199
‘Stakes are really high’: misinformation researcher changes tack for 2024 US election
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
199 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2920 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it was absolutely backed by science, regardless of what people like Joe Rogan say...
It was not backed by actual science in any way
[Citation Needed]
And in case you want one which does support the wearing of masks, here is a lengthy report with plenty of it's own cited sources on all of the scientific reasons that masks were used to prevent the spread of COVID (note it's a pdf not web page).
There's also evidence now that the use of masks was effective, so in addition to there having been good reasons to start using masks before, there's now also scientific evidence that it worked. Here's one study on the topic which states: "There was a significant decline in daily COVID-19 growth rate after the mandating of face covers in public, with the effect increasing over time after the orders were signed."
If you're going to claim that something is unscientific, please back it up with something more than blind confidence.
No valid studies have shown mask mandates to be effective, but that's not even the topic. There are zero studies showing any reasoning behind the changes done to election rules. None are backed by science, so what was the reason?
You have literally been given a number of studies that show that masks are effective. Either shut the fuck up, or provide your own you giant moron... Oh, and no, saying "no valid studies" is not proof of anything. Nor is the YouTube video I just bet you're itching to reply with. Peer reviewed studies, like the ones already provided. We'll wait.
Education does wonders to help prevent the spread of ignorance.
Maybe go on Facebook or Youtube comment and spread your message there?
You were literally given scientific, peer reviewed studies that showed that they did limit the spread. You were also asked to prove your outlandish claim with similar, peer reviewed literature. But you can't. That lack of support for your claim, and a complete inability to even criticise the actual evidence provided that shows your claim is bogus? Well, it all kinda indicates to me that I've met rocks who are smarter than you...
Wow. That "real world data" must be super compelling if you won't post it. And I don't think you read either of em. Cos I tricked you. One isn't technically a study. It's a lit review. Covers 96 studies. And I know for a fact that you can't have read all of them in this time. And if you had read the two given, and had half a brain, you'd have picked up on flaws with the other study given too (and no they didn't "cherry pick data", so that isn't a flaw. They used early data cos they published early, I'd be happy to provide more up to date studies, but why should I when you won't even read the two already given?). Cos there aren't many studies that don't have a flaw or two in them. Cos science isn't perfect. But you wouldn't know that, cos you know literally nothing about how science works.
Lots of places had muzzle mandates, lots of places didn't. No difference in spread
Oh no. All this "real world data" you've supplied. I can't possibly keep my head above it and not drown in it... It is funny/terrifying you say "No difference in spread" though, given the second study above literally shows the difference in spread between areas that did and didn't have mask mandates. Which you'd have known if you actually read it. And no, don't say you did, cos if you did you woulda known one doesn't even cover COVID. Which is just beautiful. We literally gave you the opportunity to counter us, and you didn't do it cos you're an idiot (yeah, I know it's not nice to have tricked you twice, but if you weren't such a tool, then maybe I woulda been nicer. But we both know you can't be anything but the biggest tool this planet has seen, so that's just wishful thinking). But thanks for confirming my assertion that "you know literally nothing about how science works", I guess. Not that I needed it, it was most definitely not a long bow to draw...
And cos I know you'll comment on it now, yeah, the study linked above doesn't have any experimental data in regard to COVID19 specifically, but it sure as shit gets as close to it as it can. And anyway, you can't provide any data to back your claim, so who gives a fuck if it was published super early in the COVID lifecycle, it still shits all over your compete lack of evidence to support your claim.