The vast majority of people who criticized Kamala online still voted for her. They knew the cost.
The problem is voters who don't pay as close of attention, who only vote based on single issues, which we have a lot of in the USA.
You read: "At least we don't have Genocide Joe! (Sarcasm indicated)"
You responded to: "Those damn Palestinians costing us the election! How dare they!"
Please re-read the comment. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Waffling+the+Pancakes
See, your mistake is actually giving a damn what conservatives think.
I wonder if the US comes back from this, launches into a long series of progressive changes in the world's biggest pendulum swing in centuries, and then all of Europe hits this fascist path it's already starting in on, will Americans say snide things like "back in civilization"? Or will we know better?
Probably not.
Yeah, and with the added context of other things Meta has done over the past few days, we can plainly see what this is about.
It's a great way to get facts if you want your facts to be accurate less than half of the time.
I suppose I'm just seeing how even Twitter has had success with community notes, and figured it would be the same on Facebook. But it's easy to forget just how... out there Facebook is these days.
I don't know what the "International Fact-Checking Network" is and I doubt most Facebook users do. The type of person using Facebook is going to likely trust notes written by their peers more than things that come from "on high" (meaning Facebook themselves)
Honestly not a bad idea. The community notes are easier to trust and typically more accurate anyway.
Holy protein, batman.
That's still pretty high end in my opinion!
Biden got a ceasefire. The deal went through days before Trump got in. He did fuck all except win, thus creating favorable conditions for Bibi. Read a book