America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Truck Fump / h1b]

treason.


or

forgiveness.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

it was not russian disinformation. that's the disinformation.

Disinformation Governance Board was too "on the nose". everyone saw that.

When you spread bullshit do we call it AssHatinformation?

 

[Nordberg]

RT is a far-right, Russian-owned source. With a war going on, it speaks through Putin. https://www.thefactual.com/blog/is-rt-a-reliable-news-source/

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

When you spread bullshit do we call it AssHatinformation?

it's still bullshit.

 

[Scott]

What I'm hoping for is that the U.S. and NATO don't push Russia to what might be called a point of no return. I made a thread on all of this here if you're interested:
Will Our War-for-Profit System Lead to Nuclear Annihilation? | justplainpolitics.com

What I’m hoping for is that NATO pushes Russia to a negotiated peace.

NATO, and the U.S. in particular, is the party that pushed Russia's buttons for 8 years, finally provoking Russia to start its military operation in Ukraine. There are articles on this, such as this one:

Ukraine: The Mess that Victoria Nuland Made | Consortium News

 

[Scott]

You rightys have been harping incessantly about a laptop.

For starters, I'm generally not a "righty". Not everyone on the left is happy with the way the Hunter Biden laptop story was censored. Glen Greenwald is a good example:

Bernie Sanders Supporter Glenn Greenwald: “US Media Colluding To Quash Hunter Biden Laptop-Email Scandal”……. | tundratabloids.com

If you had a scintilla of evidence that wrongdoing happened, it would have blanketed the news.

Apparently you missed the part about censorship.

 

[Scott]

I don't know if Homeland Security played a part in it, but the FBI was definitely involved in censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story, according to Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg:

Zuckerberg says Facebook censored The Post’s Hunter Biden stories because FBI warned of Russian misinfo ‘dump’ | New York Post

Zuckerberg may have lacked the guts to tell the FBI to hit the road, but it certainly was available on many other sources including the NY Post which broke the story.

This makes it sound like the FBI was seeking to keep the story quiet, but we got several other stories on the laptop which were supposedly leaked by the FBI since they possessed it.

The FBI did more than just try to keep the story quiet, they lied about it being Russian misinfo. From the conversation that Zuckerberg had with Joe Rogan, it would appear that Facebook was far too trusting of the FBI. As to other leaks, I have read that those who had it before the FBI made a complete copy of the laptop's contents before handing it over to them, so it may be that they continued to leak information from it.

 

[Scott]

My contempt for social media makes it impossible for me to understand how ANYBODY takes the drivel thereon the slightest bit seriously.

Anybody can write anything on those apps.

If that were truly the case, the U.S. government wouldn't working so hard to censor content on it.

At least the people on legit media have journalism degrees.

Having a journalism degree doesn't mean that a story will be well researched or even honest. Conversely, not having one doesn't mean that the story has to be shoddy. Furthermore, there are plenty of people with journalism degrees who have been shunned by the mainstream media for not towing the party line.

Read the fucking New York Times and watch MSNBC if you need reliable information.

You actually believe that those sources can be trusted? Don't get me wrong, I currently have a discount subscription to the New York Times myself, but to trust it would be foolish. Patrick Lawrence, who has written for the New York Times himself, regularly lampoons it. Here's an article of him doing so from November 6th:

Patrick Lawrence: Why Is The New York Times Still Hyping ‘Russiagate’? | Scheerpost

 

[Flash]

The FBI did more than just try to keep the story quiet, they lied about it being Russian misinfo. From the conversation that Zuckerberg had with Joe Rogan, it would appear that Facebook was far too trusting of the FBI. As to other leaks, I have read that those who had it before the FBI made a complete copy of the laptop's contents before handing it over to them, so it may be that they continued to leak information from it.

Zuckerberg said the FBI did not warn him specifically about the laptop story, but that based on Russian disinformation in the 2016 election there was to be another similar dump of information. Zuckerberg said the laptop story seemed to fit the pattern and chose to take it down.

The other news sources did not carry the story at the time because the NY Post had access to information nobody else had. The laptop was given to them by Rudy Giuliani which was not exactly a reliable source. When the other new agencies had a chance to examine the laptop they concluded the emails were real.

I think the idea that it would affected the election results is based on pure partisan speculation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532

 

[NiftyNiblick]

If the legit media is unreliable, the totally wild-west-replicating internet is worse than unreliable.
Totally devoid of qualified journalists, it's nothing but nonsense, and on that, you can indeed rely.
The internet is a populist universe; any idiot can bloviate on it, and so many do.

I don't think that it needs regulation.
Intelligent people already know that it's shit, and stupid people are already stupid with or without it.

That, in fact, is our real problem as a nation.
How did we end up with so many stupid fucking people?

 

[Walt]

Found an article I found quite interesting on RT that was published yesterday detailing the rebranding of the U.S.'s "Disinformation Governance Board" into the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA for short. An excerpt from RT's article is below...

There is something darn right Orwellian on RT claiming that America does not have freedom of communication. First off, being free to say America is totalitarian just proves that America is not totalitarian. You are free to complain all you want about the censorship, because there is not censorship.

But let's look at Russia, whose government produces RT. In Russia, people are going to prison for years for just holding up Tolstoy's book War and Peace. It is illegal even to say Russia is in a war, or to use the word "war" in public, even in reference to a 150 year old book.

 

[Lightbringer]

There is something darn right Orwellian on RT claiming that America does not have freedom of communication. First off, being free to say America is totalitarian just proves that America is not totalitarian. You are free to complain all you want about the censorship, because there is not censorship.

But let's look at Russia, whose government produces RT. In Russia, people are going to prison for years for just holding up Tolstoy's book War and Peace. It is illegal even to say Russia is in a war, or to use the word "war" in public, even in reference to a 150 year old book.

There is censorship Walty and you know it.

 

[Walt]

There is censorship Walty and you know it.

Is there? If I do not want to say something, is that censorship, or is that freedom of communication? In fact, can we really have freedom of communication, if we do not have the right to not say something.

 

[Lightbringer]

Is there? If I do not want to say something, is that censorship, or is that freedom of communication? In fact, can we really have freedom of communication, if we do not have the right to not say something.

What you want doesn't matter. If I want to say that the covid "vaccines" aren't really vaccines on twatter...can I?

 

[Walt]

What you want doesn't matter.

What I want does matter. If you get to tell me what I say, whatever I want, I am being censored.

If I want to say that the covid "vaccines" aren't really vaccines on twatter...can I?

If I want to break into your house and tell you about how it is called Twitter, can I? No, but it is not censorship. You can limit the statements in your house, and it is not censorship.

 

[Lightbringer]

What I want does matter. If you get to tell me what I say, whatever I want, I am being censored.



If I want to break into your house and tell you about how it is called Twitter, can I? No, but it is not censorship. You can limit the statements in your house, and it is not censorship.

Can I say it on twatter Walty? Oh and btw Salty we now know that the backend on twatter,a dn all other social media, is government run so...take your free market argument and shove it up your ass.

 

[Scott]

Its well past time for you to educate yourself on how the Revolution operates.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

 

[Scott]

Believe what? That rejecting the questionable sources is what kills the discussion?

Your flaw is in your second sentence here- it brooks no possibility that others would disagree with your assessment on the questionability of a given source.

There is nothing wrong with asking for a better source.

Your problem is in assuming that your ideological opponent agrees with you that a given source is questionable.

I strongly suspect that you have sources that I wouldn't trust as well. If we all insulted each other's sources, instead of why we disagree with them, I doubt much productive discussion would happen.

I always fact check every article. If a source is known to be questionable and has a high chance of falsehoods and misinformation, I will not use it and seek a better source that is factual and accurate.

You seem to be assuming that your ideological opponents would agree with you that your fact checking is flawless.

The BBC in the UK, NPR in the U.S. and the CBC in Canada are all "state controlled" as well. I certainly believe this gives them certain biases, but that doesn't mean they don't have good information as well. You just have to be wary of their potential bias.

False.

What precisely do you believe is false in my quote above?

RT has regularly been described as a major propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy. Academics, fact-checkers, and news reporters (including some current and former RT reporters) have identified RT as a purveyor of disinformation and conspiracy theories. UK media regulator Ofcom has repeatedly found RT to have breached its rules on impartiality, including multiple instances in which RT broadcast "materially misleading" content.

None of this gets into any specific allegations, making it impossible to determine whether these claims have any validity.

You can read a list of the RT articles that are misleading or full of disinformation.. You can confirm it yourself.

What you're doing above is what I like to call asking your ideological opponent to do your homework for you. You are the one making the claim that Wikipedia's statement is true. It's up to you to show evidence for your claim.

 

[Scott]

So there was no insult. That is settled.

That made me chuckle. You seem to be implying that if an insult wasn't directed at me personally, it's not an insult.

That isn't what I have suggested at all. It was YOU who claimed it was an insult. An insult is suppose to affect a person's feelings.

The American Heritage Dictionary, via wordnik, makes no mention of insults needing to affect a person's feelings. Here is their definition:
**
intransitive verb To treat with gross insensitivity, insolence, or contemptuous rudeness. synonym: offend.
intransitive verb To affront or demean.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/insult

By saying that my sources were "shit", you were definitely insulting my sources (and by sources I mean people and publications created by people), and also insulting my ability to discern whether a source was good, all without providing any evidence for your claim that my sources weren't good. Instead of that, if you'd started by explaining why you thought my sources weren't good from the start, we could have skipped this discussion.

I do not prefer to have to waste my time trying to dismantle an obvious questionable article.

Again, you seem to be assuming that an ideological opponent would agree with your take on the questionability of an article without providing evidence for your claim.

 

[Scott]

Assuming the article is also published in Russian, I wouldn't know, as I don't speak Russian. As to a better source, that'd be a judgement call, but RT's article links to an article in its very first sentence that seems to be RT's main source:

Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation | The Intercept. Perhaps if I'd included the link in said sentence, it could have avoided your query. I've now added the link in the opening post.

While I have only briefly glanced at this article, I can say right off the bat that I like the title of RT's article much better as it makes it clear that Biden's "Disinformation Governance Board" never really went away, it just changed its name.

Read the Intercept article and then make a list of the differences between that and the RT article. You will find many omissions and exaggerations that show that the RT piece is propaganda.

As I just told A Proud Lefty, what you're doing right now is what I call 'asking your ideological opponent to make your case for you'. You are the one making the claim that the RT piece is propaganda. As such, the burden of evidence falls on you, not me. This is an online forum, you can ofcourse refuse to provide any evidence. But that would affect your credibility, not mine.