Which is totally fair. There is so much misinformation flying around about this tax. The rich are flexing every muscle they have to try to make the general population dislike this change.

This change has no impact of the sale of a primary residence.

If they are selling a secondary residence and that sale is resulting in over 250k in profit than they are impacted, as they should be.

I had read that post already. Even if there are things that she's doing that isn't great, it doesn't really justify a group of people circlejerking hate about them.

From the posts I've seen so far, it feels like the community is stating that they only exist to criticize what they see as a misleading influencer, but to me it all comes off as bullying/harrassment.

If they want to encourage change of some sort they could try and do that, but that's not what the posts are encouraging, it feels like generic woman hate targeted at a single woman.

You keep suggesting opinions are fact... Anonymous posts aren't facts regardless of how much you want to believe their contents.

Yes education does give people abase for learning how to fact check, but anyone (including you) can learn.

The post in this case isn't even creded let alone creditable.

Things like the NYT and Washington Post are only creditable in the sense they link to their sources when they can, and when they can't they can stand behind their reputation because they do share sources when they can.

But a single source isn't enough to suggest that something is true. You as a reader need to be reading multiple sources and angles onbthebsake topic to get a healthy view on it, but those sources can't be mostly opinion pieces (which is all you post).

An opinion piece in the NYT or Washington Post is just as useless as the majority of what you're posting.

It's frustrating because this government didn't make up the name. This is a well understood system. By calling it by the typical name it should be easier for people to look into it understand it.

But so many people lack the ability to look into things and instead just listen to what politicians say.

But of course none of that matters these days. 😞

I certainly don't think I can tell the difference in every case.

But the most basic validation (is this a creditable source, does it reference creditable sources) is really a good starting point.

This post doesn't pass either of those.

There are more advanced techniques that can be used to fact check after that. But as a general rule (unless you really enjoy fact checking), if you're not reading an official source and what you're reading isn't referencing an official source, it's likely not worth giving any weight to.

Where there's smoke, there's a good chance there's a fire!

The trouble is, it's often just fog. And at somepoint you need to start recognizing the difference 😉

What on earth even is this. A whole lot of words, not a single source.

The site it is posted to is blogging site that anyone can post to.

Why would anyone try to pass this post off as official?

Sounds like a good incentive for them to implement the carbon capture they are so obsessed with.

I also hate every part of this and will turn it off as soon as it shows up.

But in terms of who actually wants this. If an AI assistant were to exist, and if it was actually going to be useful to someone, it would need to know just about everything in your life. At least in theory... In order for an assistant to be useful you would want to be able to ask it "what was Italian restaurant I was thinking of trying" and you would want a response.

I'm not sure this privacy nightmare of an implementation is the correct path to that, but that's roughly what I suspect the desired outcome is.