Immigration isn’t the cause of the problems that the people of France have been facing. Reducing or ending immigration would make problems worse.
The problem is that rich, wealthy elites control the country for their own benefit, hoarding all of the resources for themselves. Then they blame immigrants for causing the problem instead.
If resources in france were equally distributed, everyone would have ~300,000 euros.
Optometrists believe that the reason for this is that we’re tending to be inside more than we used to be, rather than going outside as much, so our eyes basically aren’t getting as much exercise in looking at stuff far away.
I was making the point that ad-supported services have been financially viable for centuries without needing to invade personal privacy, and that governments have been regulating industries for even longer - and at this point, your personal choice doesn’t really matter. You might be perfectly happy to eat food cooked in an unhygienic kitchen, for example, but enough people have been harmed in the past for food hygiene regulations to be commonplace worldwide.
Pay or have ads is fine by the EU’s DMA law too. What isn’t fine is the collection of user data without consent. Facebook can show all the ads they want, but if they collect user data to target those ads they need consent.
Think about radio or TV advertising - those aren’t targeted at specific people, but rather they’re targeted based on what channel, time of day and TV shows that they’re around. Meta can do the same stuff, but they just don’t want to give up that lucrative user data.
I don’t understand why Julian Assange gets any credit for Trump’s defeat of Hillary Clinton, because that should clearly go towards the mainstream media.
So much ink was wasted by the press over Hillary’s nothingburger email scandal. I think it’s something like 50 headlines in the New York Times over a single month?
Not to mention James Coney’s part to play, basically he hates Hillary Clinton so just took any opportunity to sink her election chances. He holds much more blame for Trump’s election than Julian Assange.
I wonder why, out of all the journalists who could be blamed for Trump, Assange gets so much more hate? I suspect a lot of it is because there’s already so much anti Assange propaganda because he damaged the hegemonic interests of the US.
So many public health problems would be solved if we publicly funded cafeterias to provide subsidised breakfast, lunch and dinner to any member of the public. Economies of scale on providing those meals would make them incredibly cost effective and the improved health among working class people would lead to increased tax receipts which are would (at least partially) mitigate the cost of such a policy.
The point of these kinds of efforts is to shift the blame. “It’s easy to know which foods are good and bad with this handy system, so if someone is only eating bad foods, that’s their choice, and the rest of us can blame them for their poor health.”
I read the paper you linked. Are you seriously suggesting that if we stopped animal agriculture, wild animals would flood the countryside to the same extent as in the Kenya study? I don’t think that is broached by the study at all.
The United States supports genocide and colonialism around the world relentlessly, and acts like it’s a crime against humanity when there is even the slightest pushback, even though they have never been held to account for any of their own crimes against humanity. I’m sorry if awareness of that fact caused you distress, it wasn’t my intention.
Yeah, no wonder it was removed - entirely without citation and low relevance. To be honest, the existing line “…been criticised for its methodology” is on shaky ground, I checked the citation and I would not characterise it as a critique:
“Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”
That is the entirety of what the source says, it doesn’t go on to mention it more in later paragraphs, just that one sentence.
CNN’s own source for that claim is a single tweet with no reactions to it whatsoever, which doesn’t feel very iron-clad to me.
Considering the massive incentive for powerful companies and individuals to cast doubt on the veracity of media bias/fact check, it seems irresponsible to interpret the source in that way and to spread that claim as though it’s entirely watertight.
Can I ask, why did you even post your original reply? Did you do your own fact check in January, see that paragraph, and decide to share it to discourage people from trusting the fact-checker?
I clicked your link. Not only is the quote you provided not actually present in your source, but the sentiment isn’t even there. The article is mostly about how reliable and consistent the website is.