Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)AF
Posts
3
Comments
1,236
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • i can understand history not being on trumps side, but i don’t understand how “precedent” is not on his side. the precedent from the last several years is that the supreme court does not care too much about “precedent”.

  • what’s insane was that these could have been released earlier, but the house ethics committee has rules that stop negative reports from being released too close to an election. (source)

    as if it might be a bad thing that someone doesn’t get re-elected because they were found to have done seriously unethical things.

  • i’ve only ever seen tankies complain about the word “tankie” being over used. i guess us non-tankies just don’t hear it very often.

    there’s also this false dichotomy i’ve seen many tankies present where they try to argue that people are either liberals or tankies. it is possible to be a leftist and not support authoritarian governments.

  • for some reason, the article does not provide a link to the study it is describing. but i believe this is the study they are referring to.

    one of the things i was most curious about is how the study defines “influencer”. the article does not mention this, but the study does:

    In this study, we use the term “news influencers” to refer to individuals who regularly post about current events and civic issues on social media and have at least 100,000 followers on any of Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter) or YouTube. News influencers can be journalists who are or were affiliated with a news organization or independent content creators, but they must be people and not organizations.

    so, the 20% figure does includes people who obtain their news by following journalists on youtube. however, the “key findings” section does explicitly mention that 77% of the examined news influencers have “no affiliation or background with a news organization.”

    honestly, i thought all of the key findings were very interesting and that section was very accessible. here’s another highlight: the percentage is higher for adults under 30: 37% of adults under 30 get their news from an influencer.

  • no, that’s an influencer reading an associated press article. however, they will likely be reading it out loud on social media. and then some questions arise:

    • why this article?
    • are they reading the full article? if not, what parts are they omitting?
    • are they adding any kind of commentary to the article? if so, is that being properly backed up with citations?