Fake News After Mueller
- This topic has 6 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Raphael The school of Athens 1509-11 Allow me to start with a question: Has anyone seen any of the main newspapers and networks who went after
[See the full post at: Fake News After Mueller]The “handlers” have got to be vigilante and make sure that their patient does not go off his meds.
NOW!
The border is not going to close.Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) disagreed, stating on February 4 on CBS’s Face the Nation: “I actually don’t think [the memo] has any impact on the Russia probe.” He went on to say:
There is a Russia investigation without a dossier. So to the extent the memo deals with the dossier and the FISA process, the dossier has nothing to do with the meeting at Trump Tower. The dossier has nothing to do with an email sent by Cambridge Analytica. The dossier really has nothing to do with George Papadopoulos’ meeting in Great Britain. It also doesn’t have anything to do with obstruction of justice. So there’s going to be a Russia probe, even without a dossier
Concerning Wikipedia… In today’s world one must choose their sources of information wisely, and with a healthy dose of skepticism. There once was a time when Wikipedia could be used as a jumping off point while exploring a particular topic. Those days are gone!!
I discovered a few years ago that the online encyclopedia has already been “compromised”, one of the many casualties in the establishment’s war over narrative control. In subjects I already had extensive knowledge in, I found entries with outright false and misleading information. Don’t trust it!
“Is it working? “Are we changing minds?”
Prettymuch says it all in their own words. A) They feel their primary job is NOT to be a platform, NOT to allow people to speak and connect with each other. No, that’s an afterthought – just look at their user interface experience. Their job is to push, create, manufacture, whatever those who pay them want them too. Happiness, sadness, outrage, public opinion, or as Chomsky would add, consent. Changing minds.
That’s important because B) that means they are NOT a platform, by their own admission. If they are editing content and changing minds, they are a publisher, like a newspaper. And while that’s not a BAD thing, we all know they’re doing it, legally IF they do it, IF they turn people on, shut them off, choose which information is shown, then they are liable for libel, fraud, and so on. Not just when they feel like it, but with every post of every user. A perfect and instant death sentence.
…But they can’t have it both ways, as they have, even in their own court cases, either you are a platform, a soapbox with virtually no interference, or you are a publisher and have to get the facts straight or else.
Why everyone plays patty cake with this nonsense is beyond me. Sue them to the next galaxy and throw them to the winds, but the only thing you don’t want is the government regulating, indemnifying, and deciding what speech is permissible, for the citizens.
Is Jay Hanson somebody we might know?
After libel and slander, against a sitting president; is it any wonder these classless, rude, gutter dwelling snipes fail to even consider an apology?
And its only taken 70 years to achieve these historic lows in manners…
Where does one go when passing the bottom in freefall?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.