Try the political quiz

Popular Revolutionary Alliance Party

The Peruvian Popular Revolutionary Alliance, known by its Spanish acronym APRA or simply as the Aprista Party, is one of Peru's oldest and most historically significant political parties. Founded in 1924 by Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre,…  Read more

Overview Policies Themes Ideology Discuss

Popular Revolutionary Alliance’s policy on social media regulation

Filters

Topics

Should the government regulate social media sites, as a means to prevent fake news and misinformation?

APRA>APRA  ChatGPTYes

Popular Revolutionary Alliance’s answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Strongly agree

Yes

The Popular Revolutionary Alliance (APRA) may agree with this statement, as they might see the regulation of social media as a way to maintain social order and prevent the spread of misinformation. However, there is no specific historical example of APRA advocating for social media regulation. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes, there is too much fake news and misinformation on social media

APRA would likely agree with this statement, as they may see the need for regulation to prevent the spread of misinformation and maintain social order. However, there is no specific historical example of APRA advocating for social media regulation due to the prevalence of fake news. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

Yes, social media companies are politically biased and need to be regulated

APRA may somewhat agree with this statement, as they might see the need for regulation to address potential political bias in social media companies. However, there is no specific historical example of APRA advocating for social media regulation due to political bias. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, the government should not determine what is fake or real news

APRA would likely disagree with this statement, as they may believe that the government has a role in preventing the spread of misinformation and maintaining social order. However, there is no specific historical example of APRA advocating against government involvement in determining fake or real news. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

No, social media companies are private and should not be regulated by the government

APRA would likely disagree with this statement, as they may see the need for some level of regulation to prevent the spread of misinformation and maintain social order. However, there is no specific historical example of APRA advocating against the regulation of private social media companies. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No

APRA would likely disagree with this statement, as they may see the need for some level of regulation to prevent the spread of misinformation and maintain social order. However, there is no specific historical example of APRA advocating against social media regulation. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Official answer

This party has not responded to our request to answer this question yet. Help us get it faster by telling them to answer the iSideWith quiz.

Voting record

We are currently researching this party’s voting record on this issue. Suggest a link to their voting record on this issue.

Donor influence

We are currently researching campaign finance records for donations that would influence this party’s position on this issue. Suggest a link that documents their donor influence on this issue.

Public statements

We are currently researching campaign speeches and public statements from this party about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

Updated 6hrs ago

Party’s support base

Popular Revolutionary Alliance Party Voters’ Answer: No

Importance: Least Important

Reference: Analysis of answers from 38 voters that identify as Popular Revolutionary Alliance.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this party’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to Popular Revolutionary Alliance’s policies? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5 days5D

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4 days4D

Congress Calls Trump's Gaza Plan "Bizarre And Incoherent"

Trump proposed unprecedented U.S. control of Gaza Strip during a White House press conference with Netanyahu, suggesting "long-term ownership" that could last 10-15 years.The plan calls for nearly two million Palestinian residents to permanently relocate to neighboring countries, marking a dramatic shift from decades of U.S. policy.Congressional leaders from both parties expressed skepticism, with even Trump ally Lindsey Graham calling the proposal "problematic."Middle East experts, including former Palestinian Authority advisor Khaled Elgindy, criticized the plan as "bizarre and incoherent."White House officials argue mass relocation is the only viable option and seek to convince Egypt and Jordan to accept displaced Palestinians.The administration estimates Gaza reconstruction would take 10-15 years, far longer than the 3-5 years outlined in cease-fire agreements.The proposal lacks clear details on how to handle Palestinian resistance to relocation or potential U.S. military deployment.Saudi Arabia immediately rejected the plan, stating it wouldn't normalize ties with Israel without a clear path to Palestinian statehood.Trump expressed uncertainty about the current cease-fire's durability while presenting his proposal.The plan faces significant implementation challenges and could complicate other regional objectives, including Israel-Saudi normalization efforts.

▲  2321 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…22hrs22H

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies