Don’t bother trying to refute the garbage coming from Trump’s campaign. That’s the mistake we made in 2016 and kept making until very recently.
That just makes it seem like it’s worth refutation, plus it gives the original request more oxygen.
The Democrats’ current strategy of just outright mocking Trump and his sycophants is the right one.
Exactly. Treating conservatives like adults is a losing game; they lie about everything, and refuting every lie that comes out of a conservative’s mouth is wasted time. More often than not, everybody who’s not a conservative can tell they’re lying so fact-checking gives them no extra value, and conservatives will literally never read fact checks anyhow
That is some IMAX level of projection. We’ve seen his team’s bad AI jobs.
Top sign = Trump said it. Nothing that flows from his mouth hole is reliable, accurate, or true. So you know this isn’t either.
If Trump said the sky was blue I’d go out and check for myself. So I’m not going to take his claims about crowd size on faith.
Every accusation is a confession.
Trump making claims that they are AI is a good indication that they’re not.
The video from the rallies is longer that 8 seconds. That is the current (animatediff) realistic video generation. Longer ones tend to go weird after 8 seconds.
Also animatediff has trouble making one character stay consistent over that 8 seconds, let alone ten thousand people from multiple angles in all the videos from these rallies.
The one AI crowd shot I saw was from a satire account. It was a joke about “enthusiasm”:
https://archive.org/details/factcheck-usa-harris-crowd_202408
As a joke, it’s actually pretty good:
Dr. Literaleigh A Pheline @Sarcasmcat24
“The Harris/Walz rally last night had an electricity that I’ve never seen before.”
Edit Found Joe Camel! Or maybe it’s Alf?
This is part of the issue tho, right? Satire becomes reality 🙃 it seems that side of things are not interested in fact checking.
Fingers, mostly.
Ars Technica - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Ars Technica:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Ah yes, Ars Technica. Famously less biased than the fucking Associated Press.
This bot is so useless as anything other than spam for Ground News.
The bias rating is from Media Bias Fact Check. And yeah once you actually start digging in it just gets worse.
The bias rating is, yes. But look again and you’ll see the bot also has an advertisement for Ground News, a paywalled news source.
I haven’t actually clicked that, the ads annoyed me to no end. Being paywalled is just the cherry on the top. Having multiple sources is supposed to keep the system honest. Unless of course one of the choices is inaccessible to most people for some reason.
This bot is scammy as hell.
