Are the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter any good? Is there any chance they'd gain popularity?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 6 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Are the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter any good? Is there any chance they'd gain popularity?
"No Ads. Exclusive reporting"
Banner and top right - an ad for Shady Rays
It's not ad hominem - it goes to very heart of how honest a "news source" is. It would be hard to find a more biased source, but I did read the article. If anything, it's an argument for mainstream media as I doubt major publications would serve up such poorly written drivel.That's the ad hom finished with. What about the important thing? You know, the content?
It's not ad hominem - it goes to very heart of how honest a "news source" is.
No, lying in the banner headline does.
Lying is dishonest.
Yes, my bad I got it wrong.Mofra you are confused.
They haven't lied at all. You are just confused.
It's pretty simple. At the top of the page they invite you to join their VIP program to enjoy no ads.
Now I'm wondering if an apology for your false accusation will be forthcoming soon?
Now, the substance of my rebuttal to the article?
Science and research itself is rarely conclusive, but that doesn't mean we cannot make findings based on the best available information e.g. the efficacy of certain medicines, the effects of electromagnetic energy and how that relates to setting safe limits for communications equipment, the likely impact of economic policy, etc.The Stern Center says "The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed."
Whether it was couched imprecisely or not, I see nothing wrong with PJ Media's response - "Nevertheless, the researchers felt confident declaring that charges of bias are based in “falsehood” or “disinformation.”
That's the crux of their argument.
People hand over their private information to Zuckerberg for free.