Riiiiiiight. Just like Google’s own AI results are completely accurate.

Definitely any of the showerthoughts communities

Everyone like me who got priced out.

Because Wikipedia doesn’t serve ads or pay Google, so Google doesn’t like to make them the top result for a lot of searches they should be.

Watch out for those dropbears.

Now with ads!

You’re spot on that it wasn’t perfect, and it especially falls apart when you look at the politicization of science and objective facts. E.g. climate change should not be a debate, so there should be no obligation to humor a talking head with an R next to their name who is there to “refute” climate change every time a story is run about it.

So on principle, I can’t say I love the idea that the Fairness Doctrine required a good bit of oversimplistic “both sides” nonsense. But in practice, it wasn’t the media personalities spreading politicized pseudoscience who ended up deplatformed with the law’s removal—the opposite ended up happening. Having realized that sensationalism sells, the “alternative facts” crowd are now the only voice in the room for a lot of clueless people. And I think that’s the outcome Republicans wanted when they did away with it.

In the absence of a better system today, I can’t say I wouldn’t like to see it make a return. I’d prefer it if there was still a legal obligation for all of these media outlets to platform at least one sane person.

Also right that it wasn’t just the removal of the Fairness Doctrine that led to where we are now, appreciate the other examples (and for a bit of a twist, it was under the Clinton administration that the Telecommunications Act was signed).

Thank the deregulation of the 80’s and 90’s, coupled with the internet making it easier than ever to access anything and everything.

It used to be that spreading falsehoods or political bias on network TV or the airwaves via radio could get your station’s license revoked by the FCC. But Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, and with that out of the way, there were no barriers for Rush Limbaugh and similar ilk to make more money by saying whatever kept the hyper-conservative, over-religious pearl clutches tuning in.

Thought as much, thanks for the context!

Banning an entire class of ads online and in media during peak hours? Sounds like a win to me, even if it doesn’t have the effect they hope for.

Ads suck, especially ads that are selling garbage no one needs. The fewer, the better.

I think I must’ve been banned as well, I saw a post in my All feed that I tried to upvote but received an error when doing so, just for that one community.

But what about the Honey Badger?

Some Republicans, like all of the ones endorsing Harris, but Trump’s MAGA core voting base is still shielded by their reality distortion field where Trump “won”.

I couldn’t even watch 10 minutes because it was so painfully obvious they were just lying through their teeth, and it was so desperate sounding that to a non-R voter, it came across as them not even watching the debate.

I think that may be their strategy. They assume a lot of their base doesn’t want to watch the debate, instead they just tune in after the fact, and they get the bizarro universe account of what happened presented as fact and thus feel more validated in their beliefs.

Try spending a $2 bill at any register manned by someone under the age of 40.

deleted by creator

That’s the only thing I wish they’d say more often. Get out and vote!

Depends on how they say it.

“Pokemon Go…to the polls” still echoes in the dark recesses or my memory.

All new cars are spying on you.

From what I’ve been seeing around the internet, Republicans are convinced that the debate was rigged. Harris was given the questions in advance, the moderators were biased, etc. etc.

Could give the justices 18-year terms, with a new justice appointed every 2 years. That way every presidential term gets to appoint 2 new justices, 4 justices if they win a second term.