4 ms·

I intentionally chose not to comment on the politics, and I won’t here either. Please respect that. My comment only addressed the possible failure to understan

I intentionally chose not to comment on the politics, and I won’t here either. Please respect that. My comment only addressed the possible failure to understand the importance, and controversy, of this work and publishing exclusively on social media. Important and controversial things should not be entrusted to social media. I say this as a former AP photo stringer, who has been in handcuffs, forest fires, and shoot outs in that job. My concern is, genuinely, that socially relevant documentary work needs to be held outside of social media for this exact reason.

propagandist 1y ago
For what it's worth, my opinion is that there was no a better platform than social media to host that material. The media companies are virtually all editorially aligned with one side, and they put their thumbs on the scale when it comes to the news about this subject. The mainstream reporting is so clinically sanitized that it loses all potency and the sense of urgency. They were never going to be conduits for this material. The best platform is the one that allows you to reach a wide audience so the onus is on them to archive, not on the vulnerable people being hunted with impunity.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]