An important idea here is that A and B might have something of value to offer each other, despite the presence of a (physically) causal communication channel.
Should this read “absence of a (physically) causal communication channel”? I’m confused by this sentence as stated
Overall I think any reasonable person should have an intuition that the site is dodgy after skimming a few articles, and the Nazi articles are just irrefutable proof if you want to question that initial impression.
> To be honest, given that the last name Shapiro seems to mostly be used by people with Jewish ancestry, I’d be kind of surprised if his brother knew about that content before submitting
I’d guess Shapiro knows he has some strange bedfellows but cares more about pushing anti-vax and right-wing populist view points than avoiding Nazis (unclear if he knows about that specific editorial ofc)
Minor meta-question: what is the 2 axis voting supposed to represent here? People feel this was a good contribution to the discussion but disagree with the claim that Per Shapiro was never paid by Nya Dagbladet? I would’ve expected the opposite—the factual claim is probably true but not very relevant.
How does that address Shakeel’s concern? I would’ve thought someone submitting articles to a far-right website would know it’s a far-right website regardless of payment.
Is there any way to give a donor lottery entry as a gift to someone?