Threads now reaches more than 130M monthly users, up 30M from Q3

Enjoy your bucketloads of logical fallacies, I am outta here.

This place is gross. I need a shower.

I hoped you'd pick that. The type of person that picks an outlier event that supports a preconceived world view while ignoring the mass of evidence against it is the type that bends facts, ignores facts, and creates lies to maintain a pre-conceived worldview rather than makes a world view that is based on facts. This is the kind of person that uses the term "mainstream media" derisively, because they want to hold some conspiracy/martyr/superiority out of ignorance beliefs.

Do you understand how evidence works? You don't post pick an event supporting a world view and say "see!". You pick all data, analyze it, then form a world view. Your type always has the same invalid reasoning methods, cherry picks events while ignoring the mass of evidence, deflects and cannot stay on a topic to demonstrate facts correctly, which is how you get the beliefs you do.

It also takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to ignore the actual odds presented by mainstream media the few days before the election, and pretend there is some huge upset. Here's the actual data (which I suspect you both don't know and are unable to process), as you can check at Real Clear Politics: Bloomberg 44% Clinton, 41% Trump. Economist 45-41. ABC News 47-43. Fox 48-44. Monmouth 50-44. NBC 44-40. NBC 44-40. Reuters 42-39. Rasmussen 42-39. And so on. All of these were very close, and the if you look at the actual polls (all can be found on RCP) the difference was within the margin of error. It was a toss-up and people like you keep bringing it up because you both don't understand the actual evidence and you want to discredit accurate information sources that point out your ignorance on how the world works. Bet you didn't realize these were so close, probably because you consumed nonsense content that told you otherwise. You certainly whipped it out on cue.

Not so magical huh?

Now, if you can learn how to do actual evidence, show me the non-mainstream media site that has a better track record than, say, 538.

Even better yet - find a place the predicted Trump to win 2016 and tell me how they have done on a larger dataset.

Oh that's right, you cannot. You prefer info that is crap to accurate ones.

For the record, guess what the "main stream news" had as odds for 2020 and guess what happened?

If you cannot present even a single non-mainstream news site you think is accurate, then I have proven my point. Mainstream media is more accurate because you cannot put up a single contender.

So, either put up a contender or admit you have none. This discussion always goes the same direction with your type.

No, you simply are making up nonsense still. Polls changed quickly near the election, as did lots of the pundits. That you are completely ignorant of what I just showed you is because you drank right wing kool aid for so long that your only reply about media accuracy is one event pulled nearly 8 years ago. That's sad.

And for discounting the pundits, so far every one of your claims and talking points is straight out of right wing pundit land: and after the Dominion lawsuit pulled all the internal memos out of Fox news where the pundits were calling your type ignorant, stupid, needing to hear stories that confirm their beliefs or they'll go to other networks that feed them the lies they want - it's completely clear all that path was and is simply lies, known to be lies to those spreading them, simply to keep people like you eating the slop.

And eat it you did.

So far all you've demonstrated is a lack of knowledge about media accuracy, an inability to grasp it when fed to you in data you can check yourself, and are unable to present even a single place you claim is more accurate. Yet somehow you still cling to the belief that you cannot present evidence for.

That's the outcome every time I discuss media accuracy with anyone that has your style of comments. Not a one has any ability to figure out how to measure quality.

If you want to adapt your world view to facts, instead of the other way around, start feeding your brain info from a place that is at least accurate on claims when checked.

If you're still unable to present a single media source you claim is more accurate than "mainstream media", then admit you must consume what we'll have to simply call the "inaccurate fringestream media," and I'm done with this thread.