It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

  • Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    They weren’t able to add more because a Republican Congress cut down approved funding to do so.

    The emails exist and were on a personal email server that was not approved which was a security breach. The same as it was a security breach when Trump did it on his personal phone.

    It’s not okay but it’s not as big of a deal as you’re making it, moreover it’s been well reported that she renounced it apologized and since corrected it, so it’s more to the point that it doesn’t support your original argument.

    • mwguy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      They weren’t able to add more because a Republican Congress cut down approved funding to do so.

      The “like your plan you can keep it” depended on private insurance continuing to offer plans that would not be tax advantaged. No additional funding was needed to see that that wasn’t going to be viable.

      It’s not okay but it’s not as big of a deal as you’re making it, moreover it’s been well reported that she renounced it apologized and since corrected it, so it’s more to the point that it doesn’t support your original argument.

      At the beginning of the scandal, the content of those emails were treated as faked and the first response from the media was to self censor stories about them.

      That’s actually part of what made it a bigger story, is that when it later came out that they were real instead of people finding out about it months and months ago they found out in bits and pieces over time. In that instance the censorship actually likely hurt the Clinton’s more than it helped; but the outrage is still felt mostly on the right as they saw it as another in a long line of censorship decisions that targeted the right.

      • Franklin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I can honestly tell you that no one thought they were they were skeptical of the source, once they were authentic not one outlet called them fake.

        And report after report shows the opposite of what you claim. Right wing News is favored on almost all online platforms and much of network news

        • mwguy
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          They were never able to be called unauthenticated. They were published with DKIM signatures from the beginning.

          • Franklin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            you’re confusing skepticism with oppression people taking a moment to believe something from Julian assange isn’t censorship, He’s not exactly the most trustworthy of sources no matter how much proof he brings up but once it was clear and it was pretty quick I think pretty much everyone bought on

            • mwguy
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Has WikiLeaks every published a false leak? Why would he not be trustworthy?