9 ms·

You are assuming that the regular media is the default, the truth, and that propaganda didn’t exist prior to 2016. Read Manufacturing Consent for a brief overvi

You are assuming that the regular media is the default, the truth, and that propaganda didn’t exist prior to 2016. Read Manufacturing Consent for a brief overview of this history of widespread weaponization of information by innumerable actors. Weaponized misinformation has existed as long as human speech has existed. What is new is the democratization of it, hence the establishment’s hostility.

hackyhacky 6y ago
This is the kinds of "both-sides-ism" that gives centrists a bad reputation. You're basically saying: "everyone uses media to achieve their goals, therefore all sides are equally bad." No. Using misinformation to intentionally disrupt a democratic election is demonstrably dangerous to society. Say what you will about the "establishment," but traditional media still bear some semblance of the truth. Now we're seeing that anyone with enough money and Twitter followers and completely ignore the truth. We have to draw the line somewhere.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  I’m not a centrist and none of my points are making any centrist arguments. Using misinformation to intentionally disrupt a democratic election is demonstrably dangerous to society. And you think this is the first time in the history of American democracy that actors used misinformation to influence an election? Again, this is not a new phenomenon whatsoever. All that’s new is that more people have access to the technology, which makes the previous gatekeepers nervous.
  - andrei_says_ 6y ago
    I hope this is not an argument for giving powerful weaponized mass disinformation tools to more people, including foreign governments and other actors actively seeking to polarize society to the point of inciting conflict and dismantling democracy. Yes, removing this type of speech from YouTube may be an imperfect / stopgap solution. What are some better alternatives?
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      I’m not arguing for that, but it might actually be an indirect solution. By forcing everyone to deal with it, skepticism will grow and new solutions toward treating information and the media will arise. As an example, I think a similar situation will happen with deepfakes. Once it becomes widely known that it’s easy to fake video, people will become more skeptical of it.
      - foepys 6y ago
        > skepticism will grow and new solutions toward treating information and the media will arise And you are willing to sacrifice democracy for just the chance of this happening?
        ceilingcorner 6y ago
        This rhetoric makes no sense to me. People are already subject to incomprehensible levels of propaganda from every angle and have been for over a century. When and where was there a perfect democracy?
        foepys 6y ago
        For traditional publishing there is at least one person that is ultimately responsible for publishing it. The person is in the vast majority of cases subject to the same jurisdiction. On YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. I can push my agenda worldwide. Russia, China, Iran, and other non-democracies can make insane amounts of propaganda for very cheap to reach millions of people. The engagement algorithms even help the propagandists reach their target audience effectively. The algorithms help then widen the audience automatically through shares of their supporters and further engagement.
        samoa42 6y ago
        seems youtube is blocked in china and iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago
  I don’t like the word bothsidesism because it implies that in reality only one side is the bad actor. That is a massive implication considering how casually it’s thrown around. Moreover, it’s used like an accusation. Accusing people of acknowledging that things probably aren’t black and white. Full on groupthink.
  - pii 6y ago
    Black and white ;) It's more like 80% / 20%. The disparity is huge, documented, and factual.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      How are you objectively going to document misinformation? How are you even going to assign weights? Voter fraud is 100 points for Trump, the Hunter story is 50 points for the Dems, etc..? The thing is that if you ask side X they’ll say it’s 80/20 for side Y and vice versa. Neither should be so confident that they’re right. And pointing that out is now called bothsidesism. The lengths people go to to avoid cognitive dissonance is beyond ridiculous.
  - hackyhacky 6y ago
    Not all bad actors are equally bad. Hillary wasn't perfect. People didn't like her, and we got Trump. The Weimar Republic was corrupt and ineffective. The Third Reich was corrupt and extremely effective. Democracy is the history of choosing the least bad. If you consider all bads to be the same, you are not a responsible voter.
    - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
      > Democracy is the history of choosing the least bad. Ok, so bothsidesism is justified since you acknowledge both sides are bad? > If you consider all bads to be the same, you are not a responsible voter. It’s a strawman to claim both sides are exactly the same level of bad. That’s not what GP was saying.
  - MrMan 6y ago
- samdlathsworth 6y ago
  The Democrats ran maybe the biggest misinformation campaign in my lifetime following the 2016 election. Massive turmoil and investigations later, it was all found to be false. What is this about “sides” again?
  - ModernMech 6y ago
    Mueller found Russia attacked the 2016 election and the Senate Intel Committee report found that Trump’s campaign manager was feeding internal campaign data to a Russian Intel Officer. Roger Stone was caught and convicted for lying to Congress about communications with Julian Assange, and the whole lot of them including Trump lied to the American people about hundreds of contacts with Russian nationals (some of whom turned out to be spies and Intel officers).
  - Can_Not 6y ago
    The investigations that lead to convictions were entirely fabricated?
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      No American on the Trump side was indicted of anything actually related to "Russiagate", but for unrelated procedural crimes discovered during the investigation. (You know the saying that everyone wittingly or unwittingly commits three crimes a day?) Several Russian agents were indicted for Russiagate-related things; Putin will turn his goons over to US custody any day now! Then we have people like Carter Page, whose name was raked over the coals for years because a FBI lawyer intentionally altered evidence (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report-russia-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report...) showing that far from being a Russian asset, Page had for years briefed the CIA every time he met with suspicious Russians. (Got to love how the Times describes said altering evidence as a "serious error".) You want an actual Russiagate-related indictment and guilty plea? Kevin Clinesmith, said FBI lawyer, is your man.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections ICA 2017-01D 6 January 2017 Key Judgments Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. ... https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
- EricE 6y ago
  "traditional media still bear some semblance of the truth." Seriously? Four years of "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA" and it turns out that the same people knew before they started peddling that narrative that it was (and still is) at its core a smear campaign cooked up by the Clintons. Hunter Biden - completely buried before the election, now all of the sudden that the election is over the media is "breaking" this important story? I could go on but I'm sure if it didn't fit your preconceived notions of what the "truth" is you'd be too busy drawing your lines.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Hunter Biden - completely buried before the election, now all of the sudden that the election is over the media is "breaking" this important story? The allegations were well covered before the election. The new story that they are covering now is the announcement by DoJ of the ongoing investigation. The media didn't suppress that before the election, Bill Barr did, doing a surprising simulation (given his past conduct) of professionalism in observing historical Justice norms around elections on that point.
viraptor 6y ago
Other kind of media having issues does not disprove the comment you're responding to. You're also assuming some opinions at the beginning which we haven't seen in the parent's comment. Things don't have to be black or white - it doesn't have to be democratisation vs establishment. There's way more nuance here. Including platform protecting its existence in case they fail so badly at filtering content that they get regulated by... establishment.
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>Weaponized misinformation has existed as long as human speech has existed. What is new is the democratization of it, hence the establishment’s hostility. Beautifully put. Better get ahead of it lest the proles gain class consciousness and use it against us.
- hackyhacky 6y ago
  I'm sure you mean that sarcastically, but you shouldn't. It's fun to complain about "the establishment," until it isn't there anymore. In the current case, "the establishment" means American democracy, which is built on people's faith in the institution of elections. If you erode that faith, democracy no longer works. That may be fine with you, but it's not fine with me.
  - nomel 6y ago
    Then why base it on faith? Make it impossible to vote multiple times/places, or as someone else. Invalidate registration [6] for , and immediately flag when, a dead person tries to vote. Make it so you can instantaneously see that your vote was entered and confirm it to help with the anomaly detection. I think this is what everyone wants, and I think it would appease many worries. Unfortunately, this would almost certainly require voter ID, which has mixed popularity, and a reporting system, which requires tech, which the governments lowest bidder mentality appears to be wholly incapable of. Additionally, harden these electronic voting machines, which have had constant press about their vulnerable for the last two decades [1][2][3][4]. Open source the software stack. Even simple, human, steps like each person puts a provided penny into the machine, so counts can be correlated, would be an improvement and add a real world aspect that people could personally understand, over the counter in memory that has no traceability. The thing that I find most frustrating part about all of this is the perspective. Rather than silencing talk about fraud, hoping it will go away, we should tackle the reality of it and ask why people distrust the voting system, and find real world solutions, to increase that trust. The fact that every election before this one ended with sensational headlines of examples of voter fraud, but this year it's journalistic silence and social taboo, probably doesn't help (as insignificant as those previous stories were). [1] 2018: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabilities-of-our-voting-machines/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabiliti... [2] 2015: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-votin... [3] 2010: https://www.texastribune.org/2010/10/22/e-voting-suit-reveals-frailties-of-the-ballot-box/ https://www.texastribune.org/2010/10/22/e-voting-suit-reveal... [4] 2004: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/technology/security-poor-in-electronic-voting-machines-study-warns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/technology/security-poor-... [5] https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-steal-election-12824.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-steal-election-12824.h...
aww_dang 6y ago
>Weaponized misinformation has existed as long as human speech has existed Agreed. The poster above invokes the special pleading fallacy. >What is new is the democratization of it, hence the establishment’s hostility. There's a historical precedent for this in creation of moveable type printing presses.
- DangitBobby 6y ago
  You have invoked the fallacy fallacy. Unfortunately, special pleading is only a fallacy if something isn't actually different from the thing it's being compared to. So I disagree fundamentally that it's special pleading. The hostility is not just from establishment, it's from normal people like me, GP, and millions of other Americans that feel like we're taking crazy pills because of all the stupid shit people now inexplicably believe due to weaponized misinformation at a scale never before seen.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    "Weaponized information" can mean everything from partisan hyperbole to observations that don't mesh with one's biases. Addicts everywhere repeat the phrase, "this time is different". What makes it special pleading is the lack of evidence or even a reasoned argument supporting this assertion.
    - DangitBobby 6y ago
      Kinda just seems like you haven't been listening.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        You are cordially invited to qualify why "this time is different" and how speech or as you put it "weaponized misinformation", is equivalent to violence. Defend the assertion with a reasoned argument. Otherwise, it is simply special pleading.
        6y ago
dredmorbius 6y ago
Manufacturing an argument the other party didn't make, ("You are assuming that the regular media is the default, the truth"), and choosing to rebut that strawman then their actual key point ("It's about combating weaponized misinformation"), is disengenuous in the extreme. The weapons now are bigger, faster, have greater reach, higher fidelity, multimedia appeal, vastly more intelligence and data, can be tuned in realtime, and delivered with precisionnto higly selected audiences completely under the public radar. All of which "Weaponized misinformation has existed as long as human speech has existed" utterly ignores.
- CuriouslyC 6y ago
  People have been killing each other and themselves for the supremacy of fairy tales since the beginning of time, but please tell me how getting someone to believe a conspiracy theory and vote "badly" is somehow a society-breaking new invention.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Scale. Anonymity. Impunity. Rate. Effectiveness.
camillomiller 6y ago
The problem is that now we have weapons of mass information distraction.
- lenkite 6y ago
  I agree - you can't trust the main stream media anymore. Always verify their reports by yourself. They are careful about directly lying - but twisting and omitting information is something they are genius at.

hackyhacky 6y ago

This is the kinds of "both-sides-ism" that gives centrists a bad reputation. You're basically saying: "everyone uses media to achieve their goals, therefore all sides are equally bad." No. Using misinformation to intentionally disrupt a democratic election is demonstrably dangerous to society. Say what you will about the "establishment," but traditional media still bear some semblance of the truth. Now we're seeing that anyone with enough money and Twitter followers and completely ignore the truth. We have to draw the line somewhere.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I’m not a centrist and none of my points are making any centrist arguments. Using misinformation to intentionally disrupt a democratic election is demonstrably dangerous to society. And you think this is the first time in the history of American democracy that actors used misinformation to influence an election? Again, this is not a new phenomenon whatsoever. All that’s new is that more people have access to the technology, which makes the previous gatekeepers nervous.
- andrei_says_ 6y ago
  I hope this is not an argument for giving powerful weaponized mass disinformation tools to more people, including foreign governments and other actors actively seeking to polarize society to the point of inciting conflict and dismantling democracy. Yes, removing this type of speech from YouTube may be an imperfect / stopgap solution. What are some better alternatives?
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    I’m not arguing for that, but it might actually be an indirect solution. By forcing everyone to deal with it, skepticism will grow and new solutions toward treating information and the media will arise. As an example, I think a similar situation will happen with deepfakes. Once it becomes widely known that it’s easy to fake video, people will become more skeptical of it.
    - foepys 6y ago
      > skepticism will grow and new solutions toward treating information and the media will arise And you are willing to sacrifice democracy for just the chance of this happening?
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        This rhetoric makes no sense to me. People are already subject to incomprehensible levels of propaganda from every angle and have been for over a century. When and where was there a perfect democracy?
        foepys 6y ago
        For traditional publishing there is at least one person that is ultimately responsible for publishing it. The person is in the vast majority of cases subject to the same jurisdiction. On YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. I can push my agenda worldwide. Russia, China, Iran, and other non-democracies can make insane amounts of propaganda for very cheap to reach millions of people. The engagement algorithms even help the propagandists reach their target audience effectively. The algorithms help then widen the audience automatically through shares of their supporters and further engagement.
        samoa42 6y ago
        seems youtube is blocked in china and iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_YouTube
read_if_gay_ 6y ago
I don’t like the word bothsidesism because it implies that in reality only one side is the bad actor. That is a massive implication considering how casually it’s thrown around. Moreover, it’s used like an accusation. Accusing people of acknowledging that things probably aren’t black and white. Full on groupthink.
- pii 6y ago
  Black and white ;) It's more like 80% / 20%. The disparity is huge, documented, and factual.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    How are you objectively going to document misinformation? How are you even going to assign weights? Voter fraud is 100 points for Trump, the Hunter story is 50 points for the Dems, etc..? The thing is that if you ask side X they’ll say it’s 80/20 for side Y and vice versa. Neither should be so confident that they’re right. And pointing that out is now called bothsidesism. The lengths people go to to avoid cognitive dissonance is beyond ridiculous.
- hackyhacky 6y ago
  Not all bad actors are equally bad. Hillary wasn't perfect. People didn't like her, and we got Trump. The Weimar Republic was corrupt and ineffective. The Third Reich was corrupt and extremely effective. Democracy is the history of choosing the least bad. If you consider all bads to be the same, you are not a responsible voter.
  - read_if_gay_ 6y ago
    > Democracy is the history of choosing the least bad. Ok, so bothsidesism is justified since you acknowledge both sides are bad? > If you consider all bads to be the same, you are not a responsible voter. It’s a strawman to claim both sides are exactly the same level of bad. That’s not what GP was saying.
- MrMan 6y ago
samdlathsworth 6y ago
The Democrats ran maybe the biggest misinformation campaign in my lifetime following the 2016 election. Massive turmoil and investigations later, it was all found to be false. What is this about “sides” again?
- ModernMech 6y ago
  Mueller found Russia attacked the 2016 election and the Senate Intel Committee report found that Trump’s campaign manager was feeding internal campaign data to a Russian Intel Officer. Roger Stone was caught and convicted for lying to Congress about communications with Julian Assange, and the whole lot of them including Trump lied to the American people about hundreds of contacts with Russian nationals (some of whom turned out to be spies and Intel officers).
- Can_Not 6y ago
  The investigations that lead to convictions were entirely fabricated?
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    No American on the Trump side was indicted of anything actually related to "Russiagate", but for unrelated procedural crimes discovered during the investigation. (You know the saying that everyone wittingly or unwittingly commits three crimes a day?) Several Russian agents were indicted for Russiagate-related things; Putin will turn his goons over to US custody any day now! Then we have people like Carter Page, whose name was raked over the coals for years because a FBI lawyer intentionally altered evidence (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report-russia-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-ig-report...) showing that far from being a Russian asset, Page had for years briefed the CIA every time he met with suspicious Russians. (Got to love how the Times describes said altering evidence as a "serious error".) You want an actual Russiagate-related indictment and guilty plea? Kevin Clinesmith, said FBI lawyer, is your man.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections ICA 2017-01D 6 January 2017 Key Judgments Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations. We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments. ... https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf
EricE 6y ago
"traditional media still bear some semblance of the truth." Seriously? Four years of "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA" and it turns out that the same people knew before they started peddling that narrative that it was (and still is) at its core a smear campaign cooked up by the Clintons. Hunter Biden - completely buried before the election, now all of the sudden that the election is over the media is "breaking" this important story? I could go on but I'm sure if it didn't fit your preconceived notions of what the "truth" is you'd be too busy drawing your lines.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Hunter Biden - completely buried before the election, now all of the sudden that the election is over the media is "breaking" this important story? The allegations were well covered before the election. The new story that they are covering now is the announcement by DoJ of the ongoing investigation. The media didn't suppress that before the election, Bill Barr did, doing a surprising simulation (given his past conduct) of professionalism in observing historical Justice norms around elections on that point.

viraptor 6y ago

Other kind of media having issues does not disprove the comment you're responding to. You're also assuming some opinions at the beginning which we haven't seen in the parent's comment. Things don't have to be black or white - it doesn't have to be democratisation vs establishment. There's way more nuance here. Including platform protecting its existence in case they fail so badly at filtering content that they get regulated by... establishment.

cmdshiftf4 6y ago

>Weaponized misinformation has existed as long as human speech has existed. What is new is the democratization of it, hence the establishment’s hostility. Beautifully put. Better get ahead of it lest the proles gain class consciousness and use it against us.

hackyhacky 6y ago
I'm sure you mean that sarcastically, but you shouldn't. It's fun to complain about "the establishment," until it isn't there anymore. In the current case, "the establishment" means American democracy, which is built on people's faith in the institution of elections. If you erode that faith, democracy no longer works. That may be fine with you, but it's not fine with me.
- nomel 6y ago
  Then why base it on faith? Make it impossible to vote multiple times/places, or as someone else. Invalidate registration [6] for , and immediately flag when, a dead person tries to vote. Make it so you can instantaneously see that your vote was entered and confirm it to help with the anomaly detection. I think this is what everyone wants, and I think it would appease many worries. Unfortunately, this would almost certainly require voter ID, which has mixed popularity, and a reporting system, which requires tech, which the governments lowest bidder mentality appears to be wholly incapable of. Additionally, harden these electronic voting machines, which have had constant press about their vulnerable for the last two decades [1][2][3][4]. Open source the software stack. Even simple, human, steps like each person puts a provided penny into the machine, so counts can be correlated, would be an improvement and add a real world aspect that people could personally understand, over the counter in memory that has no traceability. The thing that I find most frustrating part about all of this is the perspective. Rather than silencing talk about fraud, hoping it will go away, we should tackle the reality of it and ask why people distrust the voting system, and find real world solutions, to increase that trust. The fact that every election before this one ended with sensational headlines of examples of voter fraud, but this year it's journalistic silence and social taboo, probably doesn't help (as insignificant as those previous stories were). [1] 2018: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabilities-of-our-voting-machines/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-vulnerabiliti... [2] 2015: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-voting-machine-so-easy-to-hack-it-will-take-your-breath-away/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/meet-the-e-votin... [3] 2010: https://www.texastribune.org/2010/10/22/e-voting-suit-reveals-frailties-of-the-ballot-box/ https://www.texastribune.org/2010/10/22/e-voting-suit-reveal... [4] 2004: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/technology/security-poor-in-electronic-voting-machines-study-warns.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/29/technology/security-poor-... [5] https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-steal-election-12824.html https://www.city-journal.org/html/how-steal-election-12824.h...

aww_dang 6y ago

>Weaponized misinformation has existed as long as human speech has existed Agreed. The poster above invokes the special pleading fallacy. >What is new is the democratization of it, hence the establishment’s hostility. There's a historical precedent for this in creation of moveable type printing presses.

DangitBobby 6y ago
You have invoked the fallacy fallacy. Unfortunately, special pleading is only a fallacy if something isn't actually different from the thing it's being compared to. So I disagree fundamentally that it's special pleading. The hostility is not just from establishment, it's from normal people like me, GP, and millions of other Americans that feel like we're taking crazy pills because of all the stupid shit people now inexplicably believe due to weaponized misinformation at a scale never before seen.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  "Weaponized information" can mean everything from partisan hyperbole to observations that don't mesh with one's biases. Addicts everywhere repeat the phrase, "this time is different". What makes it special pleading is the lack of evidence or even a reasoned argument supporting this assertion.
  - DangitBobby 6y ago
    Kinda just seems like you haven't been listening.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      You are cordially invited to qualify why "this time is different" and how speech or as you put it "weaponized misinformation", is equivalent to violence. Defend the assertion with a reasoned argument. Otherwise, it is simply special pleading.
      - 6y ago

dredmorbius 6y ago

Manufacturing an argument the other party didn't make, ("You are assuming that the regular media is the default, the truth"), and choosing to rebut that strawman then their actual key point ("It's about combating weaponized misinformation"), is disengenuous in the extreme. The weapons now are bigger, faster, have greater reach, higher fidelity, multimedia appeal, vastly more intelligence and data, can be tuned in realtime, and delivered with precisionnto higly selected audiences completely under the public radar. All of which "Weaponized misinformation has existed as long as human speech has existed" utterly ignores.

CuriouslyC 6y ago
People have been killing each other and themselves for the supremacy of fairy tales since the beginning of time, but please tell me how getting someone to believe a conspiracy theory and vote "badly" is somehow a society-breaking new invention.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Scale. Anonymity. Impunity. Rate. Effectiveness.

camillomiller 6y ago

The problem is that now we have weapons of mass information distraction.

lenkite 6y ago
I agree - you can't trust the main stream media anymore. Always verify their reports by yourself. They are careful about directly lying - but twisting and omitting information is something they are genius at.