ChonkyOwlbear

Absolutely agree, but at some point there will still be someone reporting expenses to the government and that needs to be trustworthy info.

You make a good point, but think of it this way. Someone Googles "tips on buying a new laptop". Companies enrolled with the Google program bump up their prices for that user. But what about websites not enrolled in the program? Their prices stay lower, so if the person buying the laptop ships around even a little bit, they will likely buy from one of the non-affiliated sites.

It only works if the whole marketplace is under the system. Amazon is a shopping experience tailored to keep people inside their system, so it works with them. You aren't going to take the time to price match across multiple websites for a pair of socks. I think it is a lot harder to manipulate prices with big-ticket items, where people will put in the effort to shop around.

This guy had convictions for possession of a machine gun in 2002 and 2022! How the fuck did he get a third one!!!

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/national-international/donald-trump-assassination-attempt/3970611/

Sounds like the company needs to be forced to pay for full time government employees who supervise the company to insure compliance.

I agree with the broad premise that your information has value, but I wouldn't worry about Google increasing prices just for you. Companies still control their own websites and they aren't going to allow another company to change what they change directly.

What Google sells is the ability for a company to get their website in front of your eyes. They sell the top spaces in your search results. A company who doesn't pay Google gets pushed to page two.vor three. Now in a sense that increases your prices because the cost of the companies increased ad budgets is passed on to you.

Hating people trying to harm you is justified. Hating people because they are different is not. Trump and MAGA Republicans are an existential threat to this country. Moving the country forward is only an option if it still exists as a representative democracy.

In other words, he not only failed to challenge the core of Covid ideology—that other human beings are pathogenic so we need to restrict our freedoms and isolate—but used his social media presence, such as it was, to urge others to accept all the dominant lies by the government. He bought the Covid and lockdown ideology and broadcasted it. He seems to have no regrets. 

The author is a plague rat who thinks libertarianism means being able to harm others with impunity. Don't waste time on this trash.

Huh. I thought he had died a lot earlier than 2022.

All of that is irrelevant to my point that your right wing government has policies that would be far left in the US

The rubric is literally right below what you quoted

The categories are as follows:

1. Biased Wording/Headlines- Does the source use loaded words to convey emotion to sway the reader. Do headlines match the story?

2. Factual/Sourcing- Does the source report factually and back up claims with well-sourced evidence.

3. Story Choices: Does the source report news from both sides, or do they only publish one side.

4. Political Affiliation: How strongly does the source endorse a particular political ideology? Who do the owners support or donate to?

Just because it is a qualitative and not a quantitative assessment doesn't mean it's arbitrary.

Speeding isn't a crime, it's an infraction. If speeding is a crime then everyone is a criminal. It's not like he held up a gas station.

There is a whole lot more to it than that. You can read it here.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/