[behnamoh]

> It’s very sad that otherwise unrelated parties are incentivized to spread misinformation...

Two parties scrutinizing each other is the reason the US is the closest we've got to democracy in centuries. Look at other countries that are mainly one-party states and see how they're doing.

[monknomo]

Natural disasters requiring emergency aid isn't really something that requires two parties scrutinizing each other, imo

[mola]

I mean there's a difference between scrutinizing the emergency response and spreading the notion that the fire was intentional and deliberate. This is a rather large part of the information being spread.

I mean, I have no skin in The game, am not an American, have no idea what are Newsoms politics or capabilities and most of the things I see being told online are crazy weird speculations.

I was mainly exposed to: 1. Fire marshal is bad because is a lesbian 2. Fires are deliberate to advance 'smart cities' 3. Fires were spread in order to get rid of evidence pertaining to a pedophile ring.

So take it from a bystander, this doesn't look like a healthy democratic discourse.

[lern_too_spel]

GP is not criticizing a two party system. GP is criticizing spreading misinformation. Having two parties that honestly find faults and propose fixes would be great.

[peter422]

Scrutinizing is one thing, spreading deliberate misinformation is another.

Think about the asymmetry here — if there were a single fact wrong on that page Newsom released, he would be criticized and castigated and he’d have to correct it and apologize. All the people that he highlights spreading misinformation, are any of them going to apologize or correct the mistake? Of course not.