4 ms·
Of course the FCC didn't pay for it, they just looked the other way while it happened. There's just enough separation that people like you can make the argument
by calibas 7y ago
Of course the FCC didn't pay for it, they just looked the other way while it happened. There's just enough separation that people like you can make the argument that it's technically not "psyops".
The FCC is complicit in the whole damned thing, so the result is the same and the industry got it's way. We can argue semantics though...
- WillPostForFood 7y agoFCC didn't plant it, didn't pay for it, didn't orchestrate it, so not really complicit. The worst you can say is they didn't do enough to stop it because it was supporting what they wanted. Guilty of confirmation bias, certainly. Psyops? no.
- calibas 7y ago"it was supporting what they wanted" Yeah, because the FCC and "Broadband for America" are only separate in theory. When you have the industry controlling the FCC to this point, the only difference between psyops and marketing is who's footing the bill. You're technically right base upon a very literal definition of psyops, but missing the whole point.
- calibas 7y agoIf you look the other way while someone commits a crime, especially when you're a regulatory agency, that makes you a criminal. That makes you complicit, you're helping the criminals get away with it. To me, you're acting like a jaw-dropping level of corruption is somehow excusable, perhaps because it's "normal"?