There's been a lot of shoddy journalism about Israel/Gaza from all narratives and I feel like this has been testing the media literacy of a lot of progressives, but uh... CNN is not a fringe source. This banning feels bad.
GarrulousBrevity
If the dems ever sweep the house and senate, I hope they pass legislation
I mean, it's pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn't work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I've read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.
It's not really a bot's opinion though? It's reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That's all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.
And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.
But following media reports, it has also admitted that China-based employees had access to US users’ data, although the company insisted it was under strict and highly limited circumstances.
Employees of ByteDance might be Chinese, but they don't work for the government. They work for ByteDance. I haven't found anyone claiming to have proof that data in US citizens has left the company. Just fears that it could.
If you're down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you're upset that Salon doesn't have a perfect rating
There is concern that ByteDance may be giving the Chinese government access to data on US citizens. It's worth noting that no proof of this actually happening has surfaced.
Mostly because of this. TikTok is the app collecting massive amounts of data on its users with dubious intent and questionable security that is currently being scapegoated, and discord is on the long list of popular apps that collect massive amounts of data their users with dubious intent and questionable security that we are not scapegoating.
That's what the article is about: how that change has pushed politicians to be open about their flaws and having much more public lives, like celebrities. Meaning that voters vote for politicians who act like celebrities. The sentiment in other comments of "No. No we don't." ignores the reality of who has been winning elections for the last 30 years.
I'm gonna guess there's a lot of down votes from people who just read the title...
The author points out the last 30 years of presidential candidates as their evidence, and paints a pretty nuanced picture of his politicians have dealt with changing voter trends. No one wants to vote for the candidate that doesn't act like that can ~~emphasize~~ empathize (glide typing failed me) with them, even though that's not really the president's job.
Don't ruin your own experience because someone else is enjoying it differently than you like to
I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget