I dumped cable TV a decade ago before it was fashionable to actually subscribe to award-winning investigative journalists instead. Haven't watched Fox since.
After you see the data and research "critical thinking" and "evidence-based reasoning." You would do well to study both. Neither is labeling people you do not know or name-calling. C…
I dumped cable TV a decade ago before it was fashionable to actually subscribe to award-winning investigative journalists instead. Haven't watched Fox since.
After you see the data and research "critical thinking" and "evidence-based reasoning." You would do well to study both. Neither is labeling people you do not know or name-calling. Check the data before presuming to know what you do not the next time.
More whataboutism. You took well to being conditioned.
While you are trying to learn about evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking. Take up logic and the fallacy "appeal to authority." How many agencies say the same thing in an echo chamber isn't a substitute for evidence.
What we do know from actual study (like the one I posted from Nature) is that all the noise made by trolls of all sorts didn't significantly sway votes in the 2016 election. In 2016, with Democrats rigging their own primary, violating their own Bylaws, and lying to their own rank and file--then getting caught at it-- Wasserman Schultz and her DNC didn't need any help from Russians to throwi the nation to Trump. Even those of us who tried afterwards could not overcome that.
Distracting finger pointing like yours lets partisan stooges avoid doing any real governance, like fixing a murderous for-profit health care system, which would involve costing their corporate donors a dime.
The position that scientists and researchers are foreign agents or idiots can only be advocated from a bot or a hireling acting as a partisan stooge. The last quote from "Science" (not a Russian source) applies particularly to partisan stooges.
"Russian Twitter campaigns during the 2016 presidential race primarily reached a small subset of users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, shows a new study by NYU’s Center for Social Media and Politics. In addition, the international research team found that despite Russia’s influence operations on the platform, there were no measurable changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior among those exposed to this foreign influence campaign.
"We demonstrate, first, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.
"The Russian online disinformation effort during the 2016 US presidential election influenced neither attitudes nor voter behavior, new research shows. But the disinformation campaign may have had its largest effects by convincing Americans that its campaign was successful."
"The most worrisome misinformation in U.S. politics remains the old-fashioned kind: false and misleading statements made by elected officials who dominate news coverage and wield the powers of government."
"Partisanship is the most important determinant of vote choice and is an extremely stable trait. Strong partisans (roughly 40% of the population) are deeply committed to their political beliefs and preferences, which makes them extraordinarily nonresponsive to electoral persuasion from the other side but excellent candidates for mobilization."
I dumped cable TV a decade ago before it was fashionable to actually subscribe to award-winning investigative journalists instead. Haven't watched Fox since.
After you see the data and research "critical thinking" and "evidence-based reasoning." You would do well to study both. Neither is labeling people you do not know or name-calling. Check the data before presuming to know what you do not the next time.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251268/number-of-pay-tv-households-in-the-us/
Just Saturday, you doubled down on a humongous lie -- that was killed when the perp, Durham, was exposed.
More whataboutism. You took well to being conditioned.
While you are trying to learn about evidence-based reasoning and critical thinking. Take up logic and the fallacy "appeal to authority." How many agencies say the same thing in an echo chamber isn't a substitute for evidence.
What we do know from actual study (like the one I posted from Nature) is that all the noise made by trolls of all sorts didn't significantly sway votes in the 2016 election. In 2016, with Democrats rigging their own primary, violating their own Bylaws, and lying to their own rank and file--then getting caught at it-- Wasserman Schultz and her DNC didn't need any help from Russians to throwi the nation to Trump. Even those of us who tried afterwards could not overcome that.
Distracting finger pointing like yours lets partisan stooges avoid doing any real governance, like fixing a murderous for-profit health care system, which would involve costing their corporate donors a dime.
If you're not a Russian agent you're a willing idiot.
The position that scientists and researchers are foreign agents or idiots can only be advocated from a bot or a hireling acting as a partisan stooge. The last quote from "Science" (not a Russian source) applies particularly to partisan stooges.
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2023/january/exposure-to-russian-twitter-campaigns-in-2016-presidential-race-.html
"Russian Twitter campaigns during the 2016 presidential race primarily reached a small subset of users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, shows a new study by NYU’s Center for Social Media and Politics. In addition, the international research team found that despite Russia’s influence operations on the platform, there were no measurable changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior among those exposed to this foreign influence campaign.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-35576-9
"We demonstrate, first, that exposure to Russian disinformation accounts was heavily concentrated: only 1% of users accounted for 70% of exposures. Second, exposure was concentrated among users who strongly identified as Republicans. Third, exposure to the Russian influence campaign was eclipsed by content from domestic news media and politicians. Finally, we find no evidence of a meaningful relationship between exposure to the Russian foreign influence campaign and changes in attitudes, polarization, or voting behavior.
https://socialsciences.ku.dk/news/2023/russias-disinformation-campaign-in-the-us-did-not-influence-political-attitudes-or-voting-behavior/
"The Russian online disinformation effort during the 2016 US presidential election influenced neither attitudes nor voter behavior, new research shows. But the disinformation campaign may have had its largest effects by convincing Americans that its campaign was successful."
https://gen.medium.com/why-fears-of-fake-news-are-overhyped-2ed9ca0a52c9
"The most worrisome misinformation in U.S. politics remains the old-fashioned kind: false and misleading statements made by elected officials who dominate news coverage and wield the powers of government."
https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abb2437
"Partisanship is the most important determinant of vote choice and is an extremely stable trait. Strong partisans (roughly 40% of the population) are deeply committed to their political beliefs and preferences, which makes them extraordinarily nonresponsive to electoral persuasion from the other side but excellent candidates for mobilization."