- cross-posted to:
- news
- cross-posted to:
- news
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.
Dunno how I can make it any clearer without tattooing it to your forehead: She. Could. Not. Consent. Due. To. The. Power. Dynamic. We’ve also covered how the power dynamic in the rape example is wildly different to the dumbass retort I know you’ll respond with that’ll be along the lines of “so the same as COVID”. That’s been done to death. You’re inability to understand this does not mean you are right. Sure, it means you’re dumb as shit for continuing with this dumb as shit line of reasoning, but it doesn’t change the fact that it is dumb as shit and thus you are wrong.
Neither could the other employee. They were both forced. Use your brain
Nope. The other employee was given a choice that was entirely fair. There was no abuse of power. I have given you a shitload of examples of how this works and why the two examples are vastly different. Hell, I literally did it in the comment I gave prior to this one. You have given me nothing but “nah, you’re wrong, but I can’t say why”, despite me asking for more info from you. Leaves me no choice but to assume you can’t defend your statements cos they can’t be defended. Which saddens me. Means you’re just doing this cos you’re either an idiot, or full of hate. Neither one is particularly appealing.
Both were fair choices made in free will or neither were. Don’t be a hypocrite, you’re better than that
I have made it abundantly clear to as to why they are different. I’m not covering it again. I’d suggest you reread what I have written, as you sure as shit seem to still be confused over an issue that I’ve made incredibly easy for someone even as intellectually limited as yourself to understand.
Also, you have no idea what I’m better than or not. You don’t know me from a bar of soap. So I’ll kindly thank you to keep your opinions of me to yourself, I care even less for them than I do for your disgusting performance in this comment thread.
You’ve made nothing clear because you’re still confused and can’t understand how both are the same. Read back through and try to strengthen your understanding
I can’t understand that they are the same, because they literally aren’t and have given evidence to support these claims. You can’t support your claims, which leads me to the conclusion that it’s you who is the one who is still confused and further leads me to suggest that you “read back through and try to strengthen your understanding”.
The coercion is the same. Neither can consent or both can. It’s literally the same power dynamic
I have covered this in detail, with examples, already. You can keep repeating this horseshit line of logic all you want, it’s not gonna change anything. Especially when you can’t give any support to your argument. Noone gives a shit about your feelings.