Trump and Biden Attack Social Media - By Running Ads on Social Media (apnews.com) 168
In 100 days the U.S. will vote on whether Donald Trump, Joe Biden or somebody else should be America's president. But both candidates are also running political ads attacking social media — on social media.
"They're shooting the messenger while giving it lots of money," reports the Associated Press: Biden has focused on Facebook, with a #MoveFastFixIt campaign that admonishes Facebook for not doing enough to protect users from foreign meddling or being duped by falsehoods, particularly those spread by Trump about mail-in voting. His campaign just last month spent nearly $10,000 to run ads scolding the company on its own platform. "We could lie to you, but we won't," says one of Biden's ads.... Despite criticizing Facebook, Biden's campaign said it's still purchasing millions of dollars in Facebook ads because it's one of the few ways to counter Trump's false posts — since Facebook won't fact check him. The ads are also a cheap and effective way for the campaigns to rally supporters who are unhappy with the platforms, said Kathleen Searles, a Louisiana State University political communications professor. "We do know that anger can be very motivating — it motivates them to get their name on an email list, or donate $20," Searles said...
While Biden has focused on Facebook, Trump has honed in on Twitter, and occasionally Snapchat, with his campaign running online ads that accuse both companies of "interfering" in the election. Twitter became a Trump campaign target after the company rolled out its first fact check of his inaccurate tweet about voting in late May. Twitter has since applied similar labels to five other Trump tweets, including two that called mail-in ballots "fraudulent" and predicted that "mail boxes will be robbed" if voting doesn't take place in person... Republican leaders have since joined in railing against Twitter. This month, Rep. Jim Jordan, a firebrand conservative from Ohio, demanded Twitter hand over a full accounting, including emails, of how it decided to fact check the president...
Facebook could be next for a face-off with the president and his allies now that the company has vowed to label any posts — Trump's included — that violate its rules against voting misinformation or hate speech. Facebook has yet to take such action, though.
"Social media censorship is going to be a very potent campaign issue," Brooking said. "And there's going to be incentive from a number of folks running for office in 2020 to push the envelope still further, to try to invite more and more social media moderation because they see it as a potent political stunt."
"They're shooting the messenger while giving it lots of money," reports the Associated Press: Biden has focused on Facebook, with a #MoveFastFixIt campaign that admonishes Facebook for not doing enough to protect users from foreign meddling or being duped by falsehoods, particularly those spread by Trump about mail-in voting. His campaign just last month spent nearly $10,000 to run ads scolding the company on its own platform. "We could lie to you, but we won't," says one of Biden's ads.... Despite criticizing Facebook, Biden's campaign said it's still purchasing millions of dollars in Facebook ads because it's one of the few ways to counter Trump's false posts — since Facebook won't fact check him. The ads are also a cheap and effective way for the campaigns to rally supporters who are unhappy with the platforms, said Kathleen Searles, a Louisiana State University political communications professor. "We do know that anger can be very motivating — it motivates them to get their name on an email list, or donate $20," Searles said...
While Biden has focused on Facebook, Trump has honed in on Twitter, and occasionally Snapchat, with his campaign running online ads that accuse both companies of "interfering" in the election. Twitter became a Trump campaign target after the company rolled out its first fact check of his inaccurate tweet about voting in late May. Twitter has since applied similar labels to five other Trump tweets, including two that called mail-in ballots "fraudulent" and predicted that "mail boxes will be robbed" if voting doesn't take place in person... Republican leaders have since joined in railing against Twitter. This month, Rep. Jim Jordan, a firebrand conservative from Ohio, demanded Twitter hand over a full accounting, including emails, of how it decided to fact check the president...
Facebook could be next for a face-off with the president and his allies now that the company has vowed to label any posts — Trump's included — that violate its rules against voting misinformation or hate speech. Facebook has yet to take such action, though.
"Social media censorship is going to be a very potent campaign issue," Brooking said. "And there's going to be incentive from a number of folks running for office in 2020 to push the envelope still further, to try to invite more and more social media moderation because they see it as a potent political stunt."
Cheap shot (Score:2)
People drive their cars to environmental protests too. You fight with the tools available.
The left doesn't like Gore (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true and you know it (Score:2, Interesting)
And we are learning from our party's failures. It's why we don't like Clinton & Gore. It's why Bernie, a Democratic Socialist, polled at 35% in a presidential primary and why 88% of Dems support Medicare for All. We could stand to learn a little faster (Biden's still a moderate Republican from 1990) but we're learning.
For example, we're not going to
Re: (Score:2)
The bolsheviks didn't vote for Bernie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what a hypocrite is.
Rather imagine you had a gun. Now somebody comes and takes your gun and shoots you with it.
They are attacking social media with social media.
Re: (Score:2)
It's very easy for you to set up the ideal of perfection then attack everyone who doesn't meet your ideal as being a hypocrite. If you do it loudly enough and often enough, people might not notice that all you di is criticise and have never lifted a finer to improve things yourself.
Very much missing Celebrity Deathmatch (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you imagine what an excellent episode of Celebrity Deathmatch a Trump vs. Biden would make?
Third Party? No thanks. (Score:2)
You idiots that voted for Green or Libertarian last time .. it's was the same as voting for the Trump. Hope you are happy!
Third parties have done nothing, zero, on the grassroots level .. they didn't bother to build up any base. Where were the Libertarian and Green Party idiots hiding for the last four years? They'll show up from their hideout in late October demanding votes claiming to be the way out. Forget them, they forgot us.
Re: (Score:2)
You idiots that voted for Green or Libertarian last time .. it's was the same as voting for the Trump.
Are you proud of voting for a lizard? [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Lizards have species. The choice was Iguana versus Crocodile. When you voted third party, in spite of what you think, you voted for the Croc.
And by the way the third parties are lizards too, or at least their related reptile -- snakes. Snakes that burrow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of the thid party candidates could even win a third grade election where all they have to do is provide candy and all-day recess. They'll choose the one flavor nobody wants, and the all-day recess activies would consist of pop quizzes. You are rewarding that behavior by voting for them. They should try winning local elections first and build a base, instead they are chasing quixotic glory.
Re: (Score:2)
I see... you're happy because in your blind and ill informed hatred for Democrats, you believe a slew of untrue things.
Well, at least you're happy.
Censorship (Score:2)
I hate how leaders think the internet is their creation to mess about with.
Re: (Score:2)
They also influence and change the trends at their whim.
"a lot of money" (Score:4, Interesting)
Who, in this day and age, considers a campaign spending $10,000 on advertising as "a lot of money"?
That's the catering budget for a reasonably large campaign rally, it's not a lot of money - please don't act like it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Who, in this day and age, considers a campaign spending $10,000 on advertising as "a lot of money"?
That's the catering budget for a reasonably large campaign rally, it's not a lot of money - please don't act like it is.
I take it you are unable to separate the concept of total campaign budget with the idea of advert spending on a single platform. Yes $10000 to run an add on Facebook is definitely considered a "lot of money". Just like if you went out and spent $300 on dinner at a restaurant it would be considered a "lot of money" despite being nothing in the overall budget required to keep you alive throughout the year.
Re: "a lot of money" (Score:2)
The context of this spending is that $10K is not such a large amount of money that it would, in any way, influence Facebook's behavior one way or another.
Then again, in 2016 the crafty "RUSSIANS!" were able to completely overturn our election with a social media budget of about $100K.
Weird, I haven't seen them. (Score:2)
Ban both immediately (Score:2)
Facebook and Twitter should ban both candidates. I certainly would. It's not a free speech issue. It's like a black person allowing the Klan and Aryan Nations to hold meetings at their home.
What comes after Anti-Trump? (Score:2)
Once Biden becomes president for heroically slaying the dragon, what will be the remaining difference between the two parties after the damage Trump has caused has been fixed? Pretty much all of the classic conservative topics (gay marriage, transgender rights, health insurance etc.) are gone and done. What's left for them to pick up? Or the democrats for that matter as their opponent doesn't have any distinguishable traits anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Socially, the left has trans rights, polyamory, and abortion rights.
Foreign policy, the left can be nice to people.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, it was about constitutional views, not a particular political issue.
The eighteenth amendment came and was repealed by the twenty-first.
The US just might be farther "left" than is stated, weed is legal, so on.
Papa Joe or tRump? Neither is a good choice.
Did AP really say "honed in"? (Score:2)
Editing is officially dead
Re:Millennials (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's face it, that's where they get their news. and they're *very* receptive to the messages they see there.
You can make the same argument about any demographic having their "comfort" news sources that confirm their particular biases. ie. Fox on the right, NPR/PBS/CNN/MSNBC on the left, etc.
Re:Millennials (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
CNN was center-right in the 80s, but honest, and they never changed.
They're still not left, though it is true that Republicans are generally to their right now.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And when those children go home? Having a bunch of sick parents isn't going to help, even if they do eventually recover.
The smart thing is multiple plans and seeing how things go. It is what this peer nation is doing and I'd be really surprised if school fully reopens.
Re: (Score:2)
Everything is left when you are far right.
Re: (Score:2)
I felt like back in the day (20-30 years ago) CNN was fairly centrist. Nowadays, it seems like it's just sensationalist. Doesn't really fit neatly on a left-right scale, they just go for what they think is more dramatic. It used to be my go-to for news, but I've given up on them. I find it hard to extract any actual information from their stories. This is all my own interpretation and I have nothing to back this up objectively.
Re:Millennials (Score:5, Informative)
If your "perspective" that Fox News is not right wing, then you're factually wrong. You're incorrect. Fox News is right wing. They actively advocate (or perhaps create) the entire "right wing" platform in the US, with almost no exceptions.
If your "perspective" that NPR is left wing, then you're factually wrong. You're incorrect. NPR doesn't advocate for Marxism, or anarchy, or anything of the sort.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh-really?
https://www.npr.org/templates/... [npr.org]
They're praising Marx as some kind of visionary. If you're fair-and-balanced you should point to Marx and then at least make an attempt to hint at the billions of death in his name in the 20th century.
Marx's ideology caused more deaths than the Nazi's did. But nobody talks about it.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
B. It's praising his ideas that accurately predicted a lot of the economic and societal problems we have today. I don't see anything inaccurate about it.
C. Marx's idealogy didn't do anything. People do horrible things all of the time and ascribe them to others all of the time. How many people have been murdered by Trump supporters in the past few years? Are all of those murder's Trump's fault? The US has slaughtered hundreds of thousand
Re: (Score:2)
Marx's ideology caused more deaths than the Nazi's did. But nobody talks about it.
People are constantly talking about the deaths caused by communists, every time the topic is brought up.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're fair-and-balanced you should point to Marx and then at least make an attempt to hint at the billions of death in his name in the 20th century.
The Soviet Union et al were bad, to say the least, but "billions" would be, like, half the planet, which is not terribly plausible. It seems the actual figure is more on the order of 100 million [wikipedia.org]. Which is quite bad enough that you don't need to undermine your argument with gross exaggerations.
Re: (Score:3)
That's like pointing at Jesus and blaming all the deaths that were in his name on him.
Marx had some good points and some bad points, but the real problem whether talking about his followers or Jesus's followers is the authoritarians and what they did. In the case of Marx, the easiest way for the authoritarians to get power was to promise the serfs/peasants there own land to farm, which is why the big Marxist revolutions happened in places like China and Russia, lots of poor peasants under the thumb of the a
Re: (Score:2)
A news story does not define if a news organsiation is left or right. In an unbaised news organisation you would absolutely find articles praising Marxism just as you'd find articles praising libertarianism.
You posted a left leaning story, not evidence of a left leaning news organisation.
Now if you can show that the overwhelming majority of NPR stories attempt to push some left leaning agenda then you may have a point worth debating.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a piece from NPR advocating massive budget cuts (or even the end) of the police with the author of the book explaining "How the police endanger us and why we need to find an alternative": https://www.npr.org/sections/c... [npr.org]
This is a blatant anarchist position.
Re: Millennials (Score:5, Funny)
As a non-American, all of those are pretty far right. Except Fox. It's a satire, right?
Re: (Score:2)
If he makes his political choices like he chooses his technical arguments, he flipped a coin one day and just went with however it landed.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh. Sounds like a familiar accusation. (Score:3, Insightful)
How, pray tell, do you determine that your favorite news outlet isn't doing the same thing, but in service of a view point you favor?
Re:Huh. Sounds like a familiar accusation. (Score:5, Funny)
How, pray tell, do you determine that your favorite news outlet isn't doing the same thing, but in service of a view point you favor?
Easy. You abolish the idea of a "favorite news outlet" and get news from multiple sources Have an open mind. Be willing to change your view or opinion as the facts and evidence changes or evolves. Make an attempt at fact checking. Don't be a parrot. Get off Facebook.
True... that's a big ask for most Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This was done because the evidence against [Manafort, Stone or Flynn] was damning
Uh, what evidence are you talking about here?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't consider Fox "right".
That would point more to your understanding of left and right rather than anything about Fox.
Re: (Score:2)
In the EU, things have gone so far left, you now have a real problem with actual Nazi parties getting in power
Wait, you didn't fall for that "national socialist" thing, did you? And you know that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is not democratic, of the people, or a republic, right?
Re:Millennials (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Millennials (Score:5, Insightful)
Being "anti-Trump" doesn't make one leftist. It makes one sane.
Being anti-Trump based on him being a poor leader makes you sane. Misrepresenting things he says makes you a liar, and that's not uncommon in a number of media companies.
Trump says a lot of stupid shit, but watching full recordings of things Trump says and comparing them to the brief clips shown on anti-Trump "news" broadcasts makes it quite clear when there is bias in the reporting.
To bring this post back on topic with the story, the best way Facebook and Twitter can ensure that Trump doesn't get elected is to NOT censor his posts. Biden is not going to win on the strength of his principles. His best chance at winning is for winning is for Trump to keep saying and doing stupid shit. But if enough people perceive, accurately, that there are major media outlets engaging in biased reporting, then it's possible that enough voters may attribute all of Trump's stupidity to media bias. Which would be a pity, since he's stupid even without the biased reporting.
Re: (Score:2)
''His best chance at winning is for winning is for Trump to keep saying and doing stupid shit.''
I find that statement doubtful. He's basically said stupid shit his whole campaign. Insofar as doing stupid shit, and aside from all of the accusations of improprieties and biases [probably just doing and saying ignorant shit anyway], this time the Democrats can't say, ''It's the economy, stupid''. Because look at the market. If you don't believe that the status of voters IRA/401k accounts make a difference, cas
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
His best chance at winning is for winning is for Trump to keep saying and doing stupid shit.
Trump ran the last election on a platform of stupid shit. Some magical idea that he'll lock up his political opponents, get Mexico to pay for US based projects and will will industry back into existence all the while denying climate change. Throughout his campaign it was clear he was an oversized man-child at best and a sexual predator / fraud at worst.
People didn't care. His own party didn't care. The absurdity of republicans defending him throughout not only his impeachment but alongside all of the stupid
Re: (Score:3)
CNN is definitely Left of the mark. I wouldn't call them liberal, but they clearly favored Clinton, clearly favor Biden, and their coverage covid 19 and BLM has definitely shown a significant liberal bias.
I think it speaks volumes about America that Clinton or Biden could be seen as anything further left than center-right. Or that infection control or equal rights should be things that anybody would want to be against.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Global lock down was actually the correct course at the beginning as there were so many unknowns. It has to be followed by a reopening done intelligently though.
Was reading an interesting article about how the countries with female leaders have done much better. Comparisons like between Ireland and NZ, Pakistan and Bangladesh or Germany vs the UK. One theory was that women are more risk averse with peoples lives whereas men are more risk averse with the economy, so female leaders locked down quick, got thin
CNN is _NOT_ left of the mark (Score:2, Troll)
They're extremely pro-corporate. Go look into their coverage of Bernie Sanders or how they ran the debates against him. And Bernie isn't even that far left, he's a Democratic Socialist for Pete's sake.
Also look at CNN's coverage of the protests. Those protests are 99% peaceful but if you watch CNN you'd think they were 24/7 riots.
"Left" is Breadtube (look it up if you're not familiar, yes it's weird). The fact we're even thinking of CNN a
Re: CNN is _NOT_ left of the mark (Score:2)
Being anti-Bernie doesnâ(TM)t make you a right-winger.
Bernie had a lot of support in this and the previous election, but both times he was beaten out by another candidate who, for whatever reason, had broader appeal than Bernie.
It is fair to say that CNN was behind both Hillary and Biden, and both are Left-leaning candidates.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary and Biden are center right candidates. Biden was picked exactly for that reason as it has the widest appeal to Americans. There is a wing of the Democrats that are left wing and they have to consider them too so some slightly left policies.
Re: CNN is _NOT_ left of the mark (Score:2)
Those âoedesert camosâ are the soldiers uniforms, and thatâ(TM)s how their protective gear is decorated. Is your issue with the color of their uniforms, or their presence?
Ideally cities wouldnâ(TM)t be in such a state that the federal government needs to send in federal protection forces (which are NOT soldiers) to protect federal buildings.
Just to be clear, local cops in one state kill an unarmed man while in custody, so 1,000 miles away, in another state protesters are trying to burn d
Re: (Score:2)
Might be the reaction of your Federal government to that death. It's not like your President even tried to be consolidating.
Re: CNN is _NOT_ left of the mark (Score:2)
I assume you meant consoling.
But the question remains, why Portland, OR federal courthouse? The killers were local cops and the President is in Washington, DC, the literal other side of the country.
They are burning down a Portland Starbucks to punish the President? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
On the US political spectrum maybe. By European standards Biden and Clinton are both centre right.
Sanders and AOC are on the left, both fairly moderate.
Clinton, Biden == right wing shitbags (Score:2)
One of the more annoying tropes in American politics is assuming that Democrats are left and Republicans are right. This is laughably false as both parties are right wing warmongers who serve the same donors. Especially when the entire Russiagate narrative has had Democrats and their media pals attacking Trump from the right - the far McCarthyite right, for four years now.
Re:Millennials (Score:4, Informative)
This has nothing to do with what the grand parent poster wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
The grandparent said CNN was on the left and then parent claims a no true scotsman because CNN isn't left enough for his liking. "CNN can't be left wing because if they don't cover x in this way, they aren't true left-wing" is a variation on the true scotsman.
CNN and MSNBC is far-left wing according to most metrics. PBS is center-left at best, but only because they're government funded and have to keep up the appearance of balance.
Re:Millennials (Score:5, Informative)
No True Scotsman requires a certain sequence.
But in the original post, we have a completely different sequence.
Most characterizing of the True Scotsman Fallacy are the moving goal posts after getting knowledge of a contradicting fact, to keep the statement intact.
What the original poster did was a normal classification. If you call this a fallacy, you would never be able to classify at all. With your idea of the application of the No True Scotsman fallacy, I could classify Fox News as an media outlet for the Danish province Jylland.
Re: Millennials (Score:2)
Thank you for taking the time to educate the community. Was a time when this would not been necessary.
Mod up, people.
Re: (Score:2)
CNN and MSNBC is far-left wing according to most metrics.
No, only according to most metrics used by right wing nutjobs. They don't appear to have a problem with showing something of "the left" in a bad light. that makes them much less biased than Fox, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mistake petty partisan politics for left/right politics. The entire Russiagate narrative is attacking Trump from the far right, for four years now and counting.
People still believe what they want to believe (Score:2)
Why are you [Arthur, KBE] propagating AC FP Subject abuse? Especially mindless, too.
The root of the problem is that people believe what they want to believe. If there's a difference now, it's that social media makes it easier to find the right wannabe believers for whatever snake oil you're pushing. You call it engagement, but I call it pandering. Social media like Twitter and Facebook are just the greatest tools yet invented for finding suckers. (Can you point at a better one? Maybe the Bible?)
By the way,
Fox? (Score:2)
Your info is dated if you think that most conservatives listen to Fox these days. Except maybe for Tucker, it's not really trusted any longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it, that's where they get their news. and they're *very* receptive to the messages they see there.
Years ago I met people who only knew of current events if Rush Limbaugh talked about it that morning.
I guess it's fine if people don't want to keep track of what goes on in the world, most of it is pretty much bullshit anyways. But don't expect me to take your opinions on things too seriously, including your pick for President. It's one thing to be uninformed and keep to your own business. It's another to be, as Rush puts it, a "low information voter".
Re:Ok I've had enough of this election already (Score:5, Insightful)
That's derpy as hell, if you can't tell the difference it just means you're a moron, that's all it means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok I've had enough of this election already (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If both are busy destroying the nation
What do you base this on? One of the sides is clearly disruptive, the other's main criticism seems to be that he'll fall asleep on the job. Compared to what's going on that's a huge win.
The fact you think both are destroying the nation is so utterly absurd not even republicans make that claim about Joe.
Oh except that he'll apparently take your guns away and eliminate "the suburbs" according to a moron who didn't even know what he was trying to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because it really doesn't matter which of them does win, assuming Donny doesn't go completely nuts and try to stay, even if he loses.
No matter who wins the election, "Americans" will lose because neither of the two main parties candidates is has any understanding of their electorate.
Boring, demonstrated competence equals chaotically evil, lethal incompetence is a scorching take on its own--but claiming this is true because of the individual candidates' subjective lack of understanding--muah chefs kiss.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you were joking, but let me take the joke too far. Imagine a system where there are no losers, including voters who picked losing candidates. Imagine that your vote guaranteed you were represented by the person you actually voted for and that there was a reason to continue representing you and what you want.
The only catch is that the representatives would not have the same voting power. Actually, I think the best way to do it would be to allocate voting power on the basis of the logarithm of the vot
The quickest way to get something like this (Score:2)
Maine already does this and it's made Green a viable third party. For a National Senate Race no less. If you don't like our 2 party, Winner take all, first past the post system Ranked Choice is the way to go.
Alternative voting systems (Score:2)
I've actually seen a case where ranked choice voting failed miserably. It does have some virtues over simple winner-take-all systems, but in some cases it can result in the victory of a candidate that no one actually preferred. However, I admit that was a relatively small election, where pathological cases are more likely. Then again, a frequent justification for ranked choice is that it is faster because it can avoid runoff elections. (Part of the fiasco I saw involved deadlocks that forced runoffs in spit
Re: (Score:2)
No relation to what I wrote. Care to explain the joke?
Re: (Score:3)
If 50% of USA is white it should be 50 seats 25M/25F.
If 25% of USA is black it should be 25 seats 12M/12F +1M/F
If 50% of the USA are Christian, it should be 50 seats divided from among the denomination as close as possible
If 25% of the USA is atheist, it should have 25 seats.
The above is the most racist, idiotic statement I've ever read. We are not tribes. If I'm purple in this day and age, and I think the blue guy represents my values, I'm voting for the blue guy. But WTF, I'm not voting for a blue tribe m
Re:Ok I've had enough of this election already (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are lucky enough that the result of the election doesn't make any difference to your life then good for you. For most people this election is really important.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it really doesn't matter which of them does win
Wow. That shows an astonishing lack of attention of what has been happening both in federal as well as global politics over the past 4 years. Having "sleepy Joe" asleep at the wheel would be an amazing improvement over Trump, the USA has already been turned into a global laughing stock to say nothing of being more divisive and self destructive than any millennial has thus far lived through.
Get your head out of the sand man.
This is a truly prefect troll (Score:5, Informative)
1. Non-partisan. Attacks both left and right but does so in a vague manner
2. Open for interpretation.
3. No actual content, nothing to attack or defend. Just a vague sense of unease and anger.
Bravo sir, bravo! You've added nothing to the conversation, heck you may even derail it; and with luck you'll get a +5 mod out it to boot!
Re: (Score:3)
Agree with your stance but not your example (Score:2)
It was Republicans, not Gore, who started the "Invented the Internet" horseshit after a sloppy piece from Wired. His "I invented the camcorder" bit on SNL was trying to defuse the smear with self-depreciating humor instead of confronting the media's bullshit obsession with his "fib factor".
And bullshit it was. Endless nitpicking, like picking apart a story of a girl who had to stand in class because she didn't have her own desk because sometimes the students would rotate, so we wasn't deskless ever. single.
You fix that with voting reform. (Score:2)
You need the 1st four to get that last one nationally.
The problem is our Winner Take All, first Past the Post system. It means you always get a 2 party system, since if anyone breaks ranks from the 2 major parties they just hand the election, and all the power, to whichever side didn't.
Re:Inherent to the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone lauded Obama for using social media but complained when Trump did the same thing.
Remind me about those times on social media when Obama announced new foreign policy, got in to (and lost) a fight with a 16 year old girl, taunted nuclear regimes or covefe
The fact they both used the internet doesn't in any way make them comparable.