Kate Starbird says attacks have made research difficult, and claims of bias arise because of prevalence of lies from the right

Kate Starbird says attacks have made research difficult, and claims of bias arise because of prevalence of lies from the right

A key researcher in the fight against election misinformation – who herself became the subject of an intensive misinformation campaign – has said her field gets accused of “bias” precisely because it’s now mainly rightwingers who spread the worst lies.

Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, added that she feared that the entirely false story of rigged elections has now “sunk in” for many Americans on the right. “The idea that they’re already going to the polls with the belief that they’re being cheated means they’ll misinterpret everything they see through that lens,” she said.

Starbird’s group partnered with Stanford Internet Observatory on the Election Integrity Partnership ahead of the 2020 elections – a campaign during which a flood of misinformation swirled around the internet, with daily claims of unproven voter fraud.

Starbird and her team helped document that flood, and in return congressional Republicans and conservative attorneys attacked her research, alleging it amounted to censorship and violated the first amendment.

  • @StorminNorman
    3•1 year ago

    Nope, literally different cos the lady in your example couldn’t consent. You could 100% consent to not being injected. Sure, you may have lost your job, but this isn’t unique to the COVID vaccine. There are shit loads of examples of people losing their jobs because they were unsafe in the workplace. And not getting vaccinated is literally being unsafe in the workplace. It’s why many of those who lost their jobs due to being unvaccinated couldn’t claim unemployment benefits in the states. Here’s an example, you rock up to work drunk to drive a forklift for 8hrs. You get fired cos it’s unsafe. Nobody is forcing you to sober up. Do what you want. You just can’t work there anymore. Exactly the same thing.

    • @[email protected]
      -7•1 year ago

      literally different cos the lady in your example couldn’t consent

      She did consent. She consented to avoid losing her job. She wasn’t forced by your logic

      • @StorminNorman
        3•1 year ago

        Nope. She can’t consent. Which I’ve already linked to. I suggest you read it.

        • @[email protected]
          -7•1 year ago

          Neither could the person who was forced to get a different type of injection into their body in order to keep their job.

          • @StorminNorman
            3•1 year ago

            They 100% can. No power dynamic imbalance in the COVID case. Also, guarantee the employee signed a contract saying that the employer could fire them for just cause. Making the workplace unsafe is definitely just cause for that. And killing your fellow workers with a preventable disease sure sounds unsafe to me. And I know I’m repeating myself but you sure as shit ain’t picking it up, but that’s why you couldn’t get unemployment benefits in the US if you were fired for not getting the jab. Because you were fired with just cause. Because noone was forced to get the jab. Because you could consent to it. The lady in your case literally could not give consent. You can argue all you want about it, but your shitty opinion doesn’t change decades of legal precedent.

            • @[email protected]
              -7•1 year ago

              No power dynamic imbalance in the COVID case

              There’s no power dynamic in losing your job? Glad to hear you also support zero protections on workers rights

              Making the workplace unsafe

              Off topic. The injections did not stop the spread

              • @StorminNorman
                4•1 year ago

                There is no power dynamic imbalance brought about by your boss firing you for doing something unsafe. Hence why there has been literally 0 cases of workplaces being punished for firing employees who didn’t get the vaccine.

                And it’s 100% on topic to mention that the disease was deadly and was literally killing people in many workplaces. It also reduced the spread, even if it didn’t stop it. Cos it’s really hard to spread a disease when you don’t have it.

                  • @StorminNorman
                    2•1 year ago

                    Nope. Completely different. I’ve given you facts that support this. I suggest you do the same. Hell, I’ll give you more. A boss who is in any kind of sexual relationship with a subordinate has way more power than they would over a subordinate who they were not having a relationship with (which does imply there is a power dynamic in play in all instances involving a boss and their employees. But that’s not what you said. You said it was “the same”). And this can be proven by the multitude of cases where those bosses who’ve coerced their employees to have sex with them and then been charged. Like I said, literally 0 businesses have been punished for firing employees who didn’t get the vaccine (and I’ve already told you why this is, because being fired for a safety related offence is just cause).

                    Also, if you are set in your belief that it isn’t rape, why would you think that there is the same power imbalance? As far as your concerned, it’s not even rape, so how could there be a power imbalance? And you’re just gonna ignore the article that shows that vaccines slowed the transmission of COVID? That has a bunch of scientific studies referenced throughout? You are picking and choosing what you reply to, and trying to use that to seem smart. You’re not, you couldn’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag. Hell, I’ve seen 5yos make more convincing cases for an extra serve of icecream after dinner than you are making here…