3 ms·
I’m not sure what your argument is… They receive tax payer money. That’s why the label was given. Personally, I feel it’s appropriate. They can’t say they are
by codeddesign 3y ago
I’m not sure what your argument is…
They receive tax payer money. That’s why the label was given.
Personally, I feel it’s appropriate. They can’t say they are independent is they receive govt funds.
- Timon3 3y agoThe argument seems fairly straight-forward: Twitter has a definition for what they consider state-affiliated media. NPR doesn't fit this definition. Thus, if they brand them as state-affiliated, they are not going from their own definition, and they must have other reasons. Why is it acceptable for Twitter to have a definition of state-affiliated media, and then apply the branding to a media organisation that doesn't fit this definition? Or are you just saying that there isn't a difference between state-affiliated media, and state-funded media?
- codeddesign 3y agoI believe you are arguing semantics. I am arguing that it’s fair. Whether it’s Fox News or Washing Post. If they receive govt funding, it should be labeled as per Twitter terms. The title of the label is a different discussion in which I agree with your last sentence.
- Timon3 3y agoI'm not arguing semantics in any way. Hypocrisy isn't a semantic problem. You, on the other hand, are literally arguing semantics, since you're ignoring Twitters own definition, and just going by colloquial meanings. > If they receive govt funding, it should be labeled as per Twitter terms. I fully agree, they should be labeled as per Twitter terms. The Twitter terms clearly stated that NPR was not an example of state-affiliated media. It's problematic that Twitter labeled in a way contrary to their terms.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]