11 ms·

The Guardian, and a few other outfits in global media sold its readership very hard on the "Gadhafi killing his own people" fallacy to enable Islamist gangs to

The Guardian, and a few other outfits in global media sold its readership very hard on the "Gadhafi killing his own people" fallacy to enable Islamist gangs to plunder and maim and kill and ruin the societal fabric of Libya (and a few southern neighbors). Since then, Libya is a wasteland, its inhabitants enslaved as a whole (as opposed to the few political (read Islamists) prisoners' under the Gadhafi dictatorship), deaths in the tens of thousands, prisoners are not accounted for under any authority. Also the Guardian, just like most MSM holds a grudge against FB: how dare they eat their pie, all of it, and they let people escape from their 'single-eyed war-enabling worldview'? Lay the FB 'hate' aside, will ya? For all its dehumanizing power (as much as the rest of 'social media' and technology in general) FB has not committed the 1/10000th of the harm these champions of virtue in the MSM have done for the last couple centuries (steamrolling their power on most wars, worldwide or not).

sp332 5y ago
So at any given moment, we're only allowed to criticize one thing - the worst thing in the entire world? After all, anything else is, you know, not that bad.
- spazrunaway 5y ago
  Yes. We need a hell of a lot less destructive criticism that leads to war.
  - sp332 5y ago
    That is why I'm anti-Facebook. Remember the role they played in the Myanmar genocide?
    - u801e 5y ago
      Which genocide are you referring to?
      - newswasboring 5y ago
        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... I'm guessing this one. Although facebook didn't invite this violence directly, they were the primary tool of propaganda. Now I'm not saying it's easy to solve this problem but facebook seems to be actively overlooking these things as it has happened repeatedly.
- csemaan 5y ago
  The problem is the constant naïve pounding on FB prompted by MSM hacks (drill a little bit and you'll discover the motivation: some of it surfaces from time to time, like the obvious blackmailing of FB by mass media in Australia, Canada, most of European countries, and maybe soon coming to the USA).
  - jamespo 5y ago
    What's your motivation with this account, that seemingly only exists to defend FB?
    - csemaan 5y ago
      That's true, I barely ever contributed here (maybe never), although I enjoy reading and following the comments. I have always been annoyed by the naïve FB-hate, particularly because it forced FB to cave to the media powers. There came a once in a lifetime opportunity to free us from the 'one-eyed-propaganda' of media conglomerates, and us the victims, shot the only probable source of escape.
      - reducesuffering 5y ago
        > "There came a once in a lifetime opportunity to free us from the 'one-eyed-propaganda' of media conglomerates, and us the victims, shot the only probable source of escape." Have you seen the rampant propaganda and manipulation of facts from social-media-driven left wing and right wing groups? It is far more inaccurate and vile.
        csemaan 5y ago
        That's exactly why I think it could have saved us from the one-eyed worldview of media powers. Just weed through the forest and work your brain to collect 'information'.
- merpnderp 5y ago
  He did not say “don’t criticize” he said to “lay off the hate” which to me means make sure your criticism is measured and reasonable. Laying off the hate is likely just good advice all the time.
  - salawat 5y ago
    What is the unit of measurement for criticism? As a metrology nerd this is a very important question.
    - merpnderp 5y ago
      You picked the wrong definition of measured. In this context it means something like to be deliberate and constrained.
syops 5y ago
Who do you consider to be non-MSM? Facebook has been around at scale for a short period of time so the total amount of harm it has done so far won’t compare to propaganda done by others but this should not detract from worry/blame/concern about Facebook. I won’t lay the FB hate aside as you put it because I see the great harm it can and does do. Humans are easily manipulated and Facebook can do this at an unprecedented scale.
- csemaan 5y ago
  Humans are easily manipulated, I agree with you. Contrast the multi-faced manipulation from an aggregator like FB with the power of the unified worldview given to you by the media conglomerates.
  - syops 5y ago
    So who are the non-MSM in your opinion? Facebook is more than merely and aggregator. They know how to keep peoples' eyes glued to them. They know what stories/narratives will push your buttons so to speak.
    - csemaan 5y ago
      I am sorry I can't answer your question: I read many many sources (from big name media to small time bloggers), contrast and apply common sense. I know my limitations to access the 'truth', and I live with that, always in doubt. That said, regarding Facebook, I genuinely never used it really (I have a placeholder account), never used Instagram, never used Messenger, never installed any of these apps on my phone, never log into these web apps on my PC. I use WhatsApp constantly to communicate with friends and family across the world.
      - syops 5y ago
        You apply the term MSM and thus must have a notion of what constitutes the MSM, right? So which media sources don't count as MSM? If you can't name such sources then why use MSM instead of "mass media"?
0goel0 5y ago
This is a terrible take, and it seems like you have a grudge audient Guardian. Following your own logic, lay off the guardian hate. Their reporting is solid, and much needed these days.
- csemaan 5y ago
  I have no grudge against The Guardian in particular, I have a grudge against ALL media (purporting to be 'left' leaning) that fed us lies (under the guise of R2P) to ease most wars and imperialist adventures. This post links to The Guardian, and The Guardian was most vociferous in the destruction of Libya (and Syria).
  - brendoelfrendo 5y ago
    ...so who the hell DO you get your news from?
    - csemaan 5y ago
      Nothing original really: many, many, many sources, and I believe/disbelieve none completely. Triangulation process.
    - kgog 5y ago
      Probably Facebook and Youtube. :)
  - drwoland 5y ago
    Do you have a source for the guardian editorial policy being pro the toppling of Gaddafi's regime in Libya? The Guardian is far from perfect but generally they were and are against military intervention by the UK.
xwolfi 5y ago
But the Lybia revolution against Ghaddafi wasn't fought or financed only by the Guardian's readers. For instance, with unemployment at 30%, maybe the population just had nothing else to try than the removal of their dictator like neighbor Tunisia had just done. I agree with you "western" (let's say democratic instead) medias are very biased. I live in Hong Kong and I couldn't believe what I was reading in british media about our "oppression" while kids were breaking the pavement down my road and doing V for vendetta graffiti under the cries of "Fuck the Popo". But all in all, it's fine, to be honest. We don't ask media to be without bias, but to be clear about them. We know somewhat the editorial position of the Guardian, they're one opinion amongst many. What turn countries into rubbles, is when people can't understand who's telling them what. Facebook is too blurry, you don't know if it's your sister, a CIA agent or a FSB one talking to you about a solution to a problem. People get angry in closed networks, that echo and echo until they feel the entire population think the same way. And you can't really calm them down with deep and complex analysis because while anger is easy to spread with a quick BS meme, calming down people requires focus, dual way communication and effort on every side. That's what happened to HK at a small scale, a sort of irrational mass anger, but that's not what happened in Lybia. Simply because in Lybia, people weren't the richest most powerful people on the planet. They tried the last resort solution, they won somewhat, now after the destruction they have to rebuild and they're learning it's way harder. We've all been through these phases, no need to argue the Guardian caused it :) I'd be partial to Facebook though :D
- csemaan 5y ago
  There was never a popular upheaval in Lybia, the Islamists were offered to dismember the country by a few European powers (mainly France and the UK) with Arab allies for good optics (Qatar). https://iai.tv/articles/why-they-killed-gaddafi-auid-1757 https://iai.tv/articles/why-they-killed-gaddafi-auid-1757
  - ivanbakel 5y ago
    Your source makes reference to an email which is no longer available, thanks to a dead link.
humanistbot 5y ago
Hmmm, strange that you and other FB defenders aren't actually discussing the claims in the article. Instead, you want to turn everything into a vague, abstract "new tech vs old media" battle. Both can have their problems.
maxehmookau 5y ago
I've learnt those blaming the evil "MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!!!!" are rarely worth listening to. You know why it's mainstream? Because it's nuanced, and well-researched and run by actual real-life journalists. You know what you're left with when the media is no longer mainstream? The extremes.
- csemaan 5y ago
  As a victim of war myself, I beg to disagree with you.
- boredumb 5y ago
  The Guardian is not nuanced or well-researching and it's ran by receiving funding from billionaires in order to push public opinion. They are also considered mainstream media by any rational person. Which "Mainstream media" outlets do you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
  - maxehmookau 5y ago
    The Guardian claims to be, and is, a left-leaning media outlet that holds widely left-of-centre mainstream views. I would put the opposite question, which non-mainstream media outlets would you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
- ch4s3 5y ago
  This feels to me like a bit of a 1 dimensional appeal to authority. Consider the role of old guard media in selling the war in Iraq to the American public. Their pieces weren't well researched and turned out to have been fed to them by the administration. The Osama Bin Laden cave base diagrams also come to mind in the same vein. The NYT Daily's "Caliphate" podcast series is another great example.
  - maxehmookau 5y ago
    Sure, I didn't suggest that they were unimpeachable but the "alternative" sources so often touted by self-proclaimed Facebook experts are orders of magnitude worse.
Proven 5y ago
correct on all counts - thanks for highlighting that forgotten part of recent history.
blfr 5y ago
> Lay the FB 'hate' aside, will ya? For all its dehumanizing power (as much as the rest of 'social media' and technology in general) FB has not committed the 1/10000th of the harm these champions of virtue in the MSM have done for the last couple centuries All the problems you list with legacy media are true but also have a clear expiration date as these outlets are usually money losers. Meanwhile Facebook looks like it's here to stay.
hellomyguys 5y ago
MSM of course has played a huge role in many negative things that have happened across the world, but to say we should hold off on any FB "hate" because of this seems weird? Also for most people FB has a bigger impact on their perception of the world than any MSM and their impact is only growing (while many MSM are struggling to survive).
loveistheanswer 5y ago
People are capable of critizing the bad things that both FB and the Guardian have done

sp332 5y ago

So at any given moment, we're only allowed to criticize one thing - the worst thing in the entire world? After all, anything else is, you know, not that bad.

spazrunaway 5y ago
Yes. We need a hell of a lot less destructive criticism that leads to war.
- sp332 5y ago
  That is why I'm anti-Facebook. Remember the role they played in the Myanmar genocide?
  - u801e 5y ago
    Which genocide are you referring to?
    - newswasboring 5y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... I'm guessing this one. Although facebook didn't invite this violence directly, they were the primary tool of propaganda. Now I'm not saying it's easy to solve this problem but facebook seems to be actively overlooking these things as it has happened repeatedly.
csemaan 5y ago
The problem is the constant naïve pounding on FB prompted by MSM hacks (drill a little bit and you'll discover the motivation: some of it surfaces from time to time, like the obvious blackmailing of FB by mass media in Australia, Canada, most of European countries, and maybe soon coming to the USA).
- jamespo 5y ago
  What's your motivation with this account, that seemingly only exists to defend FB?
  - csemaan 5y ago
    That's true, I barely ever contributed here (maybe never), although I enjoy reading and following the comments. I have always been annoyed by the naïve FB-hate, particularly because it forced FB to cave to the media powers. There came a once in a lifetime opportunity to free us from the 'one-eyed-propaganda' of media conglomerates, and us the victims, shot the only probable source of escape.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      > "There came a once in a lifetime opportunity to free us from the 'one-eyed-propaganda' of media conglomerates, and us the victims, shot the only probable source of escape." Have you seen the rampant propaganda and manipulation of facts from social-media-driven left wing and right wing groups? It is far more inaccurate and vile.
      - csemaan 5y ago
        That's exactly why I think it could have saved us from the one-eyed worldview of media powers. Just weed through the forest and work your brain to collect 'information'.
merpnderp 5y ago
He did not say “don’t criticize” he said to “lay off the hate” which to me means make sure your criticism is measured and reasonable. Laying off the hate is likely just good advice all the time.
- salawat 5y ago
  What is the unit of measurement for criticism? As a metrology nerd this is a very important question.
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    You picked the wrong definition of measured. In this context it means something like to be deliberate and constrained.

syops 5y ago

Who do you consider to be non-MSM? Facebook has been around at scale for a short period of time so the total amount of harm it has done so far won’t compare to propaganda done by others but this should not detract from worry/blame/concern about Facebook. I won’t lay the FB hate aside as you put it because I see the great harm it can and does do. Humans are easily manipulated and Facebook can do this at an unprecedented scale.

csemaan 5y ago
Humans are easily manipulated, I agree with you. Contrast the multi-faced manipulation from an aggregator like FB with the power of the unified worldview given to you by the media conglomerates.
- syops 5y ago
  So who are the non-MSM in your opinion? Facebook is more than merely and aggregator. They know how to keep peoples' eyes glued to them. They know what stories/narratives will push your buttons so to speak.
  - csemaan 5y ago
    I am sorry I can't answer your question: I read many many sources (from big name media to small time bloggers), contrast and apply common sense. I know my limitations to access the 'truth', and I live with that, always in doubt. That said, regarding Facebook, I genuinely never used it really (I have a placeholder account), never used Instagram, never used Messenger, never installed any of these apps on my phone, never log into these web apps on my PC. I use WhatsApp constantly to communicate with friends and family across the world.
    - syops 5y ago
      You apply the term MSM and thus must have a notion of what constitutes the MSM, right? So which media sources don't count as MSM? If you can't name such sources then why use MSM instead of "mass media"?

0goel0 5y ago

This is a terrible take, and it seems like you have a grudge audient Guardian. Following your own logic, lay off the guardian hate. Their reporting is solid, and much needed these days.

csemaan 5y ago
I have no grudge against The Guardian in particular, I have a grudge against ALL media (purporting to be 'left' leaning) that fed us lies (under the guise of R2P) to ease most wars and imperialist adventures. This post links to The Guardian, and The Guardian was most vociferous in the destruction of Libya (and Syria).
- brendoelfrendo 5y ago
  ...so who the hell DO you get your news from?
  - csemaan 5y ago
    Nothing original really: many, many, many sources, and I believe/disbelieve none completely. Triangulation process.
  - kgog 5y ago
    Probably Facebook and Youtube. :)
- drwoland 5y ago
  Do you have a source for the guardian editorial policy being pro the toppling of Gaddafi's regime in Libya? The Guardian is far from perfect but generally they were and are against military intervention by the UK.

xwolfi 5y ago

But the Lybia revolution against Ghaddafi wasn't fought or financed only by the Guardian's readers. For instance, with unemployment at 30%, maybe the population just had nothing else to try than the removal of their dictator like neighbor Tunisia had just done. I agree with you "western" (let's say democratic instead) medias are very biased. I live in Hong Kong and I couldn't believe what I was reading in british media about our "oppression" while kids were breaking the pavement down my road and doing V for vendetta graffiti under the cries of "Fuck the Popo". But all in all, it's fine, to be honest. We don't ask media to be without bias, but to be clear about them. We know somewhat the editorial position of the Guardian, they're one opinion amongst many. What turn countries into rubbles, is when people can't understand who's telling them what. Facebook is too blurry, you don't know if it's your sister, a CIA agent or a FSB one talking to you about a solution to a problem. People get angry in closed networks, that echo and echo until they feel the entire population think the same way. And you can't really calm them down with deep and complex analysis because while anger is easy to spread with a quick BS meme, calming down people requires focus, dual way communication and effort on every side. That's what happened to HK at a small scale, a sort of irrational mass anger, but that's not what happened in Lybia. Simply because in Lybia, people weren't the richest most powerful people on the planet. They tried the last resort solution, they won somewhat, now after the destruction they have to rebuild and they're learning it's way harder. We've all been through these phases, no need to argue the Guardian caused it :) I'd be partial to Facebook though :D

csemaan 5y ago
There was never a popular upheaval in Lybia, the Islamists were offered to dismember the country by a few European powers (mainly France and the UK) with Arab allies for good optics (Qatar). https://iai.tv/articles/why-they-killed-gaddafi-auid-1757 https://iai.tv/articles/why-they-killed-gaddafi-auid-1757
- ivanbakel 5y ago
  Your source makes reference to an email which is no longer available, thanks to a dead link.

humanistbot 5y ago

Hmmm, strange that you and other FB defenders aren't actually discussing the claims in the article. Instead, you want to turn everything into a vague, abstract "new tech vs old media" battle. Both can have their problems.

maxehmookau 5y ago

I've learnt those blaming the evil "MAINSTREAM MEDIA!!!!!!" are rarely worth listening to. You know why it's mainstream? Because it's nuanced, and well-researched and run by actual real-life journalists. You know what you're left with when the media is no longer mainstream? The extremes.

csemaan 5y ago
As a victim of war myself, I beg to disagree with you.
boredumb 5y ago
The Guardian is not nuanced or well-researching and it's ran by receiving funding from billionaires in order to push public opinion. They are also considered mainstream media by any rational person. Which "Mainstream media" outlets do you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
- maxehmookau 5y ago
  The Guardian claims to be, and is, a left-leaning media outlet that holds widely left-of-centre mainstream views. I would put the opposite question, which non-mainstream media outlets would you consider to be nuanced and well-researched?
ch4s3 5y ago
This feels to me like a bit of a 1 dimensional appeal to authority. Consider the role of old guard media in selling the war in Iraq to the American public. Their pieces weren't well researched and turned out to have been fed to them by the administration. The Osama Bin Laden cave base diagrams also come to mind in the same vein. The NYT Daily's "Caliphate" podcast series is another great example.
- maxehmookau 5y ago
  Sure, I didn't suggest that they were unimpeachable but the "alternative" sources so often touted by self-proclaimed Facebook experts are orders of magnitude worse.

Proven 5y ago

correct on all counts - thanks for highlighting that forgotten part of recent history.

blfr 5y ago

> Lay the FB 'hate' aside, will ya? For all its dehumanizing power (as much as the rest of 'social media' and technology in general) FB has not committed the 1/10000th of the harm these champions of virtue in the MSM have done for the last couple centuries All the problems you list with legacy media are true but also have a clear expiration date as these outlets are usually money losers. Meanwhile Facebook looks like it's here to stay.

hellomyguys 5y ago

MSM of course has played a huge role in many negative things that have happened across the world, but to say we should hold off on any FB "hate" because of this seems weird? Also for most people FB has a bigger impact on their perception of the world than any MSM and their impact is only growing (while many MSM are struggling to survive).

loveistheanswer 5y ago

People are capable of critizing the bad things that both FB and the Guardian have done