221–230 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it easily verified ?
Sign up reqd but https://you.com/search?q=who+are+you&tbm=youchat&cfr=chat&ch... I heard that over half of people in the US read at least one book per year, is that true? I am not sure of the most current statistics, but according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2019, about 74% of American adults said they had read at least one book in the previous year. This means that a majority of people in the US do…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would think if it was inaccurate, the inaccuracy could be quoted from and pointed to. You do not do so. I see claims there is an inaccuracy there. I see people doing paraphrases and inventing conditionals and saying they are inaccurate. Which they are. But they're not the original text. It's pretty simple, quote some text and say why it is inaccurate. As there are no inaccuracies of the type mentioned, this does…
> But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA . It's in the first paragraph. Emphasis mine. How could the CIA have aided foreign dictators prior to its existence?
The text never days the CIA delayed the novel, it says the CIA aided in suppressing the novel. The CCF didn't even exist until the 1950s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you not read the article or are you disputing the facts of it?
The facts presented in the article do not support the assertion of the clickbait title.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that true? Last I heard (I just looked it up) over half of people in the US read at least one book per year.
If what you heard is true, close to half of people read no books.
Not to mention, "at least 1 book a year" is so peculiar a cut-off point that it sounds like it's deliberately constructed to obscure something. For example (possibly, I'm just guessing), the fact that choosing "at least 10 books a year" would see it going from "more than half" to "less than 5%"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if you take the full article as context, where they mention specific incidents in the 50's onwards, the context is not the period prior to 1946. I think it's just this specific paragraph that's clumsily worded.
No, it is very clear even with the full context that at this point in the article they are referring to the delay of the book being published. The very next sentence states that there were multiple such examples of suppression over his career, indicating that "this act" was a specific one in a sequence of many.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any examples of books where this is the case? I can believe that there are books that Amazon won't carry but I don't believe that there are books that Credit Card networks won't deal with.
For a short while the book "The Citizen's Guide to Fifth Generation Warfare" was being suppressed on Amazon. People complained and it was quickly made available again.
A book critical of COVID lockdowns was pulled in 2020: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/04/amazon-... (https://archive.is/2hZ1o).
A book critical of the transgender movement was pulled in 2021: https://www.wsj.com/articles/republican-senators-send-letter... (https://archive.is/6u6ES)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry for the offtopicness but could you please remove "All of my posts are GPT-generated" from your profile? Based on your comments I assume it's not true (but rather some kind of witticism). But it's having the effect of trolling the threads - e.g. the sibling comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36055724 , and I think I've seen similar cases elsewhere.
sure, haha, i'm sorry for the troubles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The facts presented in the article do not support the assertion of the clickbait title.
What do you dispute? I don't know if running dozens of literary magazines for decades costs more or less than launching dozens of cruise missiles, but it's still a "fortune" in terms of money being thrown around in literary criticism circles.
They did not do it to suppress a single book.
A bad review is not the same as suppression in any way.
So every piece of the headline is wrong. This book achieved widespread success and notoriety in every part of the world after it was published and the book was not really on the CIA's radar at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The role of censorship that the government used to have has shifted to companies like Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, etc. If you try and sell a spicy enough book, they will make sure nobody reads it, and the government can be completely "hands-off". They can fail to process the customer's payment, remove your book from the marketplace, and ban your account. If you try to build your own marketplace, you won't be able to us…
Do you have any examples of books where this is the case? I can believe that there are books that Amazon won't carry but I don't believe that there are books that Credit Card networks won't deal with.
https://jacobin.com/2022/05/paypal-independent-media-journal...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the shorter side, there is a very good article from the New Yorker which was published last October for the 75th birthday of the CIA entitled "Has the C.I.A. done more harm than good?" [1] The journalist is clearly verging on the side of more harm. [1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/10/10/has-the-cia-do...
[flagged]
Maybe some good is currently being done on Ukraine, but that would be just because russian top management is a pile of amoral dictatorial shit that is actually more stupid and more aggressive (which is always a very dangerous mix, especially with all those natural resources needed everywhere) than everybody thought. But thats just to subvert and bleed an old adversary for future power games, not some altruism. Real help would be much quicker to deliver and definitely possible, now its just as fast that Ukraine side doesnt collapse from lack of armaments and russians bleed people and resources for as long as possible.