@benroyce @inthehands I’m not disputing the claim, my very first reply aligns myself with the claim. I’ve been aware of this statistic many times for years. What I’m calling for is better sources from the get go instead of a visually misleading graphic that likely wasn’t even created by a person. Wouldn’t this graphic be more effective if it provided the actual numbers of contributing vs receiving funds? Wouldn’t this be more effective if it listed sources that it pulled from?

@benroyce @DemocracyMattersALot right, I get that. I think it would be a better delivered message if it was constructed in a more thoughtful way (or not likely #aislop )

@benroyce @zimzat @DemocracyMattersALot they’re saying the coloring of red and blue states inherently gets people thinking of political party affiliation, when the data is supposed to represent contribution/receiving federal funding

@inthehands the original thread has some gems in it, like how this is likely #aislop and the coloring of blue and red implies a party bias, New Mexico is a safely blue state yet a lot of people would make the assumption that states like NM that take more federal funds than pay into it would therefore be conservative. It would also be stronger to have citations that people can actually look into as well as concrete numbers rather than just blanket labeling

@DemocracyMattersALot fair enough, my critical lens intensifies when stuff like that is missing, especially for graphics and images that could be AI generated

@DemocracyMattersALot that doesn’t surprise me in the slightest, I am curious about the numbers and statistics though. Do you have sources we can look at for more information? Is there a credit to someone who made this graphic?