5 ms·

Those both seem to be on the same level as NaturalNews and InfoWars. In other words, I see no fault at all with PayPal's decision.

pessimizer 4y ago
> Those both seem to be on the same level as NaturalNews and InfoWars. What does that mean in this context? Are you saying that the sites promote health quackery and bizarre theories about fake mass shootings, or is saying they're like NaturalNews and InfoWars just a way to say that you would like them banned because you disagree with their opinions (like you presumably disagree with health quackery and theories about Democrats being possessed by demons?)
skinnymuch 4y ago
They aren’t alike at all. The listed sites spend actual legitimate effort with their organizations and the news they publish. The right wing sites you named are grifts. Not high effort passionate work. Your comment makes it seem more likely you disagree with left wing stuff.
- jka 4y ago
  I don't like the content of articles like this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20220427155557/https://www.mintpressnews.com/cia-guantanamo-bay-torture-programs-mkultra-roots/280275/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220427155557/https://www.mintp... ...and I agree that the site may have (apparent or otherwise) biases. But the content reads true to me. I've seen and heard of previous examples of attempts to suppress and shut down publications or talking points that do indeed later turn out to have been accurate.
  - IdEntities 4y ago
    What don't you like about this, exactly? Jon Ronson was saying much the same thing in his book The Men Who Stare at Goats a short time ago. MKUKTRA was real and its methods and results continue to play a key part in our intelligence services' activities. Some people just don't want to hear how rotten and untrustworthy their society's key institutions have become I suppose.
    - jka 4y ago
      That book was a while ago, I think? I remember watching the film. Here's one paragraph that I found particularly unpleasant from the article: "After he was stripped naked, interrogators 'lined up' one-by-one to slam Baluchi's head into plywood - and, on occasion, concrete - walls over and over again, until they became 'fatigued,' whereupon another would take their place, in sessions lasting up to two hours. A CIA operative interviewed by the Inspector General claimed this method was 'meant more for 'sensation' than to hurt the detainee,' and 'simply made a big noise.'" It troubles me for a few reasons: - It seems unlikely that decision-makers approving 'enhanced' interrogation would be aware of the methods used -- because as illustrated here, they're a disgrace -- and so it implies that the site operated without accountability - It's documented[1] that no useful intelligence was gathered as a result of these actions - It's (presumably?) taxpayer funds that pay for this, so there should be transparency so that citizens can debate and decide whether they support it - It seems to imply an organizational structure that allows -- or provides for -- some people without any moral or sympathetic core to be employed in the (largely senseless) hurt of other human beings To me, those aren't behaviours that should be acceptable in a 21st century organization, regardless of location. So that's what I don't like about the article -- but I do appreciate the ability to read it. (from reading more about the publisher, it may indeed have some problems - whether financial censorship makes sense probably depends on the weight of evidence and reasoning behind that) [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-detainee-training-prop-torture-techniques https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-d...

pessimizer 4y ago

> Those both seem to be on the same level as NaturalNews and InfoWars. What does that mean in this context? Are you saying that the sites promote health quackery and bizarre theories about fake mass shootings, or is saying they're like NaturalNews and InfoWars just a way to say that you would like them banned because you disagree with their opinions (like you presumably disagree with health quackery and theories about Democrats being possessed by demons?)

skinnymuch 4y ago

They aren’t alike at all. The listed sites spend actual legitimate effort with their organizations and the news they publish. The right wing sites you named are grifts. Not high effort passionate work. Your comment makes it seem more likely you disagree with left wing stuff.

jka 4y ago
I don't like the content of articles like this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20220427155557/https://www.mintpressnews.com/cia-guantanamo-bay-torture-programs-mkultra-roots/280275/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220427155557/https://www.mintp... ...and I agree that the site may have (apparent or otherwise) biases. But the content reads true to me. I've seen and heard of previous examples of attempts to suppress and shut down publications or talking points that do indeed later turn out to have been accurate.
- IdEntities 4y ago
  What don't you like about this, exactly? Jon Ronson was saying much the same thing in his book The Men Who Stare at Goats a short time ago. MKUKTRA was real and its methods and results continue to play a key part in our intelligence services' activities. Some people just don't want to hear how rotten and untrustworthy their society's key institutions have become I suppose.
  - jka 4y ago
    That book was a while ago, I think? I remember watching the film. Here's one paragraph that I found particularly unpleasant from the article: "After he was stripped naked, interrogators 'lined up' one-by-one to slam Baluchi's head into plywood - and, on occasion, concrete - walls over and over again, until they became 'fatigued,' whereupon another would take their place, in sessions lasting up to two hours. A CIA operative interviewed by the Inspector General claimed this method was 'meant more for 'sensation' than to hurt the detainee,' and 'simply made a big noise.'" It troubles me for a few reasons: - It seems unlikely that decision-makers approving 'enhanced' interrogation would be aware of the methods used -- because as illustrated here, they're a disgrace -- and so it implies that the site operated without accountability - It's documented[1] that no useful intelligence was gathered as a result of these actions - It's (presumably?) taxpayer funds that pay for this, so there should be transparency so that citizens can debate and decide whether they support it - It seems to imply an organizational structure that allows -- or provides for -- some people without any moral or sympathetic core to be employed in the (largely senseless) hurt of other human beings To me, those aren't behaviours that should be acceptable in a 21st century organization, regardless of location. So that's what I don't like about the article -- but I do appreciate the ability to read it. (from reading more about the publisher, it may indeed have some problems - whether financial censorship makes sense probably depends on the weight of evidence and reasoning behind that) [1] - https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-detainee-training-prop-torture-techniques https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-d...