Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Enjoy Parler then.
We have seen again and again that you are a victim of disinformation, and believe some truly bizarre shit that's been fed to you.
|
No, "we" haven't. You state this, but its not true.* The only question is if you incorrectly believe it or you're intentionally stating something that isn't factual because, well, who's going to spend the time to flag the proofs its a lie?
I do not care about the Biden laptop story. I don't think it's relevant. I think the docs questioning vaccines were nuts.
But I also know (not think, or believe, but know, because this is a fact not up for debate) that both stories were not of such a deviant nature that their preclusion was warranted.
As to the laptop, even the Times and Twitter admit that story was true and was of public interest and that its preclusion from Twitter and news other than the Post was a naked effort to put a finger on the scale of the election. Everyone knows why this was done. People feared it might get Trump re-elected. I don't think the latter was true, but the former indisputably happened.
You're okay with it because I think you think the existential threat was such that the ends justified the means. That's a perfectly defensible position. Own it.
As to vaccine doubting docs, there was not even a pretext offered. They were openly precluded because they were deemed threats to the public good.
I agree with that. I think those docs did harm. And I didn't mind seeing them deplatformed.
But I'm uncomfortable with this sort of thing because it is crafting consensus. Chomsky warned about big business and govt gaining the ability to control what people could see or hear, and he was right. Media consolidation has created some awful indirect censorship. I'm not sure it's much better when you put "people who [often quite inaccurately] think they know what's best" or "people who [almost always incorrectly] consider themselves better able to filter content than the hoi polloi" - of which groups you and I are card-carrying members - in charge of consensus manufacture.
And it's a canard to argue that platforms suck when filled with "bro-culture" sorts. If you don't wish to see what you don't wish to see - on any platform - you can simply avoid it. Platforms only suck when they're sanitized and number of views expressed on them narrowed. That's how you get echo chambers.
______
* The "we" thing is weak. Own your point.
