Unfortunately, everyone already know ISDS is bad news. Thats why it's packaged with a bunch of other stuff and called a "free trade agreement".
It's just like everyone in Canada already knows longer drug patents are absolutely terrible. The corrupt need to claim we just have no choice and they are somehow necessary evils. Literally no one admits they want them.
Lets see.. Super easy to hack, millions of people with very strong motive.. Nah, only a conspiracy theorist would believe someone would actually do it... I mean, what are the odds! Plus, it would be hard to hide from statistical analyses afterwards... I'm sure someone must care about that right?
I think proper the solution to this problem is to establish a minimum international privacy standard, then change the wording of your laws from "data stored [transferred, etc, etc] locally" to "data stored [transferred, etc, etc] in locations adhering to these minimum privacy standards.
This would remove any protectionism and still accomplish the goal of ensuring citizens privacy.
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.