No, I’m saying them being renters is at the same level as all the other problems. They face a lot of shit because of their poor economic status, and that causes them stress, but one of the things they face is their economic status forces them to rent.
Renting doesn’t cause the stress, it’s caused by the same thing that causes them stress. The root cause is lower socio economic status. Everything flows from that.
The Admins run lemmy.world, we serve at their pleasure.
Sure, I could ban it, then likely get removed and have the bot re-instated, and what good would that do anyone?
Nope. Harris doesn’t enter into it. There are two sides, Pro Trump and Anti Trump.
If you want Anti Trump to win, you have to pull behind one candidate. Splitting it 5 ways guarantees Anti Trump cannot win.
There is only one candidate who happens to be at the same level as Trump, the Democratic candidate.
Which means holding your nose and voting for Harris, failing to do so gets you Trump. You don’t have to be Pro Harris at all, you just have to hate Trump more.
The problem isn’t that it can’t be done, the problem is that it can’t be done without disruption.
If eVoting were a thing, how long do you think it would take for 4chan to completely fuck it up?
And I don’t mean in a “In a stunning upset today, the new President is write in candidate Boaty McBoatface”, I mean in a DDoS attack blocking ANYONE from voting.
Heck, even systems that expect mass traffic without interruption go down all the time like when a new game gets released, you think voting traffic is somehow immune to that?
Voting is too important to leave to an electronic system.
The New York Times is a special class of paper called a “Newspaper of Record” until or unless that changes, nobody will question their reliability.
Because if they were interested in voting for Trump, they’d be voting for Trump. When the choice is Trump vs. Not Trump, Not Trump wins. Even in 2016 that was true.
People overstate the hatred.
Check this post:
https://lemmy.world/post/20723122
60 upvotes, 4 comments, bot post is at +1.
Doesn’t look like an overwhelming majority, just that most people ignore it entirely.
I can’t, it’s Admin level.
Again, those are stressors caused by their lower socioeconomic status, not because they are renters. They are renters BECAUSE of their status, and are stressed by their status. They are NOT stressed because they are renters.
Trying to spin it the other way is why the story is, correctly, marked as false.
To be honest, that’s Rooki’s deal, but I’ll link them to this comment!
Because there’s more to a rating than factual accuracy.
For example:
“Chris Wallace: Harris Has ‘Plateaued’ — Trump Is Now a Slight Favorite”
Yeah, that’s factually accurate. Chris Wallace did, in fact, say that.
“I’m hearing this from top Republicans and top Democrats, that Harris seems to have stalled out a bit in the last couple of weeks. You know, she had a great rollout, great convention, very successful debate, but she seemed to have plateaued. One top Republican said two weeks ago, I would’ve said that she was a slight favorite. He said today I’d say Trump is a slight favorite.”
He was quoting some un-named source, he didn’t make that assertation himself, which makes the headline dishonest, but those words did come out of Wallaces mouth.
True, but banning users has a higher threshold. It has to be REALLY bad to ban a user.
Again, correlation is not causation.
They aren’t stressed because they’re spending 41% of their income on housing, they’re stressed because of their low socio economic status which causes them to spend 41% of their income on housing.
It’s a symptom, not a cause.
Again, they’re putting the cart before the horse and MBFC correctly points out what they’re trying to say is factually false.
We discussed boiling the bot down to a tag on the posts, but apparently there was some technical limitation doing that? Frankly, it’s a little over my head.
I can’t ignore suggestions nobody is making. Have a better service in mind? Feel free to present it.
We looked at AllSides, which is good for bias, but has no scoring for credibility.
Looks like that may be a problem with the API, not the site or the bot.
Searching the site for bbc.co.uk correctly points to the BBC:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=bbc.co.uk
I’ll PM Rookie, maybe he needs to escape the search term or something.
Downvotes and posting like a hummingbird with OCD are not TOS violations.
It cites 5, numerous means there are many more, but these are the cited examples.
They don’t have the same accuracy as Breitbart, again, Breitbart is Questionable and is on their list of fake news sources, the Guardian is not.
You and me both! They did have a point when the bot had a donation nag on it, the bot creator heard that complaint and removed it.