Kate Starbird says attacks have made research difficult, and claims of bias arise because of prevalence of lies from the right
A key researcher in the fight against election misinformation – who herself became the subject of an intensive misinformation campaign – has said her field gets accused of “bias” precisely because it’s now mainly rightwingers who spread the worst lies.
Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, added that she feared that the entirely false story of rigged elections has now “sunk in” for many Americans on the right. “The idea that they’re already going to the polls with the belief that they’re being cheated means they’ll misinterpret everything they see through that lens,” she said.
Starbird’s group partnered with Stanford Internet Observatory on the Election Integrity Partnership ahead of the 2020 elections – a campaign during which a flood of misinformation swirled around the internet, with daily claims of unproven voter fraud.
Starbird and her team helped document that flood, and in return congressional Republicans and conservative attorneys attacked her research, alleging it amounted to censorship and violated the first amendment.
It’s 100% rape due to the power dynamic and she was literally doing it to keep her job. Sure, she may not have fought him off, but it’s still rape.
Exactly just like how people were forced to get the covid shots
Right, so you’ve instantly just changed your opinion on whether it was rape or not. Says a lot about the strength of your convictions. And the fact that literally no-one was forced to have the vaccine sorta indicates to me that you’re just making shit up now. I mean, where did you pull that from? The vaccine wasn’t mandatory. Anywhere. Sure, there were activities you couldn’t participate in, and some countries implemented taxes for the unvaccinated etc, but you still had the choice.
Edit: read your profile. Ten years ago, I would’ve thought you’re a troll. Now I know you’re the kind of person who deserves to be punched in the face. Jan 6th was a peaceful protest? Since when do people die at peaceful protests…?
By that logic, nobody in that story was raped. Or are you actually ignorant to the fact that people were fired if they didn’t get the injection?
So which is it? Can’t have it both ways
Nope, literally different cos the lady in your example couldn’t consent. You could 100% consent to not being injected. Sure, you may have lost your job, but this isn’t unique to the COVID vaccine. There are shit loads of examples of people losing their jobs because they were unsafe in the workplace. And not getting vaccinated is literally being unsafe in the workplace. It’s why many of those who lost their jobs due to being unvaccinated couldn’t claim unemployment benefits in the states. Here’s an example, you rock up to work drunk to drive a forklift for 8hrs. You get fired cos it’s unsafe. Nobody is forcing you to sober up. Do what you want. You just can’t work there anymore. Exactly the same thing.
She did consent. She consented to avoid losing her job. She wasn’t forced by your logic
Nope. She can’t consent. Which I’ve already linked to. I suggest you read it.
Neither could the person who was forced to get a different type of injection into their body in order to keep their job.
They 100% can. No power dynamic imbalance in the COVID case. Also, guarantee the employee signed a contract saying that the employer could fire them for just cause. Making the workplace unsafe is definitely just cause for that. And killing your fellow workers with a preventable disease sure sounds unsafe to me. And I know I’m repeating myself but you sure as shit ain’t picking it up, but that’s why you couldn’t get unemployment benefits in the US if you were fired for not getting the jab. Because you were fired with just cause. Because noone was forced to get the jab. Because you could consent to it. The lady in your case literally could not give consent. You can argue all you want about it, but your shitty opinion doesn’t change decades of legal precedent.