261–270 of 371 posts
This is exactly what happens when algorithms tailor what people see on their newsfeed. They will push narratives. One of the main reasons I prefer Reddit is the existence of r/All. Provides a very balanced view
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't see 80km from the ground, and it's on the other side of a closed international border and the war itself . Residents of Belgorod can have little to no idea what's happening in Kharkiv other than the news. Well, that and the gigantic explosion of the local oil depot. Heck, in many places around the world people get most local news from social media apps.
Seriously? Imagine an alternate universe where Canada and USA went to war. Do you really think that people in Seattle would have to depend on German social media apps to figure out what goes on in Vancouver while it's being bombed? Seriously?
The US operated censorship during WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ; who knows what would operate during the war with Canada?
I'm not sure whether you're ignorant of the near-total state control of media in Russia and Belarus, but how do you expect them to get accurate news?
Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are blocked in Russia because they only allow pro-Ukraine narrative. The social platforms became weapons in this war. Anyone noticed they blocked accounts of most Russian media companies and news sources? Or users with "wrong" opinions are being shadow banned? Or Google deprioritised or excluded some Russian gov services (even non news)? Sorry, but unbiased sources do not exist. Free…
> Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are blocked in Russia because they only allow pro-Ukraine narrative. This is demonstrably not true and easily disproved. All the official Russian accounts are on twitter and keep posting lies after lies, lately main topic is denial of massacre in Bucha. For example: https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1510649349482635265
Even with maternity hospital bombing, the women in photographs said that the Ukranian army had occupied the hospital and forced them out of the maternity wing.
Like the other poster said: it's fake news on fake news. Two different bubbles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you consider that the Ukrainian conflict is a war between US and Russia, then yes all western media are pro-Ukrainian (it serves US interests at the moment).
It's not though, so your point is irrelevant.
What about panama papers proving zelensky and ukrainian politicians having twice as many illegal activities as whole or russia?
and ghost of kiev or the snake island bombing or the tank dude or the other million of fake news being peddled
This is exactly what happens when algorithms tailor what people see on their newsfeed. They will push narratives. One of the main reasons I prefer Reddit is the existence of r/All. Provides a very balanced view
/r/all is nauseatingly full of "russia bad, ukraine good" with mindless flinging of feces.
Yall be blaming facebook but reddit is the real snake in the grass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Content moderation is de facto censorship. It simply is not. And the proof is that you can see in this very thread a bunch of flagged, dead comments that are still visible, still citable, and (importantly) whose posters are not guilty of crimes for their creation. I'm sorry, but no. Difficulty of finding information is not the same thing as censorship. And we have to stop pretending that it is. > Do you remember wh…
I'm sorry, yes. If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship? This is all works on account of corporate policies - not law. Law would dictate that unless what was said was illegal, that a person had a right to say it. Which is supportive of the fact that we are living in a fascist (corporate + governance) system. That the legal system is now a joke.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think the BBC is anything like RT you ought to read about the BBCs reporting during the Falklands War.
Britain's transition to becoming more like a British RT happened post Iraq/David Kelly/Hutton Inquiry and even then it happened fairly slowly - it took time to pension off all the good journalists who asked the difficult questions. The BBC under Greg Dyke and Gavyn Davies was fiercely independent and objective though, until they were unceremoniously let go for not towing the party line on Iraq's WMDs.
Also, noteworthy, is that most people can not remember, or talk about, the fact that certain nations lie to us so they can go to war. They also can't think about the whole actual reasons why what's happening is happening.
Always remember that 99% of all people only parrot what the mass media present to them, with no critical/analytical thought applied whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously? Imagine an alternate universe where Canada and USA went to war. Do you really think that people in Seattle would have to depend on German social media apps to figure out what goes on in Vancouver while it's being bombed? Seriously?
There aren't any global German social media apps, and the US has a very different media landscape, so like all "what if the situation was completely different" hypotheticals, it would be completely different. The US operated censorship during WW2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship ; who knows what would operate during the war with Canada? I'm not sure whether you're ignorant of the near-total state c…
Because that thought's beyond ridiculous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My opinion of the BBC was formed long before RT even existed. One is a government funded state propagandist. The other is RT. I'm surprised that, having held such a strong opinion about the BBC for such a long time, you are still able to immediately make a factually incorrect statement regarding such common knowledge as where its funding comes from.
RT's funding doesn't come from the government?