A study shows that misinformation spreads faster and farther than correct information:
An analysis of news stories tweeted by three million people between 2006 and 2017 shows that fake news spreads significantly more than the truth on social media.
[...] Truthful tweets took six times as long as fake ones to spread across Twitter to 1,500 people – in large part because falsehoods in the sample were 70 per cent more likely to be retweeted than the truth, even after accounting for account age, activity level and their number of followers. The most viral fake news was political in nature.
The study was carried out by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Laboratory for Social Machines.
From The Inquirer.net : False stories travel way faster than the truth, says study
and New Scientist : Fake news travels six times faster than the truth on Twitter
and The Economist : On Twitter, falsehood spreads faster than truth.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Saturday March 10 2018, @06:44PM (3 children)
Yeah, but there may be someone who could help. Quoting [politifact.com] U.S. President Donald Trump:
Grab 'em right in the roots.
----------------------------
* Coincidentally, I am a citizen of the country where he was elected, and speaking as such, I would hope that all of the people here, especially leaders, would be "second amendment people" just as they are all the other amendment people and indeed supporters of our constitution. But I digress with silly fantasies...
(Score: 2) by dry on Sunday March 11 2018, @04:00AM (2 children)
I think you'll find that the vast majority of Americans don't agree with the simply written Bill of Rights excepting maybe the 3rd.
Work your way through it.
The 1st is plainly written, Congress will make no law, yet people and even the courts have changed that to Congress will only make laws limiting speech in the case of threats, including threats to children and the all encompassing national security card. And then there is the Christian, or at least some sects, exception, Congress will only promote Christianity.
The 2nd is also plainly written, "The rights of the people to bear arms will not be infringed" with everyone agreeing on exceptions. Criminals, crazy people, people accused of being threatening, age related reasons, people with a history of torturing cats. All people that most people agree should have their rights infringed.
Other examples include a reasonable search including people accused of a crime, people close to the border and so on.
Cruel and unusual punishment, well to that cat torturer, nothing is cruel and it is usual to torture. Others agree that there are times that torture is called for.
One problem is that Americans treat their Constitution like a religious document and even when it obviously needs some tuning, they instead appoint Judges to change the essentials. Only some speech is actually protected or only some people can bear arms and those arms are limited. Shit the average American can't even own arms of mass destruction. While understandable that the Founders didn't mention nukes, the revolutionary war included attempting to spread smallpox, or at least enough of a threat that the army was inoculating its members against smallpox. They could have limited it to personal arms or such.
I won't even mention the 9th and 10th.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday March 11 2018, @06:05AM (1 child)
I've not only worked my way through it, I've done so by reading surviving copies of the handwritten proposal version, which had 12, not 10, proposed amendments listed (two of them didn't pass, and even a casual reading shows they don't belong with the other ten).
Like you, I've noticed that that people don't seem to be very enamored with the U.S. Constitution en masse (I complained about that in the comment you replied to), and like you, I've noticed that many of the people who do come out in favor of it turn out to be worshipers of it in a religious sense, Surrounding Their Support In Falsely Patriotic-Sounding Language Of, By, And For Murrica.
I don't think I'm one of those. I genuinely believe that the Constitution has what it takes to work not only as literature and history but a functioning document upon which a government composed of those governed, for the benefit of same, can operate. It isn't being used in such a fashion, of course, but it should be.
It has terrible faults, sure, but it also has a built-in ability to grow and change not by misguided activist judicial fiat, but by legislative agreement. (That used to be a thing.) So, everything in the document is either a good thing, or is material upon which to base an amendment which can improve it into a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @08:59AM
I would say that right there is the worst narrative I've seen driven by your account. What simplistic and divisive drivel.