7 ms·

It should be noted that the US has the same double standards, but enforced by silicon valley corps themselves in union. Moral of the story: Power currupts.

fabiospampinato 6y ago
I'd say more like: power matters, words on paper not so much.
golondon 6y ago
It's not the same thing. As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. Of course, you can come up with one off examples of ML models screwing things up but it's not the intention while developing those models. Turkish government's intention here is getting content that criticise them removed, by asking to representative in Turkey who by the way must be a Turkish citizen, not just a person from any nationality who can speak Turkish. So that, they can apply Turkish law to this person if they would like to. If Youtube doesn't remove the content, possibly as they did with TV they are going to fine them. I don't see this model working for long time and expecting most of the companies to pull their representatives soon, if they open the door of every country getting content removed however they like, I'm sure there will be other countries who would want that and it would be terrible for freedom of speech.
- mancerayder 6y ago
  >As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. That's both optimistic and naive given that TOS can change at any time, and interpretation aren't subject to appeal with a transparent process.
  - golondon 6y ago
    Yes, it can change any time and you can follow what's changed. It's also open to appeal to the company and I have seen mistakes corrected. My point is there is no secret agenda to bring up a content that supports one view. What Turkish gov wants to achieve is that, taking down the content they don't like. They have taken over all mainstream TV channels and you wouldn't see a line of critic on any channel, if you do it's quite likely you will not be invited to debate next time.
    - itsthefnlacctdn 6y ago
      Were you alive end of December 2020? >My point is there is no secret agenda to bring up a content that supports one view. US senators just pressed youtube to delete all 'election fraud' videos. I dno how thats supporting all viewpoints. Please update your hidden agenda talking points with your crew kthx
    - merth 6y ago
      clearly you never watch TV in turkey. there are critics everyday on very political TV programmes. and usually they try to get a representative from each political party to make it as fair as possible. except HDP, which has substential ties with terror organisations and very bad reputation in turkey. west think there is blockade against anti-government political fractions but in reality there is blockade against western puppets. that's drives western countries crazy due to not have any soft power on turkey.
      - mancerayder 6y ago
        It's also the American conception of free speech, which culturally differs from most countries. In the US, if a private company censors arbitrarily, it's still freedom of speech because you're still allowed to build your own competing business, and anyway it's your fault for agreeing to the legal terms and conditions. Even if it's a monopoly, Americans view freedom as something only governments remove.
- pythonslask 6y ago
  At least Google has openly admitted to censoring political content of various political perspectives. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html
- itsthefnlacctdn 6y ago
  Hye dang I wonder if In still shadow banned ?. Anyways thisbusers memory is shorter than the election terms and thats worrying. Youtube just purged its site from videos that show non-violent US poll shenanigans (but it could lead to an insurrection omergerd). How is only Turkey doing this? It got the example from our congresscritters which pressured youtube in removing content they didnt deem safe.. Go astroturf somewhere else you lowlife
- antibuddy 6y ago
  > ... Of course, you can come up with one off examples of ML models screwing things up but it's not the intention while developing those models. The part with "in union" is not really explained by ML models. These de-platforming actions are done manually and apparently one-sided. Just for fun you can look up why Trump was banned on Twitter and see Khamenei's worst tweets from months prior, that were still up a week ago or so (nevermind him being banned). You find tons of those examples. Also the TOS does not matter.
  - golondon 6y ago
    Most of the time it might not be not just what you write but what that means in the context and which actions it triggers.
    - antibuddy 6y ago
      That kicks you off platforms you barely use? It's manually done. Don't hide behind "the machine did it"; it doesn't make sense.
      - golondon 6y ago
        I didn't say machines banned trump, I said evaluation of his tweets was in a context, not just what's written.
        antibuddy 6y ago
        Just wanna point out, that he was not only banned on Twitter. It didn't make sense there, but on Youtube, Twitch, Shopify etc, it's just stupid and not covered by any of your excuses.
- nlitened 6y ago
  > As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. If I remember correctly, a lot of violence and multiple revolutions happened with the help of Twitter and YouTube all over the world. As long as violence is not in the US, it does not count, I suppose. That was probably what GP meant by saying "double standards".
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    There is both good violence and bad violence. Blanket rules don't exist, despite our wish they did.
    - nlitened 6y ago
      Bad violence is against me and people I like, good violence is against people who I don't like — am I right?
      - TameAntelope 6y ago
        The alternative, that all oppressed people just have to accept their oppression is even more intolerable, IMO.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        It’s funny how these arguments always go the same way. X Group is horrible because they did Y action, but if I do Y action it’s fine, because I’m with the good guys.
  - golondon 6y ago
    I would agree with this. Various world leaders did 10x of what Trump did on Twitter, but since it wasn’t in the US no actions were taken.
- vbezhenar 6y ago
  I read Twitter's reasoning for banning Trump. Basically they banned him for tweets: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” I don't see any violence in those tweets and I don't understand what kind of person could classify those tweets as a violent ones. I guess only kind of person who wanted to ban him for anything.
  - daemoon 6y ago
    Yeah, it just doesn't make sense. When I blatantly ignore all of his tweets claiming Biden lost, he won the election and that massive election fraud took place, I just can't understand why they would ban him!
- rajivjain 6y ago
  Terms of service cannot supersede local laws. If Twitter wants to do business in a country, they need to comply. Twitter can choose to give up ad revenue and reach. Turkish government may have bad motive. However, democratic governments around the world can and should regulate social media in their countries per the local laws.
  - golondon 6y ago
    So, all social media companies must have representative in all countries that allow local govs to remove any content? Or get all of their info such as IP address? Where is the line here? If I live in US and Tweet in Turkish, if Turkish gov ask for removal of that content should it be removed? Or should companies be required to share information about this user? If I write that in another language, that local gov don't like, does it give Turkish gov right to get that removed?
    - mrtksn 6y ago
      For Turkey, the limit is 1M daily users from Turkey. If you are beyond this limit, you are required to have a representative or the bandwidth limitations are applied and fines start to accumulate. If you don’t intend to do business in Turkey, you just go on with your business and loose that market. Oh, btw, it’s likely that they will request global content removal. If I recall correctly Youtube or Wikipedia was blocked for years because of this.
    - rtx 6y ago
      That's how it works in most other trades. They can go to WTO if they find it against its policies.
    - throwawy2021 6y ago
      what if I live in Gaza and tweet in english badmouth about jews? won't twitter censor my tweets for hate speech,? github and gitlab are US companies and censored projects only for the owner being iranian
    - xg15 6y ago
      > So, all social media companies must have representative in all countries that allow local govs to remove any content? Or get all of their info such as IP address? Maybe. How a global communication network should interact with local laws and customs is in many aspects still an open problem that we just have begun to tackle. > If I live in US and Tweet in Turkish, if Turkish gov ask for removal of that content should it be removed? Or should companies be required to share information about this user? Welcome in a globalized world. I hope this won't be the eventual outcome, but this is definitly not a trivial question to answer. This stuff is why we have international organisations like the UN etc.
- dc2k08 6y ago
  Why was AMREN banned from youtube then?
- xg15 6y ago
  > ... or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. Note that tech companies can change the terms of service at arbitrary points in time after you joined the service. You're of course free to reject the updated terms of service, in which case they will - wait for it - block you.
dastx 6y ago
There is a big difference between governments, the people that are in theory employed by the people, silence individuals, compared to some company not wanting individuals' speech on their platform. If a company banned me from saying x, I can in theory go to another platform and say the same thing. Failing that, I can build my own site. There are a handful of things I can do to say x. Failing a digital platform, I can always go out on the street and say it. The police won't stop me. If a government does the same, they have the power to prevent me from saying such a thing on all platforms, but worse, I can't even go out on the streets to say it, because I can get arrested. I could face maximum prison times, or worse, in some countries I could face the death penalty. There is a huge difference.
- Retric 6y ago
  Yes, the original idea of free speech was much closer to building a printing press and distributing leaflets than access to other people’s platforms. The only place where that overlaps is broadcast TV due to bandwidth limitations. IMO, forcing platforms to host content they disagree with is a free speech issue in the other direction.
  - vageli 6y ago
    > IMO, forcing platforms to host content they disagree with is a free speech issue in the other direction. How do you figure? I don't know a person who believes that Twitter endorses all content that is found on Twitter. How is it a speech issue in the other direction when Twitter is not saying anything? Further, about broadcast media, the US still has the equal time rule [0] and used to have a fairness doctrine which required broadcasters to present both sides of a debate [1]. It's worth mentioning that when the FCC (all Reagan appointees) removed the fairness doctrine, Congress acted to enshrine it in law and it was vetoed by Regan. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
    - Retric 6y ago
      > How is it a free speech issue in the other direction when Twitter is not saying anything? Banning someone or something is them saying something. Endorsement of the debate between different political views doesn’t mean allowing every idea to be acceptable. Letting say the anti vaccination people on your site directly means more disease risk to the general population. However, realizing that doesn’t require you to act. You might decide that’s acceptable where allowing say militant groups planning an insurrection aren’t. In other words, voluntarily not saying something doesn’t give up your right to free speech.
andromeduck 6y ago
Strong discretion + misaligned incentives + distance or insulation from consequences always breeds extreme corruption like SF/Cali/Congress. For social media, I don't see how this can be solves without federation of 3rd party moderation/filtering of some sort. We should let the users decide who should filter their content.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> Moral of the story: Power currupts. I am not so certain of this any more. I believe that power shows those that are corrupt; the problem is that the set of corrupt men, and the set of those who wish for power, is virtually the same set. There have very much been incorruptible men in history who were given great power, but in all cases that I know they did not seek it out, but rather were forced into it.
TameAntelope 6y ago
Silicon Valley cannot ban someone from the Internet, this is blatantly false. And no, a ban from Twitter does not prevent a person from expressing themselves on the Internet, even if it changes how one attracts an audience. The Internet does not exist independent of physical space -- if you want to get a message out, you absolutely can, even if all of Silicon Valley tries to stop you. This is lazy thinking, and I'm honestly getting tired of reading it, so please forgive my frustration.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  When your host, domain registrar, payment processor, credit card company, and every social media channel decides to ban you, it is more or less equal to being banned from the Internet. We have a term for this already: the chilling effect.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    No it isn't, that is simply not true. There are more hosting providers, ISPs, payment processors, et al. than there are stars in the sky. Stop lying, you know better.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      It’s akin to having your restaurant banned from being within city limits. Sure, you can still set up a stall in the desert outside the city walls - no one is stopping you. But when 99.99% of the population is in the city center, is this a meaningful distinction?
      - TameAntelope 6y ago
        Again, you know this analogy is wrong because it implies a relevance to proximity that doesn't exist on the Internet, and yet you continue to put it forward. You are being either disingenuous or fundamentally misunderstand what a right to speech is (namely, it is not a right to be heard, only a right to speak freely). Additionally, you are forgetting that the Internet does not exist independent of physical reality. There are plenty of ways to get attention in physical reality that directly translate to traffic to your voice on the Internet.
Solocomplex 6y ago
Don't derail the thread.
throwawy2021 6y ago
exactly each nations (and/or state) has their own ethics that think it must be enforced americans would think a state that jail for blasphemy a tyranny, while america itself jail for antisemitism, racism (and this one really depends!) and terrorism propaganda, while america backed fighters in foreign countries can be entitled (rebels) instead if terrorists only if they are "US-certified terrorists" and because american media can shout louder.

fabiospampinato 6y ago

I'd say more like: power matters, words on paper not so much.

golondon 6y ago

It's not the same thing. As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. Of course, you can come up with one off examples of ML models screwing things up but it's not the intention while developing those models. Turkish government's intention here is getting content that criticise them removed, by asking to representative in Turkey who by the way must be a Turkish citizen, not just a person from any nationality who can speak Turkish. So that, they can apply Turkish law to this person if they would like to. If Youtube doesn't remove the content, possibly as they did with TV they are going to fine them. I don't see this model working for long time and expecting most of the companies to pull their representatives soon, if they open the door of every country getting content removed however they like, I'm sure there will be other countries who would want that and it would be terrible for freedom of speech.

mancerayder 6y ago
>As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. That's both optimistic and naive given that TOS can change at any time, and interpretation aren't subject to appeal with a transparent process.
- golondon 6y ago
  Yes, it can change any time and you can follow what's changed. It's also open to appeal to the company and I have seen mistakes corrected. My point is there is no secret agenda to bring up a content that supports one view. What Turkish gov wants to achieve is that, taking down the content they don't like. They have taken over all mainstream TV channels and you wouldn't see a line of critic on any channel, if you do it's quite likely you will not be invited to debate next time.
  - itsthefnlacctdn 6y ago
    Were you alive end of December 2020? >My point is there is no secret agenda to bring up a content that supports one view. US senators just pressed youtube to delete all 'election fraud' videos. I dno how thats supporting all viewpoints. Please update your hidden agenda talking points with your crew kthx
  - merth 6y ago
    clearly you never watch TV in turkey. there are critics everyday on very political TV programmes. and usually they try to get a representative from each political party to make it as fair as possible. except HDP, which has substential ties with terror organisations and very bad reputation in turkey. west think there is blockade against anti-government political fractions but in reality there is blockade against western puppets. that's drives western countries crazy due to not have any soft power on turkey.
    - mancerayder 6y ago
      It's also the American conception of free speech, which culturally differs from most countries. In the US, if a private company censors arbitrarily, it's still freedom of speech because you're still allowed to build your own competing business, and anyway it's your fault for agreeing to the legal terms and conditions. Even if it's a monopoly, Americans view freedom as something only governments remove.
pythonslask 6y ago
At least Google has openly admitted to censoring political content of various political perspectives. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html
itsthefnlacctdn 6y ago
Hye dang I wonder if In still shadow banned ?. Anyways thisbusers memory is shorter than the election terms and thats worrying. Youtube just purged its site from videos that show non-violent US poll shenanigans (but it could lead to an insurrection omergerd). How is only Turkey doing this? It got the example from our congresscritters which pressured youtube in removing content they didnt deem safe.. Go astroturf somewhere else you lowlife
antibuddy 6y ago
> ... Of course, you can come up with one off examples of ML models screwing things up but it's not the intention while developing those models. The part with "in union" is not really explained by ML models. These de-platforming actions are done manually and apparently one-sided. Just for fun you can look up why Trump was banned on Twitter and see Khamenei's worst tweets from months prior, that were still up a week ago or so (nevermind him being banned). You find tons of those examples. Also the TOS does not matter.
- golondon 6y ago
  Most of the time it might not be not just what you write but what that means in the context and which actions it triggers.
  - antibuddy 6y ago
    That kicks you off platforms you barely use? It's manually done. Don't hide behind "the machine did it"; it doesn't make sense.
    - golondon 6y ago
      I didn't say machines banned trump, I said evaluation of his tweets was in a context, not just what's written.
      - antibuddy 6y ago
        Just wanna point out, that he was not only banned on Twitter. It didn't make sense there, but on Youtube, Twitch, Shopify etc, it's just stupid and not covered by any of your excuses.
nlitened 6y ago
> As long as you don't cause violence or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. If I remember correctly, a lot of violence and multiple revolutions happened with the help of Twitter and YouTube all over the world. As long as violence is not in the US, it does not count, I suppose. That was probably what GP meant by saying "double standards".
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  There is both good violence and bad violence. Blanket rules don't exist, despite our wish they did.
  - nlitened 6y ago
    Bad violence is against me and people I like, good violence is against people who I don't like — am I right?
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      The alternative, that all oppressed people just have to accept their oppression is even more intolerable, IMO.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      It’s funny how these arguments always go the same way. X Group is horrible because they did Y action, but if I do Y action it’s fine, because I’m with the good guys.
- golondon 6y ago
  I would agree with this. Various world leaders did 10x of what Trump did on Twitter, but since it wasn’t in the US no actions were taken.
vbezhenar 6y ago
I read Twitter's reasoning for banning Trump. Basically they banned him for tweets: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” I don't see any violence in those tweets and I don't understand what kind of person could classify those tweets as a violent ones. I guess only kind of person who wanted to ban him for anything.
- daemoon 6y ago
  Yeah, it just doesn't make sense. When I blatantly ignore all of his tweets claiming Biden lost, he won the election and that massive election fraud took place, I just can't understand why they would ban him!
rajivjain 6y ago
Terms of service cannot supersede local laws. If Twitter wants to do business in a country, they need to comply. Twitter can choose to give up ad revenue and reach. Turkish government may have bad motive. However, democratic governments around the world can and should regulate social media in their countries per the local laws.
- golondon 6y ago
  So, all social media companies must have representative in all countries that allow local govs to remove any content? Or get all of their info such as IP address? Where is the line here? If I live in US and Tweet in Turkish, if Turkish gov ask for removal of that content should it be removed? Or should companies be required to share information about this user? If I write that in another language, that local gov don't like, does it give Turkish gov right to get that removed?
  - mrtksn 6y ago
    For Turkey, the limit is 1M daily users from Turkey. If you are beyond this limit, you are required to have a representative or the bandwidth limitations are applied and fines start to accumulate. If you don’t intend to do business in Turkey, you just go on with your business and loose that market. Oh, btw, it’s likely that they will request global content removal. If I recall correctly Youtube or Wikipedia was blocked for years because of this.
  - rtx 6y ago
    That's how it works in most other trades. They can go to WTO if they find it against its policies.
  - throwawy2021 6y ago
    what if I live in Gaza and tweet in english badmouth about jews? won't twitter censor my tweets for hate speech,? github and gitlab are US companies and censored projects only for the owner being iranian
  - xg15 6y ago
    > So, all social media companies must have representative in all countries that allow local govs to remove any content? Or get all of their info such as IP address? Maybe. How a global communication network should interact with local laws and customs is in many aspects still an open problem that we just have begun to tackle. > If I live in US and Tweet in Turkish, if Turkish gov ask for removal of that content should it be removed? Or should companies be required to share information about this user? Welcome in a globalized world. I hope this won't be the eventual outcome, but this is definitly not a trivial question to answer. This stuff is why we have international organisations like the UN etc.
dc2k08 6y ago
Why was AMREN banned from youtube then?
xg15 6y ago
> ... or you're not violating the terms of service which you accepted while joining to the service, they wouldn't remove your content or block you. Note that tech companies can change the terms of service at arbitrary points in time after you joined the service. You're of course free to reject the updated terms of service, in which case they will - wait for it - block you.

dastx 6y ago

There is a big difference between governments, the people that are in theory employed by the people, silence individuals, compared to some company not wanting individuals' speech on their platform. If a company banned me from saying x, I can in theory go to another platform and say the same thing. Failing that, I can build my own site. There are a handful of things I can do to say x. Failing a digital platform, I can always go out on the street and say it. The police won't stop me. If a government does the same, they have the power to prevent me from saying such a thing on all platforms, but worse, I can't even go out on the streets to say it, because I can get arrested. I could face maximum prison times, or worse, in some countries I could face the death penalty. There is a huge difference.

Retric 6y ago
Yes, the original idea of free speech was much closer to building a printing press and distributing leaflets than access to other people’s platforms. The only place where that overlaps is broadcast TV due to bandwidth limitations. IMO, forcing platforms to host content they disagree with is a free speech issue in the other direction.
- vageli 6y ago
  > IMO, forcing platforms to host content they disagree with is a free speech issue in the other direction. How do you figure? I don't know a person who believes that Twitter endorses all content that is found on Twitter. How is it a speech issue in the other direction when Twitter is not saying anything? Further, about broadcast media, the US still has the equal time rule [0] and used to have a fairness doctrine which required broadcasters to present both sides of a debate [1]. It's worth mentioning that when the FCC (all Reagan appointees) removed the fairness doctrine, Congress acted to enshrine it in law and it was vetoed by Regan. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
  - Retric 6y ago
    > How is it a free speech issue in the other direction when Twitter is not saying anything? Banning someone or something is them saying something. Endorsement of the debate between different political views doesn’t mean allowing every idea to be acceptable. Letting say the anti vaccination people on your site directly means more disease risk to the general population. However, realizing that doesn’t require you to act. You might decide that’s acceptable where allowing say militant groups planning an insurrection aren’t. In other words, voluntarily not saying something doesn’t give up your right to free speech.

andromeduck 6y ago

Strong discretion + misaligned incentives + distance or insulation from consequences always breeds extreme corruption like SF/Cali/Congress. For social media, I don't see how this can be solves without federation of 3rd party moderation/filtering of some sort. We should let the users decide who should filter their content.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

> Moral of the story: Power currupts. I am not so certain of this any more. I believe that power shows those that are corrupt; the problem is that the set of corrupt men, and the set of those who wish for power, is virtually the same set. There have very much been incorruptible men in history who were given great power, but in all cases that I know they did not seek it out, but rather were forced into it.

TameAntelope 6y ago

Silicon Valley cannot ban someone from the Internet, this is blatantly false. And no, a ban from Twitter does not prevent a person from expressing themselves on the Internet, even if it changes how one attracts an audience. The Internet does not exist independent of physical space -- if you want to get a message out, you absolutely can, even if all of Silicon Valley tries to stop you. This is lazy thinking, and I'm honestly getting tired of reading it, so please forgive my frustration.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
When your host, domain registrar, payment processor, credit card company, and every social media channel decides to ban you, it is more or less equal to being banned from the Internet. We have a term for this already: the chilling effect.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  No it isn't, that is simply not true. There are more hosting providers, ISPs, payment processors, et al. than there are stars in the sky. Stop lying, you know better.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    It’s akin to having your restaurant banned from being within city limits. Sure, you can still set up a stall in the desert outside the city walls - no one is stopping you. But when 99.99% of the population is in the city center, is this a meaningful distinction?
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      Again, you know this analogy is wrong because it implies a relevance to proximity that doesn't exist on the Internet, and yet you continue to put it forward. You are being either disingenuous or fundamentally misunderstand what a right to speech is (namely, it is not a right to be heard, only a right to speak freely). Additionally, you are forgetting that the Internet does not exist independent of physical reality. There are plenty of ways to get attention in physical reality that directly translate to traffic to your voice on the Internet.

Solocomplex 6y ago

Don't derail the thread.

throwawy2021 6y ago

exactly each nations (and/or state) has their own ethics that think it must be enforced americans would think a state that jail for blasphemy a tyranny, while america itself jail for antisemitism, racism (and this one really depends!) and terrorism propaganda, while america backed fighters in foreign countries can be entitled (rebels) instead if terrorists only if they are "US-certified terrorists" and because american media can shout louder.