SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Political polarization among Americans has grown rapidly in the last 40 years—more than in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or Germany—a phenomenon possibly due to increased racial division, the rise of partisan cable news and changes in the composition of the Democratic and Republican parties.
That's according to new research co-authored by Jesse Shapiro, a professor of political economy at Brown University. The study, conducted alongside Stanford University economists Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, was released on Monday, Jan. 20, as a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper.
In the study, Shapiro and colleagues present the first ever multi-nation evidence on long-term trends in "affective polarization"—a phenomenon in which citizens feel more negatively toward other political parties than toward their own. They found that in the U.S., affective polarization has increased more dramatically since the late 1970s than in the eight other countries they examined—the U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.
"A lot of analysis on polarization is focused on the U.S., so we thought it could be interesting to put the U.S. in context and see whether it is part of a global trend or whether it looks more exceptional," Shapiro said. "We found that the trend in the U.S. is indeed exceptional."
Using data from four decades of public opinion surveys conducted in the nine countries, the researchers used a so-called "feeling thermometer" to rate attitudes on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 reflected no negative feelings toward other parties. They found that in 1978, the average American rated the members of their own political party 27 points higher than members of the other major party. By 2016, Americans were rating their own party 45.9 points higher than the other party, on average. In other words, negative feelings toward members of the other party compared to one's own party increased by an average of 4.8 points per decade.
The researchers found that polarization had also risen in Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland in the last 40 years, but to a lesser extent. In the U.K., Australia, Germany, Norway and Sweden, polarization decreased.
More information: Levi Boxell et al, Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization, (2020). DOI: 10.3386/w26669
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @08:57PM (10 children)
By the way, remember the part in the Bible where Jesus was confronted by the Pharisees about an adulterous woman and he said "Let you who is without sin cast the first stone." After being bugged some more, he began writing in the sand, and one by one they left? He was listing their individual sins for everyone to see.
If it's good enough for Jeebus ... then it should be good enough for atheists to treat Christians that way too. Many are just modern-day Pharisees anyway.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 28 2020, @09:57PM (9 children)
Well, how about you commit a few thousand felonies of that and tell me how it works out for you.
And what should happen if someone does that to you? Where your hypocrisy gets publicly revealed while theirs doesn't?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @10:19PM (8 children)
Someone buys me clients list from one of those fake family planning clinics that actually doesn't offer any medical services because it's run by a group of anti-abortion activists and doesn't need a license to operate, just "offers counseling ". Where's the felony?
No laws broken at any point.
But now that many health care providers use google to store their data, you can expect to see all sorts of medical information to surface.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday January 28 2020, @10:55PM (7 children)
Public figures have far less defenses against such things. And you are deliberately collecting medical information.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Tuesday January 28 2020, @11:56PM (6 children)
Think of it the same as all those tv shows where actors pretend to get married. It's not real. They don't need to get a divorce from their current spouse to go through the fake wedding ceremony.
And you could probably buy information from some internet company that gave you the information on anyone who searched for a real abortion clinic. That's not medical information either. Same as they were selling ads targeting suicidal people.
Your searches are public information. You consent to that when you do a search. As well as your information being sold.
Now if the republicans were in Europe they would have a certain "right to be forgotten ", but in the US freedom of speech applies to everyone who isn't a protected minority - and abortion is not a protected minority - thanks to republicans, including those who have procured abortions while trying to deprive them to others.
And there's nothing to stop such a list being posted on wikileaks or a similar site outside the US. Russia would probably develop such a list just to have leverage. Anything to stir up crap.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:07AM (5 children)
Actually it is.
Drug stores are also subject to laws like HIPAA.
It's still medical information and they're still subject to the laws of the land.
The moment you link medical conditions to identifiable people, it becomes medical information.
See the pattern?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @12:51AM (4 children)
That you bought a box of Kleenex or Tampax or diapers is not medical information, even if bought at a drugstore. Even it it's linked to you, it's still not medical information just because it happens in a drugstore.
Nothing the fake family planning shops do is medical information because they are not, by law, allied to perform any medical services. Non-medical services are simply not medical information. If they were, pro-choice folk could get them shut down for providing medical services without a license. But since they aren't medical providers and are very careful not to provide medical services ... their data is not protected by HIPPA. Find me one that claims to be covered by HIPPA and I'll happily forward the information to Planned Parenthood. They would love to shut the fakes down for medical fraud.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:56PM (3 children)
Nobody said they were.
If you use that data to reconstruct medical conditions and identify those medical conditions with people, then you do fall under HIPAA. You know, what I've been saying all along.
Nor did anyone say they were. Awful lot of straw men in your post.
Wrong. Again, it's the handling of medical information not the providing of medical services that triggers HIPAA.
Let me give you a real world example. As I've mentioned in the past, I do seasonal accounting work for a tourism/resort company in Yellowstone National Park. A number of years back, I decided to work winters in the park as well. That means working whatever is available. For about half a dozen years, that meant working security for a few months a year. Mostly that meant being a professional witness and shoveling a lot of snow.
Every so often, in part because my location was barely high enough elevation to cause medical problems in some visitors and new employees, I would witness or assist guests and employees experiencing medical problems. To protect ourselves from liability, detailed reports of any such interactions were written up and submitted to my bosses. Even though I wasn't providing medical services, that information had to be kept under wraps more so than normal guest/employee interactions because of the medical information involved. And HIPAA was one of the big reasons why.
In other words, you don't have to provide medical services in order to be subject to HIPAA. Selling candy bars or being a fake service doesn't immunize you from HIPAA requirements.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @03:54PM (2 children)
Nope. If you are not a covered entity [hhs.gov], you are not governed by HIPPA.
Are you a health care provider, a health plan, or a health clearinghouse, or a worker or contractor for one of them? No? Then you are not bound by HIPPA.
So threatening, say, a newspaper for violating HIPPA is ridiculous. Next time do some research before spouting off. You'll look less stupid.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 31 2020, @01:00AM (1 child)
In your scenario the entity that collects medical data to shame conservatives counts as a health clearinghouse and hence, would be a covered entity.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 31 2020, @02:39AM
If are you just being stupid for the sake of argument yet again. You ALWAYS do this. Your reputation of arguing despite the facts is well known.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.