How is it different? You're basically saying that all social media is untrustworthy and so therefore it's ridiculous to not trust any of it. There's no logic there.
TheresNodiee
joined 5 days ago
That... doesn't make any sense.
Every rabid beast is "dangerous". So, yes, it's unreasonable to say you should assume that if you run into one it will attack you.
That's what you sound like.
I think it's still kind of early for many Americans who voted for Trump to "bring down the price of eggs" to realize that they were lied to.
There has to be some level of cope that they'll have to overcome first. Like they'll see Trump and Elon dismantling the gov and think that they're just making it less wasteful to save money, which they'll use to save the economy. Or that as more and more "criminal" immigrants are deported prices will start to come down somehow. Something along those lines.
I like to imagine that the farther we go into Trump's presidency the more that those economic voters will start to realize that they were sold a bad bill of goods. It's only been about a month since he was inaugurated after all. He's still in that "honeymoon" phase of his presidency.
I don't see what's unreasonable about saying that you shouldn't take the things you read on algorithmic social media sites as representative of any population at large. That it's not a "genuine" representation of any population.
Just put on plaid and a toque and talk about how much better Timmies's coffee used to be and nobody will be able to tell the difference.