341–350 of 732 posts
In America people can’t access objective and free speech media but their oppressors make them believe that they 100% can and everyone is falling for it.
Personally I find the latter much more scary and a dangerously broken society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it should be viewed like this: in the eyes of many, Trump is a man who boasted about sexual harassment. Continuing to support such a man is borderline incompatible with holding basic values that one might hope every employee has. This viewpoint is really difficult to argue with. You can say that such transgressions are perhaps outweighed by any advantages of his presidency that you perceived, but that will no…
One could simply support a candidate for their choice of SCOTUS judges or recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel or opposition to TPP. It's not necessary that a voter endorses everything that the candidate has ever done in their life. I find this standard to be largely driven by the media. The President has a governing role, and different people are affected by it differently. If he is a terribly rude and…
One might have been a supporter of someone like Trump or Cuomo for all kinds of reasons, but for many it's simply over once a certain line is crossed.
As I said, it is a difficult point to argue against because their transgressions concern what many consider really basic values.
I found interesting how during the podcast, Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. A snippet from the podcast (with minor edits, starting from 7:25 of this video clip [1]): > Joe Rogan: is there regret for not having it evenly distributed and for throttling the distribution of that story? > [...] > Zuckerberg: yeah yeah I mean it sucks because I mean it turned out after…
What he’s saying is extremely muddled, I think he’s just ham fisted-ly trying to say “the truth got out there eventually” rather than “our process was as good as a criminal trial and whatever the FBI says constitutes absolute truth until it’s disproven”. I’m really not sure what Facebook should do in this situation, it’s really tricky for them.
Obviously they want to use the sins of the son to tarnish the father, but if there was actual proof of some sort of wrong-doing, it'd still be the number one story on Fox News every day.
So really you just get to complain that Facebook and Twitter didn't run it the way you wanted them to. And sure you can complain about that, but it seems pretty disingenuous to then claim that you believe in free speech if you're also trying to compel private companies to carry whatever story you prefer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's scary to think that just 2 to 3 corporations have the power to construct a false reality around us I do believe it's been this way for a while. Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent in 1988. (There's a movie out there created in 1992 if you don't want to read the book). Basically the same factors at work then are the same factors at work today -- just escalated with an algorithm. There is an objective reali…
[flagged]
There are plenty of other sources. You don't even need a source: Just follow a couple of influential newspapers for a while and observe how they initiate opinions, staunchly defend and propagate those opinions for a while and then reverse opinions. Upon which they staunchly defend and propagate the exact opposite.
Partly, it is a game to keep the population busy and avoid them thinking about real issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jared Kushner negotiated selling tens of billions of high tech weaponry to the Saudis, and then ended up with a bunch of Saudis renting empty apartments in his failed real estate project, at the same time he got a $2 billion check from the Middle East. Ivanka negotiated trademarks with China at the same time she was literally in China with her father’s government negotiating Chinese trade deals. They made over $100 m…
I'm sorry, where was the Trump clan mentioned in the parent or GP post? Whataboutism does not contribute to the discussion, and it is presumptuous to assume the original poster does not find those things concerning, as well. To me personally, both are very concerning, and it's exhausting to me that the political class gets a pass on this behavior
Again, the whole point of the laptop story is to smear the opposition and anybody who is concerned only about corruption in one party is not really concerned about corruption.
That’s a very bad take. What he said was: 1. FBI said there may be Russian propaganda coming, be on the lookout 2. They decided to allow posting of Hunter Biden story, but reduce the distribution while independent fact checkers confirm it 3. Then eventually allow the story to be distributed Calling it “censorship at behest of FBI” is very disingenuous and misrepresents the story. I think what they did was very reason…
I would not have voted in the election if I knew about the laptop. True story about something that is true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know all of the ins or outs, but my understanding is that it doesn't amount to anything, and certainly nothing in comparison to the entanglements of the Trump family. This is a pretty astounding sentence, but I would let it go, except that I see this all the time. It reads like a dismissal of the importance of the story because there is nothing that matches the unique danger of "the Trump family". Is that f…
I'll double down on the quoted line. Do you care about the laptop because it's ostensibly proof of corruption or because it tarnishes the reputation of the sitting president? If it's the latter then go pound sand. If it's the former, then good, let's investigate and root out the corruption and address it in a court of law. But that requires being open to treating similar treatment of corruption by the prior administr…
If you rely, for your mental picture of what is ... important and what can be dismissed, on the same institutions that suppress true stories and promote false ones, then how even are you making these choices?
At the risk of distracting you from answering that question, I'll answer yours: partisan feuding is destroying the US, so I absolutely put country before party. Moreover, I actively seek out, listen to and even respect people with whom I disagree. Corruption is corruption, whether it's "my guy" or "their guy".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[...] support current Russian and its invasion to Ukraine. I picked a random video with Chomsky [1] about the topic and he calls the invasion a criminal act against international law in his first sentence. [1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=68Rh1tKx98k
There are tons of interviews and videos where he blames the U.S. and NATO for the war and sais that Ukraine must make concessions to the invaders, so yes that means being a supporter of the invasion and the regime that perpetrated it. If he is fully aware of the extent of the damage he is doing or it's just his misguided convictions, that's a different story.
Ironically, these interpretations are a manifestation of manufactured consent! Anyone mentioning undesirable parts of history must be crushed!
So let me get this straight. Facebook has absolute control to limit the spread of a story or news on their platform. Facebook has absolute control to outright block specific content based on an algorithm they control. Facebook can and will editorialize content posted on their platform. Facebook has absolute control over the content that users see. Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why Facebook is not a publis…
Contrary to popular belief, it doesn‘t make a clear distinction between platform and publisher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Zuckerberg compared the suppression of the story to due process in the justice system. In the justice system, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, uncorroborated claims were enough. Not even a probable cause was required.
In a lot of cases the trial is worse punishment than the actual sentence.
Twitter and Facebook just censored until the end of the elections on the suggestion of the secret police.