3 ms·
You seem to ignore the possibility that those 35.6% deserved those suspensions.
by multjoy 4y ago
You seem to ignore the possibility that those 35.6% deserved those suspensions.
- native_samples 4y agoIgnored, because neither article nor study provides any logical reason to believe that. The study is not a neutral study of misinformation (they never are). Instead it defines misinformation as anything wacky that only Republicans believe, then uses that as a justification for erasing them from the platforms. The equivalent in the other direction would be if Elon Musk took over Twitter and then banned everyone who claimed at any point that lockdowns worked because they were spreading misinformation, whilst completely ignoring claims that COVID doesn't exist at all. It's absolutely truly that this is misinformation - just look at the total failure in Shanghai or the conspicuously missing evidence of impact from western lockdowns - but it would disproportionately affect Democrats if that was the only component of the definition.