ferguson 'Hands up don't shoot'
Different eye witnesses have different stories. While none have literally the phrase "hands up do
Re: (Score:3)
So because she was woken up by the police storming her house, her shooting is justified. Otherwise whether or not she was awake is utterly irrelevant.
You are a terrible person.