Who are you calling an amateur, buddy? I can argue you under the table!

It'd feel good

I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget

If the dems ever sweep the house and senate, I hope they pass legislation

I mean, it's pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn't work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I've read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.

It's not really a bot's opinion though? It's reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That's all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.

And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.

But following media reports, it has also admitted that China-based employees had access to US users’ data, although the company insisted it was under strict and highly limited circumstances.

Employees of ByteDance might be Chinese, but they don't work for the government. They work for ByteDance. I haven't found anyone claiming to have proof that data in US citizens has left the company. Just fears that it could.

If you're down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you're upset that Salon doesn't have a perfect rating

There is concern that ByteDance may be giving the Chinese government access to data on US citizens. It's worth noting that no proof of this actually happening has surfaced.

Mostly because of this. TikTok is the app collecting massive amounts of data on its users with dubious intent and questionable security that is currently being scapegoated, and discord is on the long list of popular apps that collect massive amounts of data their users with dubious intent and questionable security that we are not scapegoating.

That's what the article is about: how that change has pushed politicians to be open about their flaws and having much more public lives, like celebrities. Meaning that voters vote for politicians who act like celebrities. The sentiment in other comments of "No. No we don't." ignores the reality of who has been winning elections for the last 30 years.

I'm gonna guess there's a lot of down votes from people who just read the title...

The author points out the last 30 years of presidential candidates as their evidence, and paints a pretty nuanced picture of his politicians have dealt with changing voter trends. No one wants to vote for the candidate that doesn't act like that can emphasize empathize (glide typing failed me) with them, even though that's not really the president's job.

Don't ruin your own experience because someone else is enjoying it differently than you like to

There is the bill itself: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1840

This isn't a new program and if you live in California and are not a migrant, you could have applied since the program started in 2016. This just adds the stipulation that migrant status should not disqualify an applicant.

That's helpful information, they both look like they've got good pedigrees. I'm a bit surprised that none of the normal fact and bias checker sites have anything for Drop Site.

I don't quite understand the down votes here: Israel is a topic with lots of strong opinions, and basic good media literacy is to do research on sources you don't recognize. There's been a lot of shoddy journalism to get clicks out there, and one should be critical of the information they ingest. The Ground News bot is a good thing.

I'm having trouble finding any kind of credibility grading for this source

If those ~25 Lemmy users could read they'd be very upset

So, she was pronounced dead at end of day Tuesday, that's still like a day and a half of normal working hours where no one noticed. The fact that it happened over a weekend makes it less bad, but that still means cleaning, security, her supervisor, and her coworkers all went a full working day around her body without any interactions with her. I think it's okay to say a failure happened here, and that they should be reevaluating some procedures

You know some dipshit in upper management saw the report that she hadn't badged in for two workdays (the article says her last badge in was on a Friday), and was going to discipline her before checking on her work, or checking on her.

Pretty sure you just attacked someone for agreeing with you.