4 ms·

That's some very untrustworthy language used there. The article expresses lots of allegations, doubts and negative opinions, but never mentions the big brother

by effie 11y ago

That's some very untrustworthy language used there. The article expresses lots of allegations, doubts and negative opinions, but never mentions the big brother surveillance, the point of what Snowden did and the immense value for society of it. Even if some published documents were harmful to US government, it is not Snowden who published them. The article reads more like a manipulative government propaganda than like a balanced text written by a genuine journalist.

ikeboy 11y ago
> never mentions the big brother surveillance That's false. >immense value for society of it The question we're addressing here is not "Did Snowden do good things?" The question is whether he is a hero, and the fact that he did bad things is relevant. You could argue that he did more good than bad, and I might even agree; but doing more good than bad doesn't make someone a hero. the data-mining program that slurps up e-mail and phone data of American citizens >Even if some published documents were harmful to US government, it is not Snowden who published them. He gave them to journalists that published them. How is it not his fault?
- effie 11y ago
  You're right, the article mentions it. But it does not do a good job at that, it does not paint things in proportion. The big brother surveillance and recording of everybody in US is euphemised as "domestic surveillance program" and "data-mining program". The focus of the article is on slandering Snowden. "The question we're addressing here is not "Did Snowden do good things?" The question is whether he is a hero, and the fact that he did bad things is relevant." The article, as some groups do, tries to turn people from thinking and talking about the important things such as the big brother surveillance and questioning government to various irrelevant issues, such as "isn't he a traitor". They try to mislead your attention astray. Don't let them; think for yourself.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    If you don't think the question of whether he's a traitor is relevant, then don't worry about that question. I originally posted this link because people were debating that question. You said "slandering". That generally implies untruth, but the only thing you've really pointed to is non proportionality, which is kind of weird (does every article need to include every single fact at all relevant to the case? Presumably not, but then on what basis can you call something disproportionate?)
    - effie 11y ago
      "If you don't think the question of whether he's a traitor is relevant, then don't worry about that question." No way. This question is an irrelevant issue with which the propaganda machine confuses people and derails the actual discussion about broken government they want to have. And that is why I'm worrying about this question here. "but then on what basis can you call something disproportionate?" I call the article disproportionate, misleading and low-quality based on reading it and remembering other accounts of things.

by effie 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago

> never mentions the big brother surveillance That's false. >immense value for society of it The question we're addressing here is not "Did Snowden do good things?" The question is whether he is a hero, and the fact that he did bad things is relevant. You could argue that he did more good than bad, and I might even agree; but doing more good than bad doesn't make someone a hero. the data-mining program that slurps up e-mail and phone data of American citizens >Even if some published documents were harmful to US government, it is not Snowden who published them. He gave them to journalists that published them. How is it not his fault?

effie 11y ago
You're right, the article mentions it. But it does not do a good job at that, it does not paint things in proportion. The big brother surveillance and recording of everybody in US is euphemised as "domestic surveillance program" and "data-mining program". The focus of the article is on slandering Snowden. "The question we're addressing here is not "Did Snowden do good things?" The question is whether he is a hero, and the fact that he did bad things is relevant." The article, as some groups do, tries to turn people from thinking and talking about the important things such as the big brother surveillance and questioning government to various irrelevant issues, such as "isn't he a traitor". They try to mislead your attention astray. Don't let them; think for yourself.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If you don't think the question of whether he's a traitor is relevant, then don't worry about that question. I originally posted this link because people were debating that question. You said "slandering". That generally implies untruth, but the only thing you've really pointed to is non proportionality, which is kind of weird (does every article need to include every single fact at all relevant to the case? Presumably not, but then on what basis can you call something disproportionate?)
  - effie 11y ago
    "If you don't think the question of whether he's a traitor is relevant, then don't worry about that question." No way. This question is an irrelevant issue with which the propaganda machine confuses people and derails the actual discussion about broken government they want to have. And that is why I'm worrying about this question here. "but then on what basis can you call something disproportionate?" I call the article disproportionate, misleading and low-quality based on reading it and remembering other accounts of things.