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

Poor Richard Saunders said:
Phoenyx said:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines disinformation as "Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation."

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

Take note of the fact that the AHD focuses on the fact that it is governments and their intelligence agencies who were first known for this type of thing. Now consider the fact that the U.S. government is gaining the power to throttle any ideas that run counter to the narratives that it spins.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. The US government is trying to prevent Russian disinformation from being spread on US social media.
Click to expand...

You seem to be quite the trusting soul when it comes to claims made by the U.S. government. Something for you to consider- might it be possible that the U.S. government might not be telling you the truth?
 
Nordberg said:
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/
Click to expand...

I can certainly agree with you that RT is a Russian owned and operated news outlet. Prior to the war in Ukraine, I wasn't reading it at all. Once the war started, so did my reading of it. The reason is simple- I like hearing to -both- sides of a story, and it's hard to get the Russian side of the story from western media outlets.
 
Phoenyx said:
I can certainly agree with you that RT is a Russian owned and operated news outlet. Prior to the war in Ukraine, I wasn't reading it at all. Once the war started, so did my reading of it. The reason is simple- I like hearing to -both- sides of a story, and it's hard to get the Russian side of the story from western media outlets.
Click to expand...

If you responded to one of my posts in the last hour or so, I missed it.....been busy.....it was not intentional.
 
Guille said:
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.
Click to expand...

Freedom of the press allows "twatter" to decide what is said on "twatter", just like FoxNews decides what is said on FoxNews. Can I take over FoxNews and decide what is said on that?

What makes the system work is there is more than just "twatter", and FoxNews. You are free to say on JPP that "twatter" sucks.
 
AProudLefty said:
Give an example of them "throttling" the truth.

I am aware that the concept of 'Ministry of Truth' came from 1984.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.

Which Party does it sound like?
Click to expand...

Sounds like this Christian Nation schizophrenia of Christiananality pedophilia problems in American politics utilizing it's Islamidiotocracy Mohammed pedophilia propaganda to remain way too dang lily brilliant white....
 
Phoenyx said:
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.
Click to expand...

I already did provide evidence when I refuted with specific points. It seems you can't even read what I wrote let alone do the work yourself.
That would point to you either being delusional or a Russian troll.
 
Phoenyx said:
Your problem is in assuming that your ideological opponent agrees with you that a given source is questionable.




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




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




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.
Click to expand...

I have no "ideological opponent".
 
Phoenyx said:
You seem to be quite the trusting soul when it comes to claims made by the U.S. government. Something for you to consider- might it be possible that the U.S. government might not be telling you the truth?
Click to expand...

I am using the definition of disinformation. Are you saying the definition you provided is not correct? Does Russia not have a government? Is the Russian government not "know for this type of thing?"

I am not the trusting one since I am not the one here relying on information that is from a government. RT provides information that the Russian government wants to put out. You are promoting a government's disinformation. Are you incapable of seeing the differences between the RT version and the Intercept version?
 
Phoenyx said:
I can certainly agree with you that RT is a Russian owned and operated news outlet. Prior to the war in Ukraine, I wasn't reading it at all. Once the war started, so did my reading of it. The reason is simple- I like hearing to -both- sides of a story, and it's hard to get the Russian side of the story from western media outlets.
Click to expand...

So you only started reading it after RT registered in the US as a foreign agent and admitted that they are controlled by the Russian government?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41991683
In the registration, Solodovnikov notes his firm's funding comes from TV Novosti, and admits the Russian government finances the organisation.
Click to expand...

https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-rt-america-funding/31427870.html
RT America Received More Than $100 Million In Russian Government Funding Since 2017, Filings Show
Click to expand...
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Hmmm. The US government is trying to prevent Russian disinformation from being spread on US social media. That would sound like a good thing unless you are a Russian troll. Your attempt to make this only about US disinformation makes me wonder if you are a Russian troll.

Please provide us one actual truth censored by the US government that was not done so for national security.


Because some on the far right attack small parts of DHS does not make the DHS widely condemned.
By pointing out and trying to get social media to block foreign disinformation the US is stifling free speech? I don't think you know what free speech is if that is going to be your argument.



Poor spelling is a rather large tell when it comes to recognizing foreign disinformation or online scams from Nigerian princes.

Gosh.. Are you saying RT used disinformation? or misinformation? No matter how you slice it, the 'fact' was not true. Either RT has very poor editors or they are providing you with disinformation from the Russian government.


But it still doesn't change the fact that RT is reporting as if all the documents were leaked. Classic disinformation put out by a foreign government. Include some truth but leave out other truth that would mitigate the impact. When reading the Intercept article it becomes clear that almost all the information comes from public documents.




LOL. If you followed US news you would have known about this months ago.


If you had followed the news you would have been aware of this months ago and you would have fallen for that disinformation then just as you do now.
Click to expand...

DHS is widely condemned for good reason, deep state liar fuckface.
:truestory:
 
AProudLefty said:
There is no such thing as 'Ministry of Truth' here in America.
Click to expand...

In the groove & on the move no doubt for the national religion of Islamidiotiocracy Mohammed pedophilia taking a schizoid mental break from Christiananality pedophilia of SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 as Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate fiefdom drug trafficking enforcement while dictating it's "one nation under God with equal justice under law" as under color of law dictates one wants to be a cop in the new & improved more perfect union of "serve the Pope or die" with Islam "death to the infidels" Islamidiotocracy as saving grace with political pseudoscience democracy demagoguery....
 
Phoenyx said:
Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Click to expand...

I mean that our abusers have a method....they push hard and relentlessly up to the point that they get a lot of resistance, then they back off slightly and wait a little bit, then they push hard again till they get a lot of resistance, and so on. Because people tend to be dumb and with short attention spans this generally works to get the WOKE what they want. They also lie constantly about what they are doing, keeping people confused as best they can, keeping people stupid. Few people ever learn, which is why America keeps getting worse.
 
Flash said:
Phoenyx said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Good points.

Flash said:
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
Click to expand...


Your article is good in terms of what Zuckerberg said in regards to the Hunter Biden laptop story, but it provides no evidence that the story couldn't have affected the election results.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
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.
Click to expand...

While it's true that just about anyone can create a blog online, there -are- qualified journalists on the internet, and there are some places where such qualified journalists congregate. I believe Scheerpost is a good example.

NiftyNiblick said:
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?
Click to expand...

I personally try to avoid insulting terms like that- furthermore, in the scale of intelligent life forms on earth, humans are pretty up on the scale. I think a better term would low information people, which I'm borrowing from the term "low information voters", which became a popular term back in the 1990s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_information_voter

The solution in my view is to do one's part to help inform people with solid evidence on important issues of the day.
 
Walt said:
There is something darn right Orwellian on RT claiming that America does not have freedom of communication.
Click to expand...

The RT article's main points were from the american publication The Intercept, which I retroactively linked to in the opening post. Had I realized that before starting this thread, I probably would have just sourced that article and all this discussion about RT wouldn't have even happened.

Walt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Being able to complain about censorship doesn't mean there isn't censorship.

Walt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I never claimed that there wasn't censorship in Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top