Hasn’t Elon been found multiple times suppressing people who say things he doesn’t like?
Censorship is when the French ask “what are you doing?”
Oh Rene…what are you doing with the painting of the fallen Madonna with the big boobies?
But Twitter censors all kinds of posts? There is no free speech on Twitter. Just try posting the word cisgendered and see what happens.
“activist” even trying to discredit foreign federal bureaus by framing them as politically motivated lmao what a bunch of fucking crooks in the US admin.
100% “X is an organized crime group”. if you count brainwashing as a crime, which i do.
they’re manipulating public opinion towards what the rich want to hear. it’s all propaganda.
elon musk bought twitter to conduct “social engineering” after doing classical engineering before at tesla. it’s all just a way to control what people think, and it’s partially working. the people need to get off commercial social media and use something community-hosted, like the fediverse. to reduce the tinkering with recommendation algorithms and also to reduce the bot army.
Why are they defending an app/website that has essentially become a knockoff of Stormfront?
It is not censorship. This is not a government telling you what to publish or not. This is just finding out how a company is abusing its product to influence politics.
US condemns…
Good. That means you’re doing the right thing. Keep doing it.
Them: Democratic governments should allow all voices to be heard
Us: Free Palestine
Them: Terrorist!
Twitter only allows nazi speech now.
By condemning this, the “US” is shooting itself in the foot.
Ever since Twitter owner used Twitter to say Canada “wasn’t a real country”, no Canadian should be using Twitter. That wasn’t just bias, it was an “in your face and screw you” kind of bias.
Of course the US will fight tooth and nail to keep its propaganda machines at work all around the globe.
While defunding NPR and PBS.
Except that Trump is currently trying to dismantle Voice of America" and other propaganda machines around the globe.
yeah i guess trump represents a greater shift towards inward politics. not interfering with the rest of the world so much, just doing internal stuff.
It’s ok when he does it. There is no such thing as a Republican who is able to be shamed by hypocrisy. It’s their super power.
True
VoA is competing with the private sector propaganda wing.
This is just American Libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion. The mistake the Communists made was thinking Pravda didn’t need to turn an enormous profit.
that’s great, they have always been poison
Be that as it may, Trump is trying to dismantle it.
Trump dismantles anything he has no control over, pure dictator behaviour 🤗
He literally has control over it though.
I guess there was a miss-understanding.
What I meant was this:
He has either control over content that is published by an entity (like e.g. a network) or he dismantles it.
Or do you disagree to that too?
Oh I forgot the Blue MAGA mantra: “anything the opposition does is automatically bad”
When they say water is wet you have to deny it.
Really you all deserve TrumpGet over yourself. All I did was state a fact that was contradictory to the previous comment. I didn’t even say anything about whether it was good or bad. Trump is trying to cut VoA.
That fact was pretty obvious.
well every fact is pretty obvious … once you know it
Wrong. It opposed Naziism and Soviet Union misinformation. Since then it’s been a standard journalism outlet that, by law, could not be dictated by US politicians.
Thanks CIA operative, it is no secret it has always been a propaganda outlet from your CIA bosses trying to stir up shit in countries they don’t control.
And the US has never been against nazis, supported them plenty of times before during and after WW2.
While being the biggest pusher of propaganda in US history.
And VOA was only “propaganda” when you consider objective information to be “propaganda”, like dumbfuck Trumpers do.
Since 1976 the Charter and later the 1994 International Broadcasting Act legally forbid government officials from dictating content. Don’t worry about facts, though.
Trump himself tried to make it a propaganda outlet, doing the exact opposite of what you credit him for. He put Michael Pack in charge who sidelined editors, froze visas for foreign reporters and scrapped long‑standing “fire‑wall” rules that protect editorial independence.
And VOA was only “propaganda” when you consider objective information to be “propaganda”, like dumbfuck Trumpers do.
the thing is that you can deliver heavily skewed pictures with information that is objectively true. consider the following example:
it makes it appear as if AOC is pro-genocide
yet when you actually have more context, you know that AOC is actively anti-genocide, as discussed here. (in the comments)
so, delivering objectively true information can result in heavily skewed images, due to non-proportionality of information, i.e. some details are exaggerated, others are under-reported. and some journals have a tendency to under-report on specific things while over-reporting on others. so it’s still possible to lie with objective information, i.e. create images that are not true because they’re out of their actual proportion.
LOL ‘objective propaganda’
The US regime lies constantly.
And especially during the ilegal Iraq invasion.
They placed items in the news without telling the public they were produced by the US regime armed forces.
It’s not difficult to know unless you deliberately ignore the obvious truth to fit your agenda.
So you are a liar, nobody can be this naive or dumb.
https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2248&context=faculty-articlesThe word “propaganda” is tricky. It has connotations of being lies, but that isn’t always or even usually the case. Objectively true information can literally be propaganda. The mission of the VoA is to spread American propaganda. That’s why it’s funded. That can be truths that foreign governments want to suppress, it can be spin, or it can be lies. VoA is generally pretty truthful, especially compared to the privately run domestic versions like cable news outlets.
Government officials don’t need to dictate content. As you pointed out, content can be controlled by who is appointed to manage the content. They know the mission.
The word “propaganda” means any intentionally spread information. It doesn’t specify whether it’s right or wrong. It’s literally “something to propagate”.
The US Administration, more importantly a branch of the department of state, condemns French inquiry.
A lot of the USA are cheering the French on.
Martin: Organized crime?
Cosmo: Hah. Don’t kid yourself. It’s not that organized.– Sneakers (1992)
Twitter is absolutely going to say “well, we’re definitely not an organised hate group. Sometimes people just hate stuff. We’re just a social media platform, helping people organise. Oh shit”
offtopic: I love that movie. It shows everything right despite everything being not serious.
so … it’s not an “organized hate group” but an “organizing hate” group?
Ask Stephen Colbert about the US’ vaunted “free speech”.
His free speech was never infringed. He can say what he wants and not be prosecuted for it. Whether or not he has a job isn’t covered by the First Amendment.
Despite being an “entertainment” show, satirical media is still media, and covered by the First. These shows still rely on that protection against lawsuits, and have been exhonerated with the same defence, Cobert in particular. If you could prove government interference in this case, I’d say there was a pretty good basis for a court case based on freedom of the press, which is the corollary of free speech.
But then, you see who sits in the supreme court, for fucking lifetime.
And of course the stupid pardon rule.
And immunity of president making him above the law even tho nobody shall be above the law.
And possibility to de-found stuff without a vote or a chance to do a referendum.
And gerrymandering.
And winner takes it all.
And no absolute majority requirement.
All this made this fuckup possible.
Everyone loses except only a very small minority wins.
Do something about it.
Colbert didn’t go to prison, not really a good argument.
There are many ways to suppress speech.
“Free speech” doesn’t entitle you to dictate policy over privately held companies. We spent four years trying to convince Trumpers of this. Be smarter.
What do you mean, did the Biden admin target any particular shows or networks? Are you also aware the current admin is holding off Paramount’s merger to exert influence over their programming? IDK how free that feels. May not be directly breaking laws, but it’s absolutely a subversion of free speech.
No, it’s not. Free speech protects what you say from the government, not your employer. Your employer ALSO has free speech, meaning they can decide what can and can’t be said on their property.
This is like saying Sesame Street doesn’t show hardcore porn and that’s a violation of free speech.
Based on your response, I’m not sure you even read my questions.
Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?
That a poor comparison since on x the moderations is about random citizen and not paid employee doing a work for a company that a the end of the day is free to choose how to spent her money
It did make loads of money though? Why do you get to just push blatant lies?
how much ? cause the cost is high too. anyway
However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source
For the same freedom of speech reasons that we’re applying to Colbert. That jerkwad is just as entitled to lie as they are to tell the truth, and it’s up to everyone else to call them out on it.
Like axing a show that didn’t make money ?
Even if that were true, which it isn’t, what business does the president have even mentioning it much less making a demand?
However, the “pros” ultimately won out because, according to sources close to the network, “The Late Show” was losing money and there was no apparent path to turning around its financial position. source
Colbert didn’t go to prison
I’m sure Colbert’s on the list somewhere.
You are on my list. So what? Neither of you are in prison.
Oh so the thing that HASN’T HAPPENED is your counterargument?
Why is this downvoted? It correctly point out what “free speech” actually means.
It’s a visceral reaction, my guess. It’s exactly the same argument that right wingers used when oreilly, carlson, etc got canceled.
Not paying someone millions for saying stuff on TV is not infringing on free speech, now apparently it’s leftists turn to not understand it.
