The idea that 750m is enough to pay your blood debts for actively inciting an insurrection while knowing everything you say is false is actually the odd one out, not a corporation selling things it knowingly shouldn't.
Because we heard 4 years of Russian collusion lies repeated almost daily. No matter how many times they were proven to be lies and the people who were predisposed to believing those lies believe them even more and the people who were not were not swayed by the lie. The issue with Dominion Fox News is exactly the same. The lies spread by Fox News were only believed by the people who already wanted to believe it.
If Fox News was pushed upon the prison population with no other alternate choice for the people to get news then according to your own statement it would have shaped the narrative of all peoples in the prison thus not leading to riots. If Fox News was again the only option but some people believed and other people did not believe then it supports my position that those who were predisposed to believing the outrageousness of this claim chose to believe it while others chose not to.
Also keep in mind that while this is a particularly large and settlement because it is against a company other media outlets as of late have also settled for definition suits against individuals. All mainstream media seems to be intentionally polarizing and using lies to do it. Often times they back down quick enough from their lies to not get a lawsuit but it's the initial lie that they know that they told is the one that spread the farthest.
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/548794-there-was-tru...
And no one calls “The Hill” “liberal media”
Indeed of Russia has interfered in a great many elections in an attempt to influence their outcome. This was true and 2016 as it's been true for as long as Russia has been a thing and before that the USSR. This is only news to someone who is willfully ignorant of international politics and I also ask you what do you think the CIA does on a day-to-day basis?
The reports have continually found that there was no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Reading from the reports you can see they considered a troubling amount of connection between the two but that is the benefit of 5+ years of investigation a hindsight. The reports do not anywhere point out collusion which is an active working together of both parties. It only points out that there was external influence.
People who don't like Trump attempted to invent collusion where it didn't exist. This is no different than people who did not like Hillary Clinton who wanted to invent reasons to lock her up over an email server. Both sides showed an extreme ignorance where the facts are involved. Hence why Hillary was not charged with that crime and Trump was never charged with collusion.
How is this not “collusion”? I didn’t follow the whole thing closely at all. This isn’t meant to be a political argument. I don’t trust either party.
None of the reports found there to be actual collusion which means that both parties in this case would be Russia and the Trump campaign as a whole, or at least those directing the Trump campaign including Trump himself, would have had to be working together with them to change the election. This is what the reports could not find. They could find that Russia did exert influence into the election and against the Trump campaign and certain individuals but that does not collusion make.
Even if you take the point that there was two bad actors in the Trump campaign actively colluding with Russia That does not mean the Trump campaign as a whole was in collusion with Russia. Again the report supports this position that there was no collusion from the campaign. There was influence and manipulation but I ask you what does the CIA do on a day-to-day basis if not the same thing.
I would submit if you spent 5 years investigating any presidential campaign of the last 50 years you would find similar evidence of manipulation from the USSR or Russia because it is how the game is played. Just as the United States actively influences elections around the world to ensure outcomes are in line with what we want to see.
If that's the case, why are they forking out $700m, the largest non-class action settlement in history?
I suggest you look up the history around Hustler magazine and Jerry Falwell. This is an example where no reasonable person would believe the things hustler said about Jerry Falwell therefore there was no libel or defamation against him. Because the point isn't if someone is actually influenced it's if a reasonable person could be influenced.
In the case of Fox News it is my opinion that nobody was actually influenced but as a news reporting agency spreading known false information a reasonable person could be influenced by it. My opinion that no one actually was influenced by it is because the polarization of our media is at such an extreme that only people tune in to the media they want that supports their confirmation bias.