3 ms·

What bothers me is that there are very few things that are not propaganda. All Fox News article are propaganda, all CNN articles are propaganda, but yet they a

What bothers me is that there are very few things that are not propaganda. All Fox News article are propaganda, all CNN articles are propaganda, but yet they are accepted? Clearly a distinction is made between 'acceptable propaganda' and 'unacceptable propaganda', and this distinction is made by Facebook, an American company. How acceptable is that?

xupybd 7y ago
I think this may be it. America has a ban on trade with Iran. I wouldn’t be surprised if American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  That would be unconstitutional wouldn't it?
  - AaronFriel 7y ago
    Not a lawyer and would be interested to read a constitutional law journal on this. I think the answer hinges on where the speech is considered to be, and whether the speaker is an American. An Iranian national handing out leaflets in Washington, D.C. is protected speech by virtue of it occurring in the United States. An American national posting on the internet is protected from United States government orders to censor their speech, regardless of where they post it, by virtue of their nationality. Where it gets murky is: "Is an Iranian national posting on Facebook 'in America'? Does it depend on whether they make a comment in Iran or in the United States?" That's the sort of hypothetical that a court might be keen to sidestep entirely and instead ask, "Is it constitutional for the US to order a US company (Facebook) to engage in non-viewpoint neutral censorship?"
  - bcb1276 7y ago
    No. The constitution generally doesn’t restrict a private company like FB from imposing restrictions on speech
    - chrismcb 7y ago
      The content was"American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information." Meaning that the government requires the companies, which would be unconstitutional.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
I don't believe that Fox and CNN have political propaganda in the sense you might imply. Bias, narrative creating ... it's propaganda-like, but it's not the right word. Interestingly - almost all US outlets have a pretty strong 'nationalist bias'. We don't think of CNN or MSBC like that, but if you watch the press from outside the US (especially during a war) it becomes quite evident. When push comes to shove, the mainstream press in the US do work with government on some narrative issues of national security, which I think falls into the category of propaganda. Zuck has painted himself into an impossible corner.
- jnaddef 7y ago
  I 100% agree with you, so let me clarify what I was trying to say in my first comment. US will label as propaganda any article coming from RT - for Russia, or that Iranian journal - for Iran, and now FB starts simply censoring those contents. At the same time in Russia or Iran, news coming from US are labelled as propaganda as well. Depending on where you live, you get fed either one of these "propaganda" and you feel you are on the "good" side and that others are on the "bad" side. My point is the world is not divided between "good" and "bad", everything is not black or white, and the fact that a website with billions of users has the power to decide what is good or bad (or has the obligation to follow directives from a government) is a very bad idea imho.
  - sonnyblarney 7y ago
    Please don't put CNN/MSNBC/Fox in the same camp as RT, or Chinese state sponsored news. That's not fair. This is not a situation of moral relativity. CNN, even Fox, are actually very independent news outlets. Their news is news. (Especially the non-editorial stuff, is usually above bar) On some, mainly political issues, they are biased. On some national issues, they 'close ranks'. But they are not propaganda outlets. RT is absolutely propaganda outlet. RT is an organ of the Russian state, created specifically to promote Russian interest abroad, and to serve as a mouthpiece for the government, specifically Putin. Trump has friends in Fox News, but quite a number of haters; many popular folks there disagree with him quite loudly, a lot. Trump has no friends in most of the rest of the press, and there's no opportunity for him to set the agenda directly for example. RT was designed so that Putin could create the narrative he chooses, and to oppress any opposition to his regime, or the state. Even the BBC/CBC etc. have quite a degree of independence from state organs. They have obvious political leanings in many situations, and surely will work with the state on some issues, but they are in many ways 'more independant' because they don't have to survive on click-bait.
zachguo 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

xupybd 7y ago

I think this may be it. America has a ban on trade with Iran. I wouldn’t be surprised if American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
That would be unconstitutional wouldn't it?
- AaronFriel 7y ago
  Not a lawyer and would be interested to read a constitutional law journal on this. I think the answer hinges on where the speech is considered to be, and whether the speaker is an American. An Iranian national handing out leaflets in Washington, D.C. is protected speech by virtue of it occurring in the United States. An American national posting on the internet is protected from United States government orders to censor their speech, regardless of where they post it, by virtue of their nationality. Where it gets murky is: "Is an Iranian national posting on Facebook 'in America'? Does it depend on whether they make a comment in Iran or in the United States?" That's the sort of hypothetical that a court might be keen to sidestep entirely and instead ask, "Is it constitutional for the US to order a US company (Facebook) to engage in non-viewpoint neutral censorship?"
- bcb1276 7y ago
  No. The constitution generally doesn’t restrict a private company like FB from imposing restrictions on speech
  - chrismcb 7y ago
    The content was"American companies also are required to prevent them spreading information." Meaning that the government requires the companies, which would be unconstitutional.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

I don't believe that Fox and CNN have political propaganda in the sense you might imply. Bias, narrative creating ... it's propaganda-like, but it's not the right word. Interestingly - almost all US outlets have a pretty strong 'nationalist bias'. We don't think of CNN or MSBC like that, but if you watch the press from outside the US (especially during a war) it becomes quite evident. When push comes to shove, the mainstream press in the US do work with government on some narrative issues of national security, which I think falls into the category of propaganda. Zuck has painted himself into an impossible corner.

jnaddef 7y ago
I 100% agree with you, so let me clarify what I was trying to say in my first comment. US will label as propaganda any article coming from RT - for Russia, or that Iranian journal - for Iran, and now FB starts simply censoring those contents. At the same time in Russia or Iran, news coming from US are labelled as propaganda as well. Depending on where you live, you get fed either one of these "propaganda" and you feel you are on the "good" side and that others are on the "bad" side. My point is the world is not divided between "good" and "bad", everything is not black or white, and the fact that a website with billions of users has the power to decide what is good or bad (or has the obligation to follow directives from a government) is a very bad idea imho.
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  Please don't put CNN/MSNBC/Fox in the same camp as RT, or Chinese state sponsored news. That's not fair. This is not a situation of moral relativity. CNN, even Fox, are actually very independent news outlets. Their news is news. (Especially the non-editorial stuff, is usually above bar) On some, mainly political issues, they are biased. On some national issues, they 'close ranks'. But they are not propaganda outlets. RT is absolutely propaganda outlet. RT is an organ of the Russian state, created specifically to promote Russian interest abroad, and to serve as a mouthpiece for the government, specifically Putin. Trump has friends in Fox News, but quite a number of haters; many popular folks there disagree with him quite loudly, a lot. Trump has no friends in most of the rest of the press, and there's no opportunity for him to set the agenda directly for example. RT was designed so that Putin could create the narrative he chooses, and to oppress any opposition to his regime, or the state. Even the BBC/CBC etc. have quite a degree of independence from state organs. They have obvious political leanings in many situations, and surely will work with the state on some issues, but they are in many ways 'more independant' because they don't have to survive on click-bait.

zachguo 7y ago

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