This might me hard to implement.. but could there be a community driven misinformation bank or facts FAQ managed by the moderators?
E.g. whenever a person repeats a clearly false narrative, instead of us participants going through the effort to describe who was indicted when or why bill XYZ doesn't actually do Q, we can just refer to a corpus of rebuttals on the topic?
To add to this, opinion articles should indicate the author. The publisher of an op-ed is mostly irrelevant and I feel like a lot of political pundits get a free pass by hiding behind publication titles.
Comey and McCabe were audited as retaliation. The only reason Strzok and Page weren't audited is because Kelly seems to have ignored Trump. Mulvaney, apparently, did not.
No. But in the case of signing clearly unvetted laws, they were enacting things that weren't constitutional before -- and continue to not be constitutional now.
It doesn't have to be a felony. Maybe misdemeanor misrepresentation.
You can smell the testosterone supplements from this description alone. The door was locked and everything was under control... But DeYoung couldn't let a middle finger stand so he opened the door. For what? To shame the other person? No, for confrontation. And he got it. Now he's injured and asking, "why is everything so divisive?!"
Both of these people are children walking around in adult costumes.
Sure thing! And, good luck!
This. I could help with some of the obvious trolls (e.g., posts such as, "open your eyes! The leftists are okay with trans genocide!!") but identitying and enforcing fair community rules while trying to be mindful of my own biases would be a lot of work.
It's going to be the same discredited whistleblower again. They just wanted AP to publish this title, and it worked.
So, they're just trying it again but together this time in order to pretend it's a new clown show?
I'm no lawyer, however, having gone through this a couple of times as a service provider this is my understanding:
GDPR and similar laws cover data which the provider has gathered about you and may have been shared with third parties.
Generally, user generated content is not covered under GDPR requests. Any content that you chose to post which is self-identifying was posted at your discretion.
The best examples of where this must be true are mailing list archives and Git reposities. E.g., the email address you gave to GitHub on signups and the email address that you attached to a git commit may have been the same, but only one use case provides for GDPR protection. Mostly.
In practice there's a lot of gray area in GDPR and privacy lawyers often have to find the inflection point somewhere between clearly covered and clearly not covered.
Maybe. I might be convinced to vote in a democratic primary for the person who said, "I'm an atheist and I'm here to take our government back from the cults."
Though, I suppose I'm bolstering your point given my own hedging words.
I mentioned this elsewhere, but for an op-ed, the important factor is the author, not the publication. Can we somehow bubble up op-ed authorship and reactor accordingly?
E.g. John Solomon had a good run making it all the way to WSJ and NYT op-eds before being fired.