While this is true, It's also important to realize that during the great disinformation hysteria, perfectly reasonable statements like "This may have originated from a lab", "These vaccines are non-sterilizing", or "There were some anomalies of Benford's Law in this specific precinct and here's the data" were lumped into the exact same bucket as "The CCP built this virus to kill us all", "The vaccine will give you blood clots and myocarditis", or "The DNC rigged the election".

The "disinformation" bucket was overly large.

There was no nuance. No critical analysis of actual statements made. If it smelled even slightly off-script, it was branded and filed.

▲

BrenBarn 6 hours ago | parent [-]

But it is because of the deluge that that happens. We can only process so much information. If the amount of "content" coming through is orders of magnitude larger, it makes sense to just reject everything that looks even slightly like nonsense, because there will still be more than enough left over.

▲

themaninthedark 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

So does that justify the situation with Jimmy Kimmel? After all there was a deluge of information and a lot of unknowns about the shooter but the word choice he used was very similar to the already debunked theory that it was celebratory gunfire from a supporter.

Of course not.

	▲	netsharc 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That sentence from Kimmel was IMO factually incorrect, and he was foolish to make the claim, but how is offensive towards the dead, and why is it worth a suspension? But as we know, MAGA are snowflakes and look for anything so they can pull out their Victim Card and yell around...

▲

Slava_Propanei 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]