4 ms·

You... do realise that this article says that George Soros really IS funding Facebook's critics, right? > Color of Change is a not-for-profit civil rights orga

You... do realise that this article says that George Soros really IS funding Facebook's critics, right? > Color of Change is a not-for-profit civil rights organization. It receives some money from Soros It's remarkably bold to suggest that every "conspiracy theory" about Soros is nonsense in response to an article that explicitly says that the claims his critics made about him were true.

jandrese 8y ago
Soros donated some amount to a PAC that advocates for minority rights, and this means he hates Facebook. Got it. I'm sure he's in their offices every week telling them how to attack Zuckerburg. He is definitely not a fan of the way social media turns people's lives into a product to be sold on the open market, but that doesn't mean you can ignore criticism of said social media companies. But the narrative that Facebook's PR firm is pushing is that you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings. It's a dog whistle.
- XCabbage 8y ago
  > he hates Facebook > he's in their offices every week telling them how to attack Zuckerburg > you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings I didn't say any of these things, nor does this Guardian article quote Facebook or their PR company as having ever, at any point in history, said anything that even implies a single one of these positions. Either you have some other source, in which case I invite you to share it, or you are criticizing a perspective entirely of your own invention. > advocates for minority rights > social media turns people's lives into a product to be sold on the open market None of this has anything to do with my comment.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    What's the conspiracy theory then?
    - XCabbage 8y ago
      That George Soros funded critics of Facebook. Or at least, that's what I interpreted the parent comment that I originally replied to as characterizing as a "conspiracy theory". I didn't see what else it could mean given that that (according to the article, true) claim is literally the only claim about Soros that the article says Facebook's PR company made.

jandrese 8y ago

Soros donated some amount to a PAC that advocates for minority rights, and this means he hates Facebook. Got it. I'm sure he's in their offices every week telling them how to attack Zuckerburg. He is definitely not a fan of the way social media turns people's lives into a product to be sold on the open market, but that doesn't mean you can ignore criticism of said social media companies. But the narrative that Facebook's PR firm is pushing is that you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings. It's a dog whistle.

XCabbage 8y ago
> he hates Facebook > he's in their offices every week telling them how to attack Zuckerburg > you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings I didn't say any of these things, nor does this Guardian article quote Facebook or their PR company as having ever, at any point in history, said anything that even implies a single one of these positions. Either you have some other source, in which case I invite you to share it, or you are criticizing a perspective entirely of your own invention. > advocates for minority rights > social media turns people's lives into a product to be sold on the open market None of this has anything to do with my comment.
- jandrese 8y ago
  What's the conspiracy theory then?
  - XCabbage 8y ago
    That George Soros funded critics of Facebook. Or at least, that's what I interpreted the parent comment that I originally replied to as characterizing as a "conspiracy theory". I didn't see what else it could mean given that that (according to the article, true) claim is literally the only claim about Soros that the article says Facebook's PR company made.