191–200 of 368 posts
Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/violent-threats-ripple...
It's interesting how polemic Greenwald has become, bringing with it the same magnitude of reality denial as the actors he is going after. A title like "The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows" coming from an investigative journalist like himself really sounds like a sore loser's version of "investigative journalism needs to die if it doesn't share my narrative and polit…
He has absolutely always been like this. His rambling screeds used to be posted to reddit pretty constantly long before he published Snowden. This NYT reporter made a mistake and posted an incorrect accusation on her twitter, that she later corrected. Big mistake, but she owned it. And here he is calling the situation "Stasi-like".
Just a tonal note. Saying 'Big mistake' implies to me that it's meant sarcastically in the sense of 'Big deal' or 'Big whoop', which I gather from the rest of your sentence is not what you intended. I would not have read it this way from the phrase 'A big mistake, but she owned it.'
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When are you guys going to figure out that this doesn't work anymore?
Am I supposed to believe he’s speaking truth to power by having constant rage fits on Twitter and appearing on Tucker Carlson?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Accusing Greenwald of being a Nazi is pretty uncalled for. I (a Jew) despise Nazis, but I can certainly distinguish between someone calling for the older liberal line of free speech for everyone (something Noam Chomsky has done [0]) and advocating for racial purity via ethnic cleansing. You can say that such a position might help Nazis, but to draw zero distinction is troubling. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faur…
https://twitter.com/heresysquad/status/1191762909325492225?s...
He was so enthusiastic about defending his clients (who were neo-Nazis, yes real ones, they do exist) that NY judges called him unethical in court and the bar banned his behavior after the fact.
https://twitter.com/charliearchy/status/1110344950674186240?...
>the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks to warn that the Bad People had migrated to Signal and Telegram. This week they asked: “Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot?” One reporter “confess[ed] that I am worried about Telegram. Other than private messaging, people love to use Telegram for group chats — up to 200,000 people can meet inside a Telegram ch…
One side of it is deplatforming, but the other side is protecting more vulnerable family and community members. The fact is that there are pied-pipers of disinformation on these platforms leading vulnerable members of our communities down rabbit-holes to who-knows-where. Normally we would address this with in-person confrontation but I think people are struggling to find the tools to protect their friends and familie…
you could've have just said ' vulnerable people'
So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivial to start with. And... this is exhibit A for the prosecution about how no one is doing real journalism anymore, they're just playing hall monitor. Or turning into the modern Stasi. Sure, those two things don't seem very similar, but we always forget how the SS…
> So, an NYT reporter snooping on a Clubhouse conversation got her facts wrong (although she later corrected them), and the entire thing seemed relatively trivial to start with. And... this is exhibit A for the prosecution about how no one is doing real journalism anymore, they're just playing hall monitor. Or turning into the modern Stasi. Sure, those two things don't seem very similar, but we always forget how the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I supposed to believe he’s speaking truth to power by having constant rage fits on Twitter and appearing on Tucker Carlson?
I don't care if he's speaking truth to power. You just called him a Nazi. You've turned a word that meant "mass murderer and genocide sympathizer" into a meaningless low effort character attack used only when no attacks of substance exist. You've even internalized it. You've desensitized us to it, if we were to one day elect a true Nazi you'd be partly to blame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems to seriously scare some folks that there are places where they cannot deplatform whoever they want for anything. Jeez. At least give your opponents a charitable take on their argument. This stuff isn't some make-believe silencing of online Socratic circles that just happen to have "non-approved" viwes or "wrongthink". I don't think you get how scary some of these mobs are. They're online witch-hunts fueled…
> Like this problem is hard. I want free and open communication as much as the next person it's not so easy. I want free and open communication as long as it does inconvenience me or those in power? Also remember: public groups and channels on Telegram are public . You can join them and report them if you want. What you cannot is join my family group and start judging my kids based on what they said one afternoon whe…
I'll assume you mean doesn't but that's not at all what I'm saying. It's easy to take an absolute stance as long as your blind to or don't care about the consequences of it.
> What you cannot is join my family group and start judging my kids based on what they said one afternoon when they were angry.
What? I don't think I would want to be in your family group chats but regardless I'm specifically talking about huge public/semi-public spaces.
> The problem here is that because of journalists like these we now have to prepare to defend Telegram against authorities
Look this shit sucks. It's terrible that the same group of awful people that seem to poison everything they touch have been flocking to different corners of the internet trying to find a place that won't kick them out to self organize. As Facebook/Twitter/Reddit have shown you don't actually have to get rid of them at large just make a good-faith attempt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems to seriously scare some folks that there are places where they cannot deplatform whoever they want for anything. Jeez. At least give your opponents a charitable take on their argument. This stuff isn't some make-believe silencing of online Socratic circles that just happen to have "non-approved" viwes or "wrongthink". I don't think you get how scary some of these mobs are. They're online witch-hunts fueled…
There's a lot of people, myself included, who do approach the issue in the way you're describing. But there's also a vocal set of people who... well, it's hard to come up with a charitable view of what their position is. If Taylor Lorenz is legitimately concerned about the dangers of online witchhunts, what in the world is she doing posting names and photos of everyone who was in the room at the time of this incident…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At most news orgs the reporters aren't the ones writing the article titles. I agree that the headline is alarmist, but it's probably just written to be clickbait-y, as far too many headlines now are. I disagree that "articles like this are written specifically to inadvertently call for the censorship of more voices." The article takes on a subject that has been discussed a lot recently, and, on balance, probably push…
I think I disagree with the statement that misinformation causes real and demonstrable harm. The vast majority of misinformation does not. Saying that we faked the moon landing, or that the sky is a layer of impenetrable foil, while silly, is ultimately inconsequential and does not cause harm. There are of course rare cases when someone acts on misinformation to do something harmful. I can easily think of several exa…
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_coverage_of_Sri_Lank...
Edit: I also wanted to point out that there's a technical term for true information that causes harm, "malinformation." Those of us who have studied misinformation have actually spent a lot of time documenting how misinformation has appropriated the trappings of malinformation in order to become more convincing. Furthermore, most of the misinformation being shared by volume on social media isn't of the "the sky is a layer of impenetrable foil" variety.