4 ms·

This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. I also really couldn't find a trace of this conference online, barring maybe a tiny FB page and an automaticall

This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. I also really couldn't find a trace of this conference online, barring maybe a tiny FB page and an automatically generated hand/pen video with _13_ views? Also, this is on a semi-propaganda-if-not-outright-propaganda site that's been posted here. No social media movement on it that I can see, even on the supposed facebook page for it. It's almost as if it doesn't exist. And the article goes on for as long as it does talking about the conference being censored as it does the fact that we're living in 1984 (and a gratuitous attempt at connecting the WSB subreddit). Please, folks. This stuff is easily debunked and really dangerous to just share around. Why are we upvoting things like this? I thought we were better than this as a community.

im3w1l 6y ago
> This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. The link could be changed to more known mint press. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce... > This stuff is easily debunked Please be careful with this. While the website lacks reputation it seems it did happen as described in this case.
- reedjosh 6y ago
  > This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. In agreement with im3w1l, simply attacking the website is pure argument ad hominem.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    Not necessarily. The website does not appear to be a source of legitimate information - that's a reasonable opinion to argue and relevant to the content the website presents. However, it is obviously true that an article being untrustworthy doesn't mean that the events are entirely false. So the GP made an attempt to validate them, and could not. That they failed does not make their post unreasonable, and it seems petty to attack them for it.
    - justnotworthit 6y ago
      > relevant to the content the website presents Depends on your epistemology whether or not it's ad hominem. If you "believe" the content based because of the source's authority, then it is relevant to the content and is not ad hominem. But in this case, we hardly need to pass judgment on the source.
DenisM 6y ago
There is the page https://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/ https://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/ and it links to a FB account with a lot more than 13 views / likes.

im3w1l 6y ago

> This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. The link could be changed to more known mint press. https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-censored-youtube/274918/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/media-censorship-conference-ce... > This stuff is easily debunked Please be careful with this. While the website lacks reputation it seems it did happen as described in this case.

reedjosh 6y ago
> This, uh, looks like a semi-propaganda website. In agreement with im3w1l, simply attacking the website is pure argument ad hominem.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Not necessarily. The website does not appear to be a source of legitimate information - that's a reasonable opinion to argue and relevant to the content the website presents. However, it is obviously true that an article being untrustworthy doesn't mean that the events are entirely false. So the GP made an attempt to validate them, and could not. That they failed does not make their post unreasonable, and it seems petty to attack them for it.
  - justnotworthit 6y ago
    > relevant to the content the website presents Depends on your epistemology whether or not it's ad hominem. If you "believe" the content based because of the source's authority, then it is relevant to the content and is not ad hominem. But in this case, we hardly need to pass judgment on the source.

DenisM 6y ago

There is the page https://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/ https://www.projectcensored.org/censorship/ and it links to a FB account with a lot more than 13 views / likes.