Kate Starbird says attacks have made research difficult, and claims of bias arise because of prevalence of lies from the right
A key researcher in the fight against election misinformation – who herself became the subject of an intensive misinformation campaign – has said her field gets accused of “bias” precisely because it’s now mainly rightwingers who spread the worst lies.
Kate Starbird, co-founder of the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, added that she feared that the entirely false story of rigged elections has now “sunk in” for many Americans on the right. “The idea that they’re already going to the polls with the belief that they’re being cheated means they’ll misinterpret everything they see through that lens,” she said.
Starbird’s group partnered with Stanford Internet Observatory on the Election Integrity Partnership ahead of the 2020 elections – a campaign during which a flood of misinformation swirled around the internet, with daily claims of unproven voter fraud.
Starbird and her team helped document that flood, and in return congressional Republicans and conservative attorneys attacked her research, alleging it amounted to censorship and violated the first amendment.
[Citation Needed]
And in case you want one which does support the wearing of masks, here is a lengthy report with plenty of it’s own cited sources on all of the scientific reasons that masks were used to prevent the spread of COVID (note it’s a pdf not web page).
There’s also evidence now that the use of masks was effective, so in addition to there having been good reasons to start using masks before, there’s now also scientific evidence that it worked. Here’s one study on the topic which states: “There was a significant decline in daily COVID-19 growth rate after the mandating of face covers in public, with the effect increasing over time after the orders were signed.”
If you’re going to claim that something is unscientific, please back it up with something more than blind confidence.
No valid studies have shown mask mandates to be effective, but that’s not even the topic. There are zero studies showing any reasoning behind the changes done to election rules. None are backed by science, so what was the reason?
You have literally been given a number of studies that show that masks are effective. Either shut the fuck up, or provide your own you giant moron… Oh, and no, saying “no valid studies” is not proof of anything. Nor is the YouTube video I just bet you’re itching to reply with. Peer reviewed studies, like the ones already provided. We’ll wait.
Removed by mod
You were literally given scientific, peer reviewed studies that showed that they did limit the spread. You were also asked to prove your outlandish claim with similar, peer reviewed literature. But you can’t. That lack of support for your claim, and a complete inability to even criticise the actual evidence provided that shows your claim is bogus? Well, it all kinda indicates to me that I’ve met rocks who are smarter than you…
None of those studies are valid. They’re cherry picked time lines and from selective areas to come to the only outcome journals will let get published. The real world data we have proves they do nothing
Wow. That “real world data” must be super compelling if you won’t post it. And I don’t think you read either of em. Cos I tricked you. One isn’t technically a study. It’s a lit review. Covers 96 studies. And I know for a fact that you can’t have read all of them in this time. And if you had read the two given, and had half a brain, you’d have picked up on flaws with the other study given too (and no they didn’t “cherry pick data”, so that isn’t a flaw. They used early data cos they published early, I’d be happy to provide more up to date studies, but why should I when you won’t even read the two already given?). Cos there aren’t many studies that don’t have a flaw or two in them. Cos science isn’t perfect. But you wouldn’t know that, cos you know literally nothing about how science works.
Lots of places had muzzle mandates, lots of places didn’t. No difference in spread
Oh no. All this “real world data” you’ve supplied. I can’t possibly keep my head above it and not drown in it… It is funny/terrifying you say “No difference in spread” though, given the second study above literally shows the difference in spread between areas that did and didn’t have mask mandates. Which you’d have known if you actually read em. And no, don’t say you did, cos if you did you woulda known one doesn’t even cover COVID. Which is just beautiful. We literally gave you the opportunity to counter us, and you didn’t do it cos you’re an idiot (yeah, I know it’s not nice to have tricked you twice, but if you weren’t such a tool, then maybe I woulda been nicer. But we both know you can’t be anything but the biggest tool this planet has seen, so that’s just wishful thinking). But thanks for confirming my assertion that “you know literally nothing about how science works”, I guess. Not that I needed it, it was most definitely not a long bow to draw…
And cos I know you’ll comment on it now, yeah, the study linked above doesn’t have any experimental data in regard to COVID19 specifically, but it sure as shit gets as close to it as it can. And anyway, you can’t provide any data to back your claim, so who gives a fuck if it was published super early in the COVID lifecycle, it still shits all over your compete lack of evidence to support your claim.
Education does wonders to help prevent the spread of ignorance.
Maybe go on Facebook or Youtube comment and spread your message there?