Not me yet. < It won't be long yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah... till you ...>
Re: a bloggers post deemed False by Instagram (Facebook owned) a post that repeats the claims that
Kamala Harris and Cory Booker accused Joe Biden of during the Democratic Debates.
My desire is not to go back and make anyone look again at Biden's bill back in the past.... almost all of us want to move forward and I am fine with that and I hope Joe lives long and prospers and finds a way
of actually uniting us.. even just a little bit. Not wishing to go back but knowing that we have to stand up against the Control of the Truth via internet powers... now backed up by the freshly restored Security State now with the leadership that won't dare question their opinion of who is friend or foe.
As President Obama told CIA Director Panetta 'What the CIA wants, the CIA gets!'
From the latest Glenn Greenwald post greenwald@substack.com
Go ahead Glenn!
".........This episode demonstrates two crucial facts. The first is that what is so often passed off as quasi-scientific, opinion-free “fact-checking” are instead extremely tendentious, subjective and highly debatable opinions. That’s how Instagram can cherry-pick the conclusions of USA Today and treat it as if it is Gospel even though numerous other outlets, mainstream politicians in Biden’s own party, and criminal justice experts reached a radically different conclusion. “Fact-checking” in theory has journalistic value, but it is often nothing more than a branding tactic for media outlets to disguise their highly subjective pronouncements as unchallengeable Truth.
The second, more important point is that Silicon Valley giants lack any competency to determine the truth or falsity of political claims even when they act with the best of motives. Who at Instagram decided to rely on the USA Today claims while ignoring all the conflicting conclusions from other outlets and experts, and who decided how to apply that conclusion to the post at issue? And why did USA Today randomly decide to subject an anti-Biden meme about his crime bill from the account of a relatively obscure, anonymous Trump supporter but ignore similar statements coming from Senators Harris and Booker and Bill Clinton, thus handing Instagram an excuse to label any similar views as “False” and without “any basis”? Why are tech companies trying officiate political debates this way?
Recall that the censorship of Twitter and Facebook of The New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop was based at least in part on the claim that the documents were the by-product of hacking and “Russian disinformation” — claims that have “no basis in fact.” As Matt Taibbi put it last week when warning of the dangers of YouTube’s decision to ban from its platform any questioning of the legitimacy of the 2020 election while still allowing similar questioning of the 2016 election: “There’s no such thing as a technocratic approach to truth. There are official truths, but those are political rather than scientific determinations, and therefore almost always wrong on some level.”
In the meantime John Brennan spoke to a Los Angeles Times audience last night. (CIA man for 20 years, Director of CIA under Obama, 'It's not torture', 'drones are precise', ... an Undaunted enemy of our enemies abroad and domestic'.... the next biggest threat to the USA 'bad actors' on the internet.
We are in for the next level of' 'interesting'. It will be easier for those who get their news from 'Everybody knows', the angry memes condemning bad People. .... backed up by our undaunted, loyal, watching out for you on your behalf and behalf of Liberal Democracies and their allies across the Planet, your security state.
No comments:
Post a Comment