7 ms·

Tech companies are deleting evidence of war crimes and everything else at the behest of media companies like the atlantic. Youtube, facebook, reddit, google se

Tech companies are deleting evidence of war crimes and everything else at the behest of media companies like the atlantic. Youtube, facebook, reddit, google search, etc have all been targeted by the atlantic, nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, etc and bullied into scrubbing content and direct their users to "authoritative sources". Ironically enough, in china, russia and most countries, "authoritative sources" are state propaganda organs. But we are different or so I'm told. Our "authoritative sources" are independent news organizations who strangely enough push the same message with the same talking points. What a coincidence. For "independent" "news" organizations, they sure are united in the same message. This censorship has been going on for at least 5 years now. Maybe the atlantic journalists should investigate their editors as to why the atlantic has supported censorship? Or maybe the atlantic journalists should start investigating nytimes, washingtonpost, cnn, etc. Why so many government/intelligence agency people are working in media. Why so many children of politicians ( Bushes, Clintons, McCains, Cuomos, etc ) have prominent positions in the media? Or is the atlantic only interested in war crime evidence that suit their agenda ( pushing for war in syria, venezuela, etc )? This article is so weird. It's like an arsonist setting a house on fire and telling everyone that the house is on fire.

candiodari 7y ago
> Tech companies are deleting evidence of war crimes and everything else at the behest of media companies like the atlantic. Don't underestimate governments forcing these companies to hide evidence of their own misdeeds. Even governments that you wouldn't traditionally think of as abusive. Take for yourself what a realistic number is for police abuse and then how much gets filmed and uploaded. Then search on Youtube. Clearly, someone's asking for removals in the US. Same for Europe. I doubt very much it's the Atlantic doing that.
brightball 7y ago
Stuff like this is why I still see value in own encyclopedias, history books, etc. I simply don't trust resources that can be edited/deleted at any time.
- dorfsmay 7y ago
  This is exactly why archive.org was created. They actually referenced Orwell's 1984 changing history theme when they created it. Note that archive.org is run on donation, and people often overlooked it's importance and need for funds.
navigatesol 7y ago
>Or is the atlantic only interested in war crime evidence that suit their agenda ( pushing for war in syria, venezuela, etc )? I'm with you 90% of the way, but I don't understand this argument. It's like Hilary's emails or WikiLeaks; "But it came from hackers!" Who cares, if it reveals legitimate criminal activity. There's no equivalency.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  It is the selective condemnation that makes it highly suspicious and contextual matters. It isn't like hacking where if someone surfaces evidence of say fraud they are automatically guilty regardless of others. War crimes for one can be far more "transactional" and horrific with two sides. Side A is shooting surrendering soldiers! Now censor the false surrender killings of side B that prompted this. Or Side C arming child soldiers and teaching them to shoot invaders until they stop moving - except it happened after Side D started waging no holds barred genocide and horrifically arming children was /the right thing to do/ lacking other alternatives. Censor Side D's atrocities as "inappropriate" content and Side C trying to survive now looks villainous instead of the desperate and unseemly but technically moral move it is.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  It's like trusting all the evidence presented by the prosecutor during a court case. Yes, likely none of that is faked or outright lies, but until you give the defense a chance to respond it shouldn't be trusted as accurate representation. If we wouldn't trust the evidence from a prosecutor by itself, why would we trust evidence from an entity fulfilling the same role in the court of public opinion?
  - dillonmckay 7y ago
    The rules of evidence are different for the court of public opinion. Take the OJ Simpson criminal trial, for instance. ...or the Lori Loughlin college bribery and money-laundering scandal. ...or the Aaron Swartz travesty.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
iaarn 7y ago
>Why so many government/intelligence agency people are working in media. Why so many children of politicians ( Bushes, Clintons, McCains, Cuomos, etc ) have prominent positions in the media? Do you know what race also has prominent positions in the media?
52-6F-62 7y ago
What exactly are you claiming is being censored? The media regularly investigates and reports on itself. The press is far from perfect, but you’re alleging a vast and deep conspiracy when reality is likely far simpler: The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Sales and business have little impact on editorial. Editorial flies by the whims of a wide variety of strong personalities. Politicians and relevant players get columnist and editorial roles because of their inside status and insight (of whatever level of quality that might be). Suggesting those outlets produce a single unified perspective or ideology is a bit much. Which would explain why you might see contradictory ideas. I continually stress media literacy as crucial-especially these days. It’s not a mystery to be solved. Most of is pretty straight forward hum drum. Edited to add: The Atlantic is a very different machine from WP or NYT. It’s magazine whose content has been analysis and ideas and always has been. Their work will always have perspective woven into their articles. It’s not new to them. But it’s not a conspiracy, it’s part of their business model.
- jtr1 7y ago
  These do not have to be mutually exclusive accounts. There does not have to be a secret cabal of shadowy deep state operatives pushing a unified message, there just needs to be a propensity for the rich and well-connected (by definition a small group) to find their way into positions of influence in rough proximity to major media outlets. As you've said: Politicians and relevant players get columnist and editorial roles because of their status and insight. It's not difficult to see that wealth, status, and connection are self-compounding. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that many people in this group hold views that are out of step with the majority of Americans, particularly when you are talking about the pro-military intervention crowd.
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Granted, but what’s being implied and not said outright is that those people are somehow influencing entire organizations of strong-willed career professionals and not just given their own post to say what they want alongside the rest. I’m asserting the latter is usually what’s happening. Over the past 100 years there have been many times where North American governments have attempted to rule over the press. That never went well for them (save the inception of Fox News). OP seemed to suggest the large number of contradictory articles was the result of a larger unified conspiracy. I’m suggesting that is highly unlikely. For what it’s worth- people don’t get into working for the media because it pays really well. Not usually anyway. So in that way I’d rule out wealth as a primary motivating factor to sacrificing one’s principles in that business.
sbenitoj 7y ago
Great post, I think you’d get a lot out of reading this old blog post on Unqualified Reservations — Is journalism official? https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/is-journalism-official/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/is-journali...
- losteric 7y ago
  I was curious who could write so well with such poor reasoning... unsurprisingly, it's a world-famous mental gymnast: > Yarvin, attacking the accepted "World War II mythology" in a speech to the 2012 BIL Conference, claimed that Hitler’s invasions were forgivable acts of self-defense, and that this historical fact was suppressed by America’s ruling communists, who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists." "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia." > > Yarvin's opinions have been described as racist, with his writings interpreted as supportive of slavery, including the belief that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons. Yarvin himself maintains that he is a racist because he doubts that "all races are equally smart," and supports the notion "that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings". He also describes himself as being an "outspoken advocate for slavery", and has argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others.
  - sbenitoj 7y ago
    All I can suggest is to think for yourself, read his long format writings and make up your own mind. Don’t just read what people write about him.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
unethical_ban 7y ago
This is entirely in your mind until you put some evidence to it, you know, like journalists tend to do.

candiodari 7y ago

> Tech companies are deleting evidence of war crimes and everything else at the behest of media companies like the atlantic. Don't underestimate governments forcing these companies to hide evidence of their own misdeeds. Even governments that you wouldn't traditionally think of as abusive. Take for yourself what a realistic number is for police abuse and then how much gets filmed and uploaded. Then search on Youtube. Clearly, someone's asking for removals in the US. Same for Europe. I doubt very much it's the Atlantic doing that.

brightball 7y ago

Stuff like this is why I still see value in own encyclopedias, history books, etc. I simply don't trust resources that can be edited/deleted at any time.

dorfsmay 7y ago
This is exactly why archive.org was created. They actually referenced Orwell's 1984 changing history theme when they created it. Note that archive.org is run on donation, and people often overlooked it's importance and need for funds.

navigatesol 7y ago

>Or is the atlantic only interested in war crime evidence that suit their agenda ( pushing for war in syria, venezuela, etc )? I'm with you 90% of the way, but I don't understand this argument. It's like Hilary's emails or WikiLeaks; "But it came from hackers!" Who cares, if it reveals legitimate criminal activity. There's no equivalency.

Nasrudith 7y ago
It is the selective condemnation that makes it highly suspicious and contextual matters. It isn't like hacking where if someone surfaces evidence of say fraud they are automatically guilty regardless of others. War crimes for one can be far more "transactional" and horrific with two sides. Side A is shooting surrendering soldiers! Now censor the false surrender killings of side B that prompted this. Or Side C arming child soldiers and teaching them to shoot invaders until they stop moving - except it happened after Side D started waging no holds barred genocide and horrifically arming children was /the right thing to do/ lacking other alternatives. Censor Side D's atrocities as "inappropriate" content and Side C trying to survive now looks villainous instead of the desperate and unseemly but technically moral move it is.
SkyBelow 7y ago
It's like trusting all the evidence presented by the prosecutor during a court case. Yes, likely none of that is faked or outright lies, but until you give the defense a chance to respond it shouldn't be trusted as accurate representation. If we wouldn't trust the evidence from a prosecutor by itself, why would we trust evidence from an entity fulfilling the same role in the court of public opinion?
- dillonmckay 7y ago
  The rules of evidence are different for the court of public opinion. Take the OJ Simpson criminal trial, for instance. ...or the Lori Loughlin college bribery and money-laundering scandal. ...or the Aaron Swartz travesty.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

iaarn 7y ago

>Why so many government/intelligence agency people are working in media. Why so many children of politicians ( Bushes, Clintons, McCains, Cuomos, etc ) have prominent positions in the media? Do you know what race also has prominent positions in the media?

52-6F-62 7y ago

What exactly are you claiming is being censored? The media regularly investigates and reports on itself. The press is far from perfect, but you’re alleging a vast and deep conspiracy when reality is likely far simpler: The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Sales and business have little impact on editorial. Editorial flies by the whims of a wide variety of strong personalities. Politicians and relevant players get columnist and editorial roles because of their inside status and insight (of whatever level of quality that might be). Suggesting those outlets produce a single unified perspective or ideology is a bit much. Which would explain why you might see contradictory ideas. I continually stress media literacy as crucial-especially these days. It’s not a mystery to be solved. Most of is pretty straight forward hum drum. Edited to add: The Atlantic is a very different machine from WP or NYT. It’s magazine whose content has been analysis and ideas and always has been. Their work will always have perspective woven into their articles. It’s not new to them. But it’s not a conspiracy, it’s part of their business model.

jtr1 7y ago
These do not have to be mutually exclusive accounts. There does not have to be a secret cabal of shadowy deep state operatives pushing a unified message, there just needs to be a propensity for the rich and well-connected (by definition a small group) to find their way into positions of influence in rough proximity to major media outlets. As you've said: Politicians and relevant players get columnist and editorial roles because of their status and insight. It's not difficult to see that wealth, status, and connection are self-compounding. I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that many people in this group hold views that are out of step with the majority of Americans, particularly when you are talking about the pro-military intervention crowd.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Granted, but what’s being implied and not said outright is that those people are somehow influencing entire organizations of strong-willed career professionals and not just given their own post to say what they want alongside the rest. I’m asserting the latter is usually what’s happening. Over the past 100 years there have been many times where North American governments have attempted to rule over the press. That never went well for them (save the inception of Fox News). OP seemed to suggest the large number of contradictory articles was the result of a larger unified conspiracy. I’m suggesting that is highly unlikely. For what it’s worth- people don’t get into working for the media because it pays really well. Not usually anyway. So in that way I’d rule out wealth as a primary motivating factor to sacrificing one’s principles in that business.

sbenitoj 7y ago

Great post, I think you’d get a lot out of reading this old blog post on Unqualified Reservations — Is journalism official? https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/is-journalism-official/ https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/09/is-journali...

losteric 7y ago
I was curious who could write so well with such poor reasoning... unsurprisingly, it's a world-famous mental gymnast: > Yarvin, attacking the accepted "World War II mythology" in a speech to the 2012 BIL Conference, claimed that Hitler’s invasions were forgivable acts of self-defense, and that this historical fact was suppressed by America’s ruling communists, who invented political correctness as an "extremely elaborate mechanism for persecuting racists and fascists." "If Americans want to change their government," he said, "they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia." > > Yarvin's opinions have been described as racist, with his writings interpreted as supportive of slavery, including the belief that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons. Yarvin himself maintains that he is a racist because he doubts that "all races are equally smart," and supports the notion "that people who score higher on IQ tests are in some sense superior human beings". He also describes himself as being an "outspoken advocate for slavery", and has argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others.
- sbenitoj 7y ago
  All I can suggest is to think for yourself, read his long format writings and make up your own mind. Don’t just read what people write about him.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

unethical_ban 7y ago

This is entirely in your mind until you put some evidence to it, you know, like journalists tend to do.