[miki123211]

"no politics" is the immune response to the social-media-fueled, conspiracy-theory-driven "we are the good guys, you basically deserve to die" craze.

Both sides are culpable here. In the US, both parties were literally claiming that the elections were stolen (Republicans in 2020, Democrats with the since-debunked 2016 Cambridge Analytica scandal). Other countries had different issues, but the shape of the problem was basically the same everywhere.

If you keep being called bad words for years for no reason, seeing your side do the exact same thing, no surprise you tune out.

[whoiskevin]

"Both sides" is the biggest cop out of the last decade.

[ses1984]

How was Cambridge analytica debunked?

[SmirkingRevenge]

> In the US, both parties were literally claiming that the elections were stolen

This is not even remotely true.

One party broadly mobilized a country wide effort to overthrow an election and usurp the incoming duly elected government, culminating in a violent attack on congress itself.

The other party had concerns about foreign interference in our elections.

[craftkiller]

I'd say the bigger issue in 2016 was the Russian interference, which has been proven and has lead to convictions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

> Simultaneously, the Republican-led Senate and House Intelligence Committees conducted their own investigations into the Russians' activities. The Senate committee's report, released in five volumes between July 2019 and August 2020, found that the Russian government had engaged in an "extensive campaign" to sabotage the election in favor of Trump

I'm also curious how you think Cambridge Analytica was debunked. I don't see any mention of debunking on their wikipedia page, but I do see facebook being fined billions for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

[rattlesnakedave]

The Russian collusion narrative has been completely debunked.

[phtrivier]

In a battle of "this narrative has been debunked" / "no it has not", the person who can provide links to inquiry on the narrative kinda prevails over the person who does not provide links to the debunk.

I say "kinda", in the sense that "it matters to people interested with dispassionnately learning about the subject", not "it will convince anyone to change their mind".

[esseph]

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_investigation_origins_c...