I think CNN would try to hide under "entertainment" in front of a court of law, but have they actually been dragged in front of a court for lying?
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/a-court-ruled-rachel-maddow...
I mean, I'm sure that somewhere there's been a terrible abuse and someone got fired or whatever. It's a big country. But, I'm equally sure that whatever happened, you know about it because the news was delivered to you by conservative media.
The US is fine. We had an authoritarian scare for a while, but the system held.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-con...
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou...
Leftist bias at the intercept prevented Greenwald from publishing a story about it as well https://nypost.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-quits-the-inte...
Russia participates in censorship on a state level with its own state-run media agencies. These things are not equivalent. The Hunter Biden story is widely reported by numerous American media outlets.
And that story was banned on social media unfairly(this banning was cheered on by Dems and left leaning folks), even though it turned it to be credible later.
It was egregious censorship is the main point I am making here.
As bad as Putin? No. Was it bad? Yes.
The "muh private companies" argument ended long ago when government officials started using it as their main platform and we applied archive rules and prevented Trump from blocking people: https://www.wsj.com/articles/president-trump-cant-block-twit...
You can't have it both ways. Let's investigate why they all decided at once to block it right before the election. Are they coordinating? Let's find out. Seems like an anti-trust issue.
Point is, it's censorship, no matter how much people try to weasel out of it.
It's legal in Russia to do what Putin is doing, that doesn't make it not censorship.
But yes, we're working on it, it starts with public discussion and communicating with our representatives, which I and others do.
Playing semantics over whether omission of truth is bias vs. censorship doesn't make a strong argument.
The 1A guarantees the right that our government won't censor us.
It only pertains to the government, not these two instances involving social media behemoths and Russia.
Just because something doesn't violate the 1A doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Are you saying Putin isn't censoring information since it's legal for him to do so in Russia?
I mean, if I worked in a news room and wanted to publish a story about the president's cousin's roommate's great soup recipe, and the editor says "NO" does that mean I'm being censored?
Irregardless of Greenwald, you can't deny twitter and social media outlets banning a New York Post journalist(and the White House Press Secretary) for sharing that story was not egregious censorship.
Banning articles from journalists is censorship. Period.
That’s their job.
"Rotten" because it looks bad and goes against your bias doesn't make it worthy of censorship. Social media censoring a NY post journalist over this was censorship. Period.
You tell me what part of the story you think is true.
A laptop existing isn’t the whole story right?
The guardian goes more in depth on what aspects of hunter bidens business dealings are worth looking into(they discuss the laptop here as well): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden...
That’s not a story at all, and not the reason the story was rotten.
This reads like you’re not being very honest about the actual story that was being sold to news organizations.
Your not being honest with your motives to deny the guardian stories points or the fact that article even exists, do you not want to admit there is something potentially shady happening?
I don't know with 100% certainty either way honestly, I would have wanted the story to be covered if it was any other politician (and don't like trump, glad he lost tbh) so I am not sure what bone your trying to pick at. (this comment goes deeper into what was potentially found if you are interested https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548675)
https://nypost.com/2021/09/21/the-hunter-biden-laptop-is-con...
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/09/21/dou...
"Now, however, almost no one disputes [the laptop's] authenticity."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden...
- The DKIM hashes of the emails on the laptop were verified.
- The pictures on the laptop contain him in it doing various illicit activities.
- His business partner came out against him.
- He won't deny its inauthentic, he said it "could be".
- There's a video of him talking to a Russian prostitute saying they stole his laptop and he's worried it'll be used to blackmail his father who is running for President.
https://github.com/robertdavidgraham/hunter-dkim
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/hunterbiden/video-2479077/...
https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/hunter-biden-says-laptop-at-ce...
Censorship is part of existing as part of a society though. There are people who seek to actively hurt others using words and media, and the whole idea of a state is to (pretend?) to act in the common good. At this point the internet gives everyone a platform (look at us right now, there's a near 0% chance we would have ever spoken in physical real life) and makes a TON more noise that makes finding the signal harder, which means both sides can find plenty of examples of the other behaving badly to "whatabout" whenever someone points out their own bad behavior.
TL;dr- Everyone wants censorship, even if they pretend they don't, so let's not pretend it's actually either side. If anything, your point just proves that Dems/leftists might have more power in the US to influence these things, but that doesn't prove they have more desire to influence them than the right.
There is an extremely important difference between these two examples. The first was the government forcing school libraries to remove books.
The second is individuals expressing displeasure with the speech of another individual.
While both involve people who want to silence others. The former is a violation of free speech, while the later is an exercise of free speech.
Talk about fake news. Maus wasn't banned.
What news sources are you reading that tell you the government forced school libraries to remove Maus? You need to stop reading them, they are misleading you. Find better news sources.
I suspect that's exactly what Putin would say if he were challenged.
You need to elaborate more if you want to use hyperbole to make a point, otherwise it's just hyperbole. It exists on both sides of an argument.
What kind of an argument is this? The only common thread between the two is the word "banning".
Banning Joe Rogan is because he spreads misinformation about vaccines. He is causing lots of people to die, and the pandemic is longer because of it.
Banning a book about the holocaust prevents people learning about the atrocities of the past.
Because free speech is free speech, whether you agree with what was said or not.
Its factually true that people have had severe adverse reactions and died from the vaccine. He interviewed genuine credentialed experts like Dr. Robert Malone on the potential dangers of the Covid vaccine.
I am in favor of the Covid vaccine and disagree with Joe but he's allowed to express his dissenting opinions.
Podcasts are not medical advise and should not be treated as such.
I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".
That's quite different from "disagreement".
Notice how this works?
When a news source that is aligned with your political party gets it wrong "its ok" but when its a new source that is not aligned with your party its "spreading misinformation".
There is no objective standard for misinformation so trying to say disagreement and misinformation are not the same depends entirely on what is the issue being discussed. Any issue with ambiguity can be dismissed far too easily by just claiming it "misinformation".
There are reliable news outlets. Don't assume that just because an outlet has a political skew in the direction opposite from your preferred one that everyone you disagree with must watch and endorse it. That's a strawman.
Its a strawman that you are introducing by saying:
> I suspect what you mean by this is "outlets claiming to report 'news' but actually spreading misinformation".
> That's quite different from "disagreement".
I am pointing out that there is not a large difference between what you say is misinformation and disagreement. Many news outlets get things wrong and are guilty of allowing political bias to steer them towards saying things that are not true. You can't just call something misinformation because you disagree with it.
Nearly every news outlet in this country has gotten things wrong at some point and a tenuous definition of misinformation could be used to make them all look bad.
Citing something as "misinformation" is often a strawman argument and a word used to dismiss viewpoints people do not agree with on any issue that has some ambiguity, including the lab leak theory.
Later, the longer a root cause was not discovered, the more likely the theory became, and the less racist it became to speak about.