521–530 of 596 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If something is going to be suppressed as Russian propaganda, there better be evidence that it is Russian propaganda. Otherwise the suppression itself is propaganda in the other direction.
Twitter's objection was that the New York Post article contained hacked or illegally obtained material (personal intimate photos, etc.). Publishing those materials is a legal grey area.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry. When it comes to (especially) foreign policy, none of the media have been doing anything but state propaganda since the Remember the Maine incident. If you think blue TV is lying and check red TV you're missing the case where both blue and red agree it's good to lie to people. These cases where they agree revolve around suppressing opposition to corporate rule and around the nature of military alliances…
I don't think rayiner says he's only watching fox now, rather he's checking that as well . Here's my take: When you look from different angles it gets harder to hide things. Fox News wants to hide some things, CNN wants to hide others. Looking at it from both angles you get to see some of the stuff each tries to hide and maybe you can make a reasonable guess on what both tries to hide.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fox News has been suppressing the truth for 20 years now and where are the complaints about that?
What Fox News was since Ailes took over, CNN and MSNBC have become. That's something to be really worried about. For a long time, I read the NYT and watched CNN. I never felt the need to check in and see what Fox was saying until the last 2-3 years. Now I do, because I don't trust that I'm getting the whole story.
(there's an obvious question about what you'd replace them with, but I think the answer is almost anything would be more informative)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean it's a false equivalency in the first place to put Hunter in some special bad place while the First Children reap the rewards of nepotism themselves. Misinformation doesn't need to be foreign, just good enough swill to distract some people from the important abuses of power.
It's entirely possible that both parties you mention could be corrupt. The concern of the article is that a large chuck of the entire news industry is trying to bury the story because they want to the election to go a certain way, which makes them just as despicable as the remaining chunk of the news industry. Remember how Tara Reade was handled? Me too.
This is all just so much whining by folks whose ox happened to be gored. GYOFP for cripe's sake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they? As far as I know the only example of any identifiably Republican person high up in Silicon Valley is Joel Kaplan, and we know from leaks that Zuckerberg spends a significant amount of his time trying to stop his workforce from lynching the guy.
> As far as I know the only example of any identifiably Republican person high up in Silicon Valley [..] "Thiel is Silicon Valley's most outspoken Trump supporter" [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get back to me when Twitter has the power to round up everyone who read a given story and have them executed in the street, because that's what government censorship can look like. It's not limited to some partisan nerd toggling a flag in a database somewhere. I think you should probably take this opportunity to re-evaluate the relative powers of these entities.
People are alarmed by these moves because they represent a wider trend in which the left increasingly does not recognise the right as politically legitimate, i.e. they do not believe non-leftists should be allowed to exist. Tech firm activist censorship is merely one visible (or not so visible) aspect of this. But it's not the only aspect. The very same sorts of people with the very same views are also in government…
Those two things aren't remotely the same. The legitimacy of the right in the U.S. is an open question when they participate in direct voter suppression, gerrymandering, continually lose popular votes but still gain controlling power of the strongest apparatus of the government, have used that power to appoint (shortly) 16 of the last 20 SCOTUS Justices going back to 1969 using rules they are quite literally making up on the spot. "Consent of the governed" is a valid question under these scenarios.
But you need to provide some very strong evidence "they [the left] do not believe non-leftists should be allowed to exist." You're using some very strong language based on very weak arguments.
The fact you, presumably, pass off things such as Russian interference in fair and free elections as "conspiracy theories" should, god willing, be absolutely damning to your credibility. Or that "herd immunity strategies," as mentioned in the tweet you link, should be presented as a valid and equal alternative strategy to NOT LETTING PEOPLE DIE; you're arguing flat-earthers should be given equal footing in a debate with NASA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re making my point aren’t you? You think the NYP story is as reputable as the dossier ? All the same, I don’t know of any newspapers which published stories treating the dossier as a source. As an object of the story, IE this thing exists, yes. As corroboration: please share if you have any. Actually I think what happened is Rudy etc got a little too desperate and excited and blundered tactically: surfacing the c…
> You’re making my point aren’t you? You think the NYP story is as reputable as the dossier? My impression is that it's less made up than the juicy parts of the dossier. The dossier contained more truth though, but it was lame stuff that nobody cared about or reported on. > As an object of the story, IE this thing exists, yes. That's just moving goal posts. It's essentially "Now, I'm not claiming A did Z, but I hear…
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-biden-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are correct, I don’t understand what you’re saying. I agree that there is no panacea or set of pure criteria other than not moderating at all. But there is also no singular principle of free speech beyond that, either — just different sets of tradeoffs that try to cultivate discourse that the moderator thinks is valuable. My issue is that people tend to present their own preferred set of tradeoffs as the One True…
Ok I get what you're saying. It really comes down to whether or not you believe in objective morality. If you do then there is a sensical notion of free speech (or any other principle) even if no one person has a complete picture or understanding of what it is right now (although I would argue that we have a much better understanding of free speech than we do 6000 years ago). It is something we can strive for and rec…
Let's say that your definition of free speech is the objectively correct one. You then have to convince people to adopt that framework. You can't appeal to the objective definition; that's a circular argument. So you have to do it on the merits of the tradeoffs, like "bot spam is noise that detracts from a conversation".
To your example specifically, my own opinion is that it depends. I'm fine with removing bot spam from a comment section. But move down to more "infrastructural" layers, and I become less okay with it. For example, I don't think ISPs should try to block spam; they should be entirely agnostic to what content passes through their pipes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the government coercing you, not microsoft. I'm sure microsoft doesn't mind a captive market, but if the government decides to use slack or whatever instead, you're going to switch over to slack regardless of any protest from microsoft. The companies which seem to benefit the most from the government's power are the ones which would suffer the most from losing the government's current favor. They must bend ove…
However, if microsoft dislikes me for something I did, they can kick me out; Google has done so with respect to Android APK related stuff, for example. I'm sure courts can properly resolve this, after a few months, if it did happen .... It's the government coercing me to comply with Microsoft's TOS that's the problem. > They must bend over backwards to stay in the government's good graces, not the other way around. O…
If the government points their guns at me and says eat at that restaurant or else, the restaurant owner has done nothing wrong. It is the government forcing me to wear shoes, not him. Even if he lobbied for a law that made dining at his restaurant mandatory, the government still decided on its own to go along with it - the restaurant owner had no power to make them do it. Forcing the restaurant to allow me to take my shoes off will only make the dining experience of everyone else forced to eat there more unpleasant.
It is dumb that the local school chose a setup that relies completely on Microsoft. You and everyone else negatively affected should be sure to show your dissatisfaction with the school board on election day. But there's nothing wrong with Microsoft having the ability to kick you off if it doesn't like you.