@loonski said:
posting from verge.
seriously, get something better than these trash sites.
verge, rolling stone, like so you even read the links youre throwing around. media trashcans.
My main source was Ars Technica, not Verge. I told you this 8 days ago 🤦♀️.What's wrong with them and more importantly what was wrong in the article I linked?
Ars Technica - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
But even then, Verge rates highly as well. Making your deflection even more odd. What's wrong with them and more importantly what was wrong in the article I linked?
The Verge - Media Bias/Fact Check (mediabiasfactcheck.com)
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
You have not once mentioned the actual subject, because you know there is no defending the law. You can't attack the thread on a factual basis, since the law is trash. So you attack the sources, but without any evidence resulting in failure.
For whatever odd reason you do not accept Ars Technica, Verge, or WaPo.....here as in even higher rated one than all of those:
- If Supreme Court lets Texas censor law proceed, internet will be a cesspool. Or not. | Reuters
- Court revives Texas social media law against banning users for views | Reuters
So lets finally discuss the actual topic now that the cringe is out of the way. Why do you like this Law? How was the December ruling showing it violated the first amendment wrong? How was AT/Verge/Reuters wrong on the analysis of these lawmakers not understanding basic tech? Provide citation for each claim.
Log in to comment