this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
8 points (70.0% liked)

World News

39096 readers
2411 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you read the article you posted?

"Australian trial of seaweed cow feed fails to achieve hoped-for methane cuts

Longest trial so far of supplement derived from red seaweed produced 28% less of the greenhouse gas – a much smaller reduction than in previous studies."

So, not as much as the 97% in the shorter trials, but 28% is certainly statistically significant, and doesn't really fall under the category of "industry propaganda." They also used less seaweed for this trial and used a breed not tested before, along with an open air sampling process, while other trials had been indoor, sealed environments. Even if other breeds had the same weight gain issue (no evidence of that so far) and needed to wait longer until slaughter it's still a 19% reduction.

[–] r1veRRR@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago

Even with 19% it's still many many many many many percent wrose than plant based alternatives.

It's absolutely propaganda, I know you agree. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume you're against racism.

Assume some "preliminary study" made the rounds that 97% of black people do X (X being a bad thing), and everyone talked about it, and it was in sooo many news stories, and sooo many racists used that study to argue that racism is correct, akshually. Now, a year or so later, a bigger study reveals that it's not 97%, it's 19% percent. It's not making the rounds, because it's boring news, and noone that talked about the earlier study even notices, and you STILL have to constantly bring up this new result, because people are STILL quoting the older study. You genuinely don't think that's propaganda? The fact that the study good for the racists made it to so many news outlets, but the not so good one didn't? That noone anywhere put any money towards making that happen?