Imagine instead a normally republican voter who is offended by Trump's racism or some such and is considering breaking form and voting against him. Then, just before election receives some "news" they don't have time / don't bother to verify saying the democrats have said they are going to pass some gun control law, or some other hot button issue. These are the guys/gals who will knee-jerk just long enough for the election, it's not going to be like they can confirm some hardcore democrat to vote republican or vica versa with fake news.
"the folks over at the Guardian got a group of people who identified as either strongly "left" or strongly "right""
What does that show? The goal of the fake news stories (and basically everything else in the campaign) is going to be to target people who are unsure or who they actually have a chance of convincing, not the people who mailed their votes in 20 years ago.
Sure they are both correlations, but that doesn't make them false, the people saying them are both only claiming they are correlations. What makes the second one less true isn't that it is a correlation, it's that it has less backing it. The gun statement was only 23% lower for a single year, it's not 23% lower period like the guy claimed, it was 23% lower for one single year whereas the the data backing the other claim goes all the way back to world war 2.
"Gaetz’s statement is a one-year snapshot that is misleading."
That's kinda like saying she lost the election because she got less votes.. It doesn't really shed much light on how the system is so broken that basically everyone is voting against something they hate instead of for something they want.
Helping people know and understand the truth so that they can make an informed decision during an election is our democratic responsibility as citizens as much as voting ourselves is. Democracy does not function if people can't make informed decisions at election time. If people are being manipulated by being flooded with disinformation that isn't something we should accept. You need to make the truth as easy to find as possible and the lies as easy to determine as possible so that democracy has a chance to function. It isn't facebook's responsibility though, it's ours as citizens in a democracy.
You guys all underestimate him.. You see, robot coverage isn't ready yet, so he's going to ban all human coverage of the games to force the robot coverage to take over while it's still in it's infancy, causing the robot coverage to fail drastically and people to demand the robot coverage be annihilated because of how terrible it is! ;)
Many people in the public probably care.. Of course, to be able to do anything about it, they would either need a functioning democracy or to be able to overpower the gov't.. Good luck with either of those options.
As far as my understanding of the term as well as anything I can look up for a definition a Luddite is just a person opposed to increased industrialization or new technology. They don't really need to be willfully ignorant or ignorant of technology at all.
Definitely. If I wasted my time nitpicking over the stupid rules they make up here, I wouldn't get anything accomplished. People follow the spirit of the rules at work, I don't know many that nitpick about technicalities, and those that do are not the people who actually contribute.
"but they cannot provide any evidence prosecution is likely if Green continues with his research work."
But prosecution is *not* likely, that is the whole problem. If they actually properly enforced the law then it have been overturned already. They will only cherry pick the sympathetic cases to build the case law in the manner of their choosing.
In the meantime researchers can't do their research without being willing to break the law and take the risk, causing a barrier to security research (where the harm comes from)