6 ms·

> In US a convicted pedophile with own pedo-island, and connections all over the elites, media and government disappears from the prison cell in a dubious suici

by ferzul 6y ago

> In US a convicted pedophile with own pedo-island, and connections all over the elites, media and government disappears from the prison cell in a dubious suicide where all cameras stopped working and many other "coincidences" happened and not much happens about it. i know what you're talking about tho. pretty much, this means the topic is well discussed and not subject to censorship.

spockz 6y ago
That is exactly the parent’s point. Controlling the narrative is way more effective than brutal deletion of a subject for censuring purposes.
- int_19h 6y ago
  I don't see any signs of that narrative being successfully controlled. In fact, I've yet to see any discussion where "didn't kill himself" didn't manifest immediately.
  - TillE 6y ago
    And what does all that talk amount to, exactly? It's a cute little "conspiracy theory" for the masses to play with, nobody in power is threatened in the slightest. In many ways it's self-neutered by turning that phrase into a mindless meme. The soft censorship means we've seen effectively zero mainstream investigation into any of the glaringly obvious questions.
    - hutzlibu 6y ago
      And "conspiracy theory" in general today means: pothead crazy garbage, as if politics isn't a histories of small and big conspiracies. No need to censor any truth anymore, if it simply does not reach anyone because it is burried in a huge pile of garbage information, most people have not the time sorting it through.any
      - majewsky 6y ago
        "Conspiracy theory" is set equal to "pothead crazy garbage" because 99% of conspiracy theories are just that. An instance of Sturgeon's Law, if you will.
    - int_19h 6y ago
      What you're saying is that it doesn't matter that information does get around and everybody knows, because we can't do anything about it. That's not "soft censorship", though - that's lack of the need to censor, because the population can be kept in check even while informed.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    > I've yet to see any discussion Discussions isn't the point though. Articles in big newspapers and TV stations, not forum chitchat.
rsynnott 6y ago
While I'm not sure that Epstein is the best example, US media has certainly been known to indulge in fairly dramatic soft self-censorship. I actually think this is less common than it used to be; the internet breaks it a bit. A notable case was the unraveling of the whole Iraq WMD story, and especially the yellowcake affair. I suspect that this was notable precisely because well-informed Americans could see BBC et al covering it via the internet while the US media largely ignored it, though; pre-internet cases of media self-censorship would have been far less visible. In an environment where the Guardian, Daily Mail and various other foreign papers have massive US market penetration via the internet, this sort of thing is probably way less useful; media self-censorship will only be useful for the section of the population who get their news solely from TV (or where the entire global media colludes to censor something, but that seems far less likely).
- javagram 6y ago
  > A notable case was the unraveling of the whole Iraq WMD story, and especially the yellowcake affair. This was major news in the US in my recollection. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-fin... is about the yellowcake. A pro-war pundit then outed Wilson’s spouse as a CIA employee and there was a widely publicized special counsel investigation into the matter of the outing that was discussed a lot at the time. So I don’t really understand the idea that the US media as a whole was self-censoring this...
Udik 6y ago
BTW, did anyone hear anything more about those Israeli cellphone-spying devices that were discovered all around the White House? :) https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...

by ferzul 6y ago

spockz 6y ago

That is exactly the parent’s point. Controlling the narrative is way more effective than brutal deletion of a subject for censuring purposes.

int_19h 6y ago
I don't see any signs of that narrative being successfully controlled. In fact, I've yet to see any discussion where "didn't kill himself" didn't manifest immediately.
- TillE 6y ago
  And what does all that talk amount to, exactly? It's a cute little "conspiracy theory" for the masses to play with, nobody in power is threatened in the slightest. In many ways it's self-neutered by turning that phrase into a mindless meme. The soft censorship means we've seen effectively zero mainstream investigation into any of the glaringly obvious questions.
  - hutzlibu 6y ago
    And "conspiracy theory" in general today means: pothead crazy garbage, as if politics isn't a histories of small and big conspiracies. No need to censor any truth anymore, if it simply does not reach anyone because it is burried in a huge pile of garbage information, most people have not the time sorting it through.any
    - majewsky 6y ago
      "Conspiracy theory" is set equal to "pothead crazy garbage" because 99% of conspiracy theories are just that. An instance of Sturgeon's Law, if you will.
  - int_19h 6y ago
    What you're saying is that it doesn't matter that information does get around and everybody knows, because we can't do anything about it. That's not "soft censorship", though - that's lack of the need to censor, because the population can be kept in check even while informed.
- Dahoon 6y ago
  > I've yet to see any discussion Discussions isn't the point though. Articles in big newspapers and TV stations, not forum chitchat.

rsynnott 6y ago

While I'm not sure that Epstein is the best example, US media has certainly been known to indulge in fairly dramatic soft self-censorship. I actually think this is less common than it used to be; the internet breaks it a bit. A notable case was the unraveling of the whole Iraq WMD story, and especially the yellowcake affair. I suspect that this was notable precisely because well-informed Americans could see BBC et al covering it via the internet while the US media largely ignored it, though; pre-internet cases of media self-censorship would have been far less visible. In an environment where the Guardian, Daily Mail and various other foreign papers have massive US market penetration via the internet, this sort of thing is probably way less useful; media self-censorship will only be useful for the section of the population who get their news solely from TV (or where the entire global media colludes to censor something, but that seems far less likely).

javagram 6y ago
> A notable case was the unraveling of the whole Iraq WMD story, and especially the yellowcake affair. This was major news in the US in my recollection. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-find-in-africa.html https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/what-i-didn-t-fin... is about the yellowcake. A pro-war pundit then outed Wilson’s spouse as a CIA employee and there was a widely publicized special counsel investigation into the matter of the outing that was discussed a lot at the time. So I don’t really understand the idea that the US media as a whole was self-censoring this...

Udik 6y ago

BTW, did anyone hear anything more about those Israeli cellphone-spying devices that were discovered all around the White House? :) https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house-spying-devices-1491351 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...