politics

19107 readers

2745 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

211

‘Stakes are really high’: misinformation researcher changes tack for 2024 US election (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Kate Starbird says attacks have made research difficult, and claims of bias arise because of prevalence of lies from the right

A key researcher in the fight against election misinformation – who herself became the subject of an intensive misinformation campaign – has said her field gets accused of “bias” precisely because it’s now mainly rightwingers who spread the worst lies.

Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, added that she feared that the entirely false story of rigged elections has now “sunk in” for many Americans on the right. “The idea that they’re already going to the polls with the belief that they’re being cheated means they’ll misinterpret everything they see through that lens,” she said.

Starbird’s group partnered with Stanford Internet Observatory on the Election Integrity Partnership ahead of the 2020 elections – a campaign during which a flood of misinformation swirled around the internet, with daily claims of unproven voter fraud.

Starbird and her team helped document that flood, and in return congressional Republicans and conservative attorneys attacked her research, alleging it amounted to censorship and violated the first amendment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Wow. That "real world data" must be super compelling if you won't post it. And I don't think you read either of em. Cos I tricked you. One isn't technically a study. It's a lit review. Covers 96 studies. And I know for a fact that you can't have read all of them in this time. And if you had read the two given, and had half a brain, you'd have picked up on flaws with the other study given too (and no they didn't "cherry pick data", so that isn't a flaw. They used early data cos they published early, I'd be happy to provide more up to date studies, but why should I when you won't even read the two already given?). Cos there aren't many studies that don't have a flaw or two in them. Cos science isn't perfect. But you wouldn't know that, cos you know literally nothing about how science works.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Lots of places had muzzle mandates, lots of places didn't. No difference in spread

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Oh no. All this "real world data" you've supplied. I can't possibly keep my head above it and not drown in it... It is funny/terrifying you say "No difference in spread" though, given the second study above literally shows the difference in spread between areas that did and didn't have mask mandates. Which you'd have known if you actually read em. And no, don't say you did, cos if you did you woulda known one doesn't even cover COVID. Which is just beautiful. We literally gave you the opportunity to counter us, and you didn't do it cos you're an idiot (yeah, I know it's not nice to have tricked you twice, but if you weren't such a tool, then maybe I woulda been nicer. But we both know you can't be anything but the biggest tool this planet has seen, so that's just wishful thinking). But thanks for confirming my assertion that "you know literally nothing about how science works", I guess. Not that I needed it, it was most definitely not a long bow to draw...

And cos I know you'll comment on it now, yeah, the study linked above doesn't have any experimental data in regard to COVID19 specifically, but it sure as shit gets as close to it as it can. And anyway, you can't provide any data to back your claim, so who gives a fuck if it was published super early in the COVID lifecycle, it still shits all over your compete lack of evidence to support your claim.