Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

  1. #1

    Default Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Much has been said about leftist institutional dominance in the US, some self evident, some discovered, and some speculative. Though relatively few outlets are covering the latest so far, for reasons we’ll get into, it turns out the “muh Russian disinfo” about Hunter Biden’s emails was in fact true. The media and tech companies censoring the story in the interest of “fact checking” declined to actually check at the very least, and to a systematic extent, tried to discredit the story, in order to protect Biden from a potential scandal in the latter days of the 2020 election.
    In his new book, “The Bidens: Inside the First Family’s Fifty-Year Rise to Power,” Politico reporter Ben Schreckinger says that evidence points to Hunter Biden’s laptop being legit.

    While we appreciate the support, the truth is The Post’s reports always have been true, and it’s only because the media wants to protect Joe Biden that they keep referring to the laptop as “unsubstantiated.”

    But Hunter Biden’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski already said those emails were authentic — the media just ignored him.

    Schreckinger adds that emails released by the Swedish government also match emails from the laptop (Hunter had gotten into a kerfuffle when he was staying in a Swedish embassy building). That’s also been reported.

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hu...or-us-shocked/
    Quote Originally Posted by Original Story
    Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.

    “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.

    An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
    The blockbuster correspondence — which flies in the face of Joe Biden’s claim that he’s “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings” — is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.

    https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-...iz-man-to-dad/
    So, the family routinely uses Joe’s name and connections to enrich themselves, selling access, etc, and Joe lies about it. Hunter’s still selling paintings for hundreds of thousands of dollars, thanks to who his dad is, etc. Bad, but not really the worst part of this IMO. The truly dystopian implications of this are revealed by the seamless and systematic way the media, big tech, and political figures sympathetic to Biden censored and discredited the truth in order to protect his candidacy.

    Consider, for example, the infamous “CIA letter” from Jim Clapper et al:

    We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

    If we are right, this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in this elec8on, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this.

    https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...7-579f9b330000
    They go on to say that IF the emails were faked, it would be “consistent with Russian disinfo efforts.” They didn’t say what the media would run with, which is, “the story is fake Russian disinfo, omg poor Joe.” Whether you want to blame the media for not verifying a story the collective bias of their reporters and executives wanted to be true, or these former intel officials for publicizing speculation knowing the press would run with it, or both, the ideological symmetry of the bias is clear from the outset. Recall that Twitter locked the Post out of their own account, and both Twitter and Facebook censored the story as much as possible. Twitter would relent and apologize; I’m not sure Facebook ever has, and also censored the Post for factual reporting on Black Lives Matter and the Lab Leak Theory.

    The press insisted the story was not credible. Democratic leadership seethed any time they were asked about it. Big tech used its disproportionate power over public discourse to silence it. All in the name of “fighting disinformation.” The left was so determined to prevent another 2016, it didn’t matter how far free speech needed to be bent, or what sort of propaganda effort needed to be mounted, to prevent that. Joe had to be protected. He had to make it to the White House. Everything else was of secondary or tertiary concern.

    The 180 on the credibility of the lab leak theory is another infamous example. Anything the Democrat Party decides is an inconvenient or harmful narrative gets branded a “far right conspiracy.” And the press and Big Tech enforce that idea in a feedback loop. Negative press about Trump/Republicans does not get nearly the scrutiny from these so called “fact checkers,” true or not. The FBI has confirmed, for example, there was no evidence of an organized plot to overturn the election during the Capitol Riot, nor any central coordination from third parties.

    The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

    Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

    "Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exc...es-2021-08-20/
    Right wing riot(s) will never get the “fiery but mostly peaceful protest” treatment from the press. That’s a given. But not even a report from a mainstream source like Reuters has dented the deluge of conspiratorial seething across the media ecosystem. The plot only thickens. Insinuations of an FBI cover up emerge amongst the uninterrupted recriminations about the “attempted coup” and the ongoing “Trumpist threat to democracy.” Where are the fact checkers now? The former intel officials warning against efforts to sow chaos among the body politic and the potential for disinformation? I digress.

    Not only are tabloids left to do the kind of investigative reporting the MSM is too inundated with Democrat hacks to even pretend to do, but this isn’t even a conspiracy. That’s the terrifying part. Leftist institutional dominance is so pervasive, its manifestation is entirely organic, self-perpetuating, and mob-like. There’s no Publicity Department censoring the news and elevating puff pieces friendly to the Party. The people in position to propagate and reinforce this bias genuinely believe their bias is righteous and good. It’s not a shortcoming. It’s a badge of honorable activism. The truth doesn’t matter, only the mission to defeat the “bad.” And that’s what’s dangerous. I don’t see how something like this could ever be unwound in the foreseeable future. The country is increasingly worse off for it, as more and more “counter revolutionaries” find themselves in the proverbial gulag, which in turn feeds radicalization of its own kind. This state of affairs was not unanticipated.

    For something very odd and unexpected has, in the past decade, been happening to the bourgeois masses who inhabit our new urban civilization. Though bourgeois in condition and lifestyle, they have become less bourgeois in ethos, and strikingly more mob-like in action. Perhaps this has something to do with a change in the economic character of our bourgeois civilization. Many critics have noted the shift from a producer’s ethic (the so-called Protestant ethic) to a consumer’s ethic, and go on to affirm that a bourgeois society of widespread affluence is in its essence radically different from a bourgeois society where scarcity automatically imposes a rigorous discipline of its own. This explanation is all the more plausible in that it echoes, in an academic way, the wisdom of the ages as to the corrupting effects of material prosperity upon the social order.

    The ways in which various strata of our citizenry—from the relatively poor to the relatively affluent—are beginning to behave like a bourgeois urban mob are familiar to anyone who reads his newspaper, and I do not propose to elaborate upon them. The interesting consideration is the extent to which a mob is not simply a physical presence but also, and above everything else, a state of mind. It is, to be precise, that state of mind which lacks all of those qualities that, in the opinion of the founding fathers, added up to republican morality: steadiness of character, deliberativeness of mind, and a mild predisposition to subordinate one’s own special interests to the public interest. Since the founding fathers could not envisage a nation of bourgeois—a nation of urbanized, prosperous, and strongly acquisitive citizens—they located republican morality in the agrarian sector of American life. We, in this century, have relocated it in the suburban and small-city sector of American life—our contemporary version of America’s “grass roots.” And it now appears that our anticipations may be treated as roughly by history as were those of the founding fathers.

    It is this startling absence of values that represents the authentic “urban crisis” of our democratic, urban nation. The fact that the word “urbanity” applies both to a condition of urban things and a state of urban mind may be an accident of philology—but if so it is a happy accident, for it reminds us of the interdependence of mind and thing. That same interdependence is to be found in the word, “democracy,” referring as it does simultaneously to a political system and to the spirit—the idea—that animates this system. The challenge to our urban democracy is to evolve a set of values and a conception of democracy that can function as the equivalent of the “republican morality” of yesteryear. This is our fundamental urban problem. Or, in the immortal words of Pogo: “I have seen the enemy and he is us.”

    https://www.commentary.org/articles/...s-discontents/
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  2. #2

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    I recently saw an odd example of the New York Times pedaling BS while ostensibly trying to set the record straight. It was their coverage of this poll:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The article starts out:

    Americans on the right half of the political spectrum have tended to underplay the risk of Covid-19. They have been less willing to wear masks or avoid indoor gatherings and have been more hesitant to get vaccinated.
    No issue with the second sentence, but look at the first. Are people on the right really underplaying the risk if 71% of Republicans have an inaccurately exaggerated sense of the risk and only 4% underestimate it? Sure, maybe those 4% have a particularly loud voice, but it seems to me that's largely due to the media amplifying them.

    Later in the article:

    Republicans’ underestimation of Covid risks helps explain their resistance to wearing a mask — even though doing so could save their own life or that of a family member.
    Wait, so is this only about those 4% of Republicans who underestimate the risk? Because just saying "Republicans" seems fairly misleading, considering 71% of them actually have an exaggerated sense of the risk, with the majority of the remainder having an accurate sense.

    The bigger question is how did a huge majority of people all across the political spectrum end up with an exaggerated (often extremely exaggerated) sense of the risk? I had been wondering how COVID turned into such a culture war issue in the US split along the left-right axis when that really isn't the case in many other countries, but I'm starting to see why. Apparently, it was largely manufactured by the media, in the sense that they've spread disinformation, exaggerated the the degree of the partisan divide, and fanned the flames that would increase it.

    To be fair to the author of this particular article, it's about as close as any major media outlet comes to straight facts these days. It's actually commendable in a milieu where the bar is set so low.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  3. #3

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Snip
    As Russiagate unraveled, it became apparent that many of the institutional figures most furiously denouncing Russian disinformation (typically Democratic Party politicians/operatives, liberal “journalists”/broadcasters and former security state officials) were often most complicit in spreading disinformation about Russia and its purported activities and associations with politically undesirable persons. Just last week, lawyer Michael Sussmann was indited by the Durham probe for supposedly lying to the FBI about his connection to the Clinton campaign when he submitted a fraudulent tip about Trump’s alleged links to the Kremlin.



  4. #4
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,245

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Historically the press has almost always been lying scum. Periods where the media have served to punish government evil like Watergate are less frequent than shameful political pandering like the idolatrous worship of the grubby Kennedy dynasty or that muppet Reagan.

    I not surprised Biden has a bunch of liars in the media covering for him. Most important politicians seem to have clean up and muckraking crews as a matter of course.

    The general impression of US politics in my country is Simpsons-like simplified pap, but with Monty Burns Republicans and Seymour Skinner Democrats (although at least the Simpsons has Mayor Quimby as a more typical old style Democrat caricature).

    The News Ltd sewer gives an "alternative" view but its so trashy only morons believe it (and rather gives an impression of honesty to the views they oppose), and I guess that's like FOX in the US.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  5. #5

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    As Russiagate unraveled, it became apparent that many of the institutional figures most furiously denouncing Russian disinformation (typically Democratic Party politicians/operatives, liberal “journalists”/broadcasters and former security state officials) were often most complicit in spreading disinformation about Russia and its purported activities and associations with politically undesirable persons. Just last week, lawyer Michael Sussmann was indited by the Durham probe for supposedly lying to the FBI about his connection to the Clinton campaign when he submitted a fraudulent tip about Trump’s alleged links to the Kremlin.
    I think whole "muh Russia" thing also comes from same political side that is full of Communist Chinese spies/assets as it was revealed in past 12 months, from links from China itself to recent revelation that general Milley committed treason against the United States by promising to provide intel behind the commander-in-chief's back.

  6. #6
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    All one has to do is look at the difference between how the press handled the Flynn phone call and how they covered for Milley's call to a Chinese general.

    Flynn took a call from a Russian ambassador and urged him to wait until Trump took office before reacting to Obama's expulsion of Russian diplomats days before Trump took office.

    Millet actually Chinese general and told him that he would let him know what Trump was planning to do (treason).

  7. #7

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Small People, Big Words, Big Lies... This is not a thread on criticizing the credibility and effects of the media in general. It's merely a rant against the press some people believe leans towards the left. It also stems from decades long silence on right wing media sources such as Fox News, and more current ones like AmericanThinker or Breitbart. We are left to believe as if conservative media sources do not exists and that they haven't been the primer of disinformation. Is it a cheap comeback from decades long inability to oppose criticism of such media sources when challenged? That said, what's really the question of this thread?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  8. #8

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    If there is an example of a large social media platform or search engine censoring legitimate information at the behest of Fox News/Breitbart/AmericanThinker, feel free to post it.



  9. #9
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,245

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    ...That said, what's really the question of this thread?
    Well we are free to answer it: a question-begging bit of tripe can serve as compost for a more fruitful discussion to develop. The title is a thoughtful and apposite one: Big Media, Big tech and Big Lies control the US political scene. The US is not Robinson Crusoe but its important for the rest of the world because of its successful economic system.

    The major "parties" differ only in a few areas, or in a few degrees of application in those areas. The media and more recently the tech companies play a role in motivating chumps to simp for Party A or B, so real alternatives do not emerge (LOL Mr Paul and Mr Sanders BTFO again).

    The party loyalty makes enough of the electorate uncritical of "their candidate", allowing incredible election results (eg the last two: a failed TV host and a retiree, USA you are not sending us your best people), and "business as usual" to continue. For example the corruption that led to the peddling Oxycontin, an addictive drug that never should have been approved, escaped legal retribution for decades as the media, not to mention federal and state administrations and legislatures of all stripes, found they had better things to talk about like Clinton's semen or Trump's hair.

    So while the media do have a political role, its not really about left or Right, and more about keeping people talking about nonsense so the most powerful groups can have their way.

    Its true of most countries that a small group of factions determine public policy and the way of life of the majority. Too much individual choice and you get Afghanistan ("its my goat and what I do with it is my business!"), too little and you get China ("citizen, you frowned at a picture of the Great Leader on your phone, please report to your at-home confinement cell").

    I think the US does a good job of being a powerful polity and not crushing too many people, but the endless windbagging about made up political narratives does get boring. I guess simps gabbling for their franchise ("Go Donks!" "Floreat Loxodonta!") are a necessary by product of keeping the Manhattan and other elites wealthy. Better the electorate hate one another than question the morals of their leaders and their controllers.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  10. #10
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,764

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    If there is an example of a large social media platform or search engine censoring legitimate information at the behest of Fox News/Breitbart/AmericanThinker, feel free to post it.
    The sins of those media organisations are slightly different, as is their relationship with social media. They are all guilty of censorship by omission. They choose which stories to report in the same way all partisan media does, omitting or down-prioritising articles that question their desired narrative. They also tend to report on hearsay as fact, or report on hearsay without reporting counter points. If part of your 'free speech victim' routine is to push hearsay stories, then it hardly makes sense to push for censorship in any way.

    It doesn't take much to question media across the spectrum. Certainly there are issues with social media censorship. But that isn't the only issue with media, and just accusing it of being at the behest of tha librulz is lazy. Perhaps so as to improve your reputation as a free thinker, you could sprinkle some of that fairy dust across the political opinion spectrum, so as to not just look like a partisan wonk. If this is going to be a thread about media, then make it so. If it is just another anti-liberal rant thread, then merge it.
    Last edited by antaeus; September 26, 2021 at 05:32 PM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  11. #11

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post

    The sins of those media organisations are slightly different, as is their relationship with social media. They are all guilty of censorship by omission. They choose which stories to report in the same way all partisan media does, omitting or down-prioritising articles that question their desired narrative. They also tend to report on hearsay as fact, or report on hearsay without reporting counter points. If part of your 'free speech victim' routine is to push hearsay stories, then it hardly makes sense to push for censorship in any way.

    It doesn't take much to question media across the spectrum. Certainly there are issues with social media censorship. But that isn't the only issue with media, and just accusing it of being at the behest of tha librulz is lazy. Perhaps so as to improve your reputation as a free thinker, you could sprinkle some of that fairy dust across the political opinion spectrum, so as to not just look like a partisan wonk. If this is going to be a thread about media, then make it so. If it is just another anti-liberal rant thread, then merge it
    This isn’t a question of whether Fox is as biased to the right as MSNBC is to the left. This is confirmation that former intelligence officials, major media networks, and the largest social media platforms all acted in concert to discredit and censor factual, legitimate reporting in order to protect the leftwing presidential candidate from a potential scandal during an election. If you want to make this a “both sides” thing, the counterexample Cope asked for would be a logical first step. If you don’t have one, dismissing the issue as another right wing conspiracy narrative just underscores the point of the OP.

    Similar to the issues in 2016, there’s no way to know the extent to which this information might have impacted voters on the eve of the election, but it was the opposite of the kind of false propaganda the powers that be claimed to combat by censoring it. What’s clear is there was a systematic push to avoid another Comey Letter situation, and owing to left wing institutional dominance, it was justified as “fighting disinformation” when the story was no such thing. I should think the implications of this are as troubling as the other examples mentioned, for anyone who values freedom of speech and impartial access to information, regardless of political affiliation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  12. #12

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    The sins of those media organisations are slightly different, as is their relationship with social media. They are all guilty of censorship by omission. They choose which stories to report in the same way all partisan media does, omitting or down-prioritising articles that question their desired narrative. They also tend to report on hearsay as fact, or report on hearsay without reporting counter points. If part of your 'free speech victim' routine is to push hearsay stories, then it hardly makes sense to push for censorship in any way.
    The publication of misleading/false information isn't censorship.

    It doesn't take much to question media across the spectrum. Certainly there are issues with social media censorship. But that isn't the only issue with media, and just accusing it of being at the behest of tha librulz is lazy. Perhaps so as to improve your reputation as a free thinker, you could sprinkle some of that fairy dust across the political opinion spectrum, so as to not just look like a partisan wonk. If this is going to be a thread about media, then make it so. If it is just another anti-liberal rant thread, then merge it.
    I don't see any refutation of the concerns raised by the OP, only irritation that it discusses systematic attempts to suppress information in accordance with liberal interests. As above, if there is an instance of big tech suppressing content in response to disinformation printed by conservative media, feel free to post it.



  13. #13

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Bias are there, and which side of outdated politically dichotomy they are is not that relevant. Fact of the matter is that we have an oligopoly that is actively trying to suppress exchange of ideas in society to enforce narrative that favors that oligopoly. This becomes quite obvious, when we look at Covid-hysteria and related censorship: when we follow the money we quickly see that Big tech and Big Media have direct ties to pharmaceutical companies, so censorship has nothing to do with "public safety" or fighting against "misinformation", it is mainly about preventing narratives that go against interests of the elites from spreading.

  14. #14
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,764

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    I don't see any refutation of the concerns raised by the OP, only irritation that it discusses systematic attempts to suppress information in accordance with liberal interests. As above, if there is an instance of big tech suppressing content in response to disinformation printed by conservative media, feel free to post it.
    I am not questioning the concerns raised in the OP. I share them. But I think the OP is limited in scope, and attempts to broaden the scope have met with debate. Therefore I suggest this thread is just another anti-liberal thread, and should be merged.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  15. #15

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    If there is an example of a large social media platform or search engine censoring legitimate information at the behest of Fox News/Breitbart/AmericanThinker, feel free to post it.
    Does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  16. #16
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,245

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Ant may be onto something. Its definitely true there are Dem allies in the media spinning things their way, and thats horrible.

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    Oh no, its much worse than that.

    BBEG Incoming
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  17. #17

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    You’re giving this too much thought. Literally anything they don’t like or find inconvenient is part of a vast, thousand-year communist conspiracy to oppress them.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    As per the OP, Twitter acted in accordance with interests promoted by liberal media outlets. Many of the former intel operatives like Brennan, Clapper, Hayden et al. who signed the letter cited in the OP (which functionally, but falsely, accused the NYP story of being Russian disinformation and provided the basis for the censoring of the exposé) were working as analysts for CNN and MSNBC.

    If there are any similar examples of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media, feel free to post them.
    Last edited by Cope; September 27, 2021 at 05:22 PM.



  19. #19

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    As per the OP, Twitter acted in accordance with interests promoted by liberal media outlets. Many of the former intel operatives like Brennan, Clapper, Hayden et al. who signed the letter cited in the OP (which functionally, but falsely, accused the NYP story of being Russian disinformation and provided the basis for the censoring of the exposé) were working as analysts for CNN and MSNBC.

    If there are any similar examples of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media, feel free to post them.
    The opening doesn't have such an information even saying that Twitter censored at the behest of "liberal media" outlets. There is no source on the claim on Twitter in the opening post as well. Saying that because CNN/MSNBC contributors signed the CIA letter it means that Twitter censored content at the behest of CNN/MSNBC is as weak of an argument as it gets. There isn't the command connection you're alluding to. The claims you make and the substance you present do not click as well as you seem to think.

    So, does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  20. #20

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    The opening doesn't have such an information even saying that Twitter censored at the behest of "liberal media" outlets. There is no source on the claim on Twitter in the opening post as well. Saying that because CNN/MSNBC contributors signed the CIA letter it means that Twitter censored content at the behest of CNN/MSNBC is as weak of an argument as it gets. There isn't the command connection you're alluding to. The claims you make and the substance you present do not click as well as you seem to think.

    So, does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    There doesn't need to be evidence of a "command connection" to deduce that Twitter/Facebook and the liberal media coalescing around the same evidence-free narrative to discredit/censor the Post's exposé was more than coincidence.

    Twitter's excuse that the story violated its "hacked materials" policy (there was never any evidence that the information had been hacked) aligned with liberal hysteria surrounding Russian interference/disinformation and fabricated claims of Trump-Moscow collusion, but was particularly absurd given that the laptop had already been turned over to the FBI.
    Last edited by Cope; September 28, 2021 at 05:27 AM.



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •