My memory was that we knew this at the time?
GarrulousBrevity
I was just stirring the pot, and I love this response
Who are you calling an amateur, buddy? I can argue you under the table!
I guess 2000 was long enough ago to forget
If the dems ever sweep the house and senate, I hope they pass legislation
I mean, it's pulling from MBFC and ground news, which are not both owned by Dave Van Zandt, and he doesn't work alone. Also, when compared to other fact checking organizations, MBFC performs well, from what I've read. Well enough that if you find their output uncomfortable, you should be second guessing yourself.
It's not really a bot's opinion though? It's reporting on salon in general, and letting you know that the reporting has a bias, which means generally, it might promote parts of the story that show Vance in a bad light compared to other reporting, and the. The Ground News link shows that reporting on this topic across several sources tends to be pretty non biased and factual. That's all good information to have, and saying otherwise means you want to let yourself be misled.
And everything other than joining the topic and the source is written by humans who are trying to keep people informed.
But following media reports, it has also admitted that China-based employees had access to US users’ data, although the company insisted it was under strict and highly limited circumstances.
Employees of ByteDance might be Chinese, but they don't work for the government. They work for ByteDance. I haven't found anyone claiming to have proof that data in US citizens has left the company. Just fears that it could.
If you're down voting a fact checker, you might want to do some self reflection on why you're upset that Salon doesn't have a perfect rating
There is concern that ByteDance may be giving the Chinese government access to data on US citizens. It's worth noting that no proof of this actually happening has surfaced.
I'm surprised it got the first bullet point wrong, considering how spot in the second one is