> Simple example: Google employees gave $1.3 million to Hillary, and zero dollars to Trump in 2016.
This jumped out to me as a statistic so extreme that it couldn't possibly be true: Google has far too many employees to have literally zero dollars donated to the Trump campaign, no matter what you think of the corporate culture. Sure enough, the example is simple because it is false:
I didn't look up the Clinton donations under the same parameters, but I'm sure it's not even close to an even split. Regardless, it's simultaneously ironic and fitting for a comment on a post about disinformation to contain such an easily-falsified statement.
The "zero" statement seems to really be making the rounds, used by Ted Cruz in a hearing, by various media outlets making the case for regulating Google because of their bias... I guess "zero" is just punchier.
It's certainly possible Cruz was wrong or using an unfair interpretation. I feel safe saying that the donations would be skewed at least 90/10 and probably much more.
This jumped out to me as a statistic so extreme that it couldn't possibly be true: Google has far too many employees to have literally zero dollars donated to the Trump campaign, no matter what you think of the corporate culture. Sure enough, the example is simple because it is false:
https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?two_year_transaction_peri...
I didn't look up the Clinton donations under the same parameters, but I'm sure it's not even close to an even split. Regardless, it's simultaneously ironic and fitting for a comment on a post about disinformation to contain such an easily-falsified statement.
The "zero" statement seems to really be making the rounds, used by Ted Cruz in a hearing, by various media outlets making the case for regulating Google because of their bias... I guess "zero" is just punchier.