321–330 of 763 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the articles are written by 'Tyler Durden', part of the 'fight club' philosophy joke.
Right, so I think looking for a deeper philosophy in the choice of name and tagline is a bit futile. "Tyler Durden" used to be the cool pseudonym to use online circa 2005.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes - I've found Zerohedge to be scarily accurate over time! Depends on your political allegiances I suppose but my mother taught me when i was kid to always read the financial press - 'follow the money to find out what the b@stards are thinking' was her old line. (she used to work for the UK tory party in the '50's, despised them). ZH is what many city of London and wall street minions read live on their bloomberg…
> scarily accurate As the saying goes, Zerohedge has predicted 28 of the last 4 recessions. They have a consistently bearish bias (which rarely seems to play out), and ties to the Russian state, which brings into question the motivations behind their criticisms of the US (not that I'm the biggest fan myself). All of that said, ZH introduced me to a lot of economic literature and concepts I likely wouldn't have been e…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the wikipedia article on Ratcliffe and see if he is such a great source for your rebuttal. But even if this is not Russia material, the NY Post story is very suspect. Even the WSJ wouldn't touch it. Social media is a very toxic force in our society. I applaud Twitter for taking these very modest steps to correct the flow of propaganda. I'm sure Hannity and Fox are shocked that Twitter actually has a spine. They…
All I'm doing is providing a quote from a government employee who is directly involved in the investigation. I don't know how else one can judge the incident other than from people directly involved in the investigation and by the contents of what has been released. I don't see anything on Ratcliffe on Wikipedia that would make him a non-legitimate source? Could you point out what you're alluding to? Stating that the…
Here is a nice detailed account on why/how the WSJ decided not to run with the Biden narrative that Trump/Giuliani/Bannon were peddling: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
It should not be the job of the social media companies to be judge and jury for truth. Let the people decide for themselves what is true and false. Basically the social media company argument is... we think people are too dumb to figure out what is "real" or not so we are going to censor. That to me is an extremely damning view of the common person. But then, everywhere on the platform.. "make a plan to vote". So you…
Why can't "we don't want this trash on our site" be the reason? It's "funny" how those who want to propagate banned material always cast themselves as some repressed group subject to the tyranny of government power.
It can still be posted on Gab or Parler, right?
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-bid...
But yeah I've seen the post basically copy and paste accusations as fact (without claiming they're facts, but not qualifying them in any way) about all sorts of things.
Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
You want them exempted from the rules on political grounds, which is a problem.
Those of you who think locking the account was a good idea should remember you won’t always be in the majority.
Increasing noise (disinformation) is just as damaging to free speech as decreasing the signal (censorship).
Honestly, I see this kind of action as good. The sooner the population at large realizes that Big Social aren't neutral players in the marketplace of ideas, the better. We need decentralized solutions, ASAP, and the only way that's going to happen is when normal people start caring.
Stoped reading after the author made an equivalent comparison between NYT and Brietbart...I mean, you're not fooling anyone with the "un-biased, unaffiliated voter just searching for the truth" shtick. It's 2020 buddy, we see what you're doing.
Thank goodness you didn't step out of your filter bubble. A close one!
To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…
Well.. that would be a breach of contract (providing NYP paid their utility bills) and they could be sued. With Twitter et al, their service is free and "you are the product", so.. they can ban you whenever with no recourse at all.
This is basically the NYPost crying because it wants free stuff with no strings attached.