3 ms·
That article reads a bit fake--there's pretty good evidence that people did indeed get paid to cause trouble at Trump rallies. I'm more than a little bit conce
by hash-set 10y ago
That article reads a bit fake--there's pretty good evidence that people did indeed get paid to cause trouble at Trump rallies.
I'm more than a little bit concerned about the whole "We must stop fake news" bs--news has always been made up. Read about "Yellow Journalism" and how the US got into the Spanish-American war!
The answer to this kind of speech is more speech. If people want to make shit up and put it on the Internet that's fine. It's been happening since day 1 anyways. Did we not just witness the likes of NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, NBC, basically all US media pretend Hillary Clinton was in the lead of the election and had a 98% chance of winning? Fake news, indeed.
- justinlaster 10y agoThere was no pretending? Why do you say that? What they were referencing was based on actual polls. There are plenty of ways those polls can go wrong, or how the winds can shift between polls, and tons of other variables. They do this every single election. Seek Karl Rove's meltdown when Obama won. People seem to be really confused about statistics this election and it's kind of concerning. >there's pretty good evidence that people did indeed get paid to cause trouble at Trump rallies. No there isn't, or at least I haven't seen any. What I have seen is the weakest of links between individuals who happen to share the same name. In any city there's bound to be individuals who have the exact same name as you, especially when you come from the same background. That's not evidence. That's coincidence.