Jump to content

Active Measures, Disinfo, Propaganda


Grandioso

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Awesome post.  

RE #1.  Benz talks about NGO's(specifically AtlanticCouncil) being government creations to circumvent State Dept/CIA restructuring imposed by Carter based on blowback from 60's overreach.  

Whats your reaction to that claim?

Um, that he's completely full of shit because the Atlantic Council was formed in 1961.  It's a fucking think tank, not an "NGO" that performs any governmental or quasi-governmental function.

Benz is not a serious or credible person.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

I’m unaware of Rogan or any of the rest of the comedy adjacent podcast world representing themselves as journalists.  Part of the reason I don’t normally listen to most of Rogans podcasts is he doesn’t actually do much interviewing of the guests.  It’s mostly guests talking, with affirmative grunts by Rogan.  Generally I think exposure to ideas and opinions outweighs any downside of individuals taking the verbal essays of the guests as hard facts.

There is definitely a need for journalists to practice that interview in your described format, especially in the political sphere.  However, individuals actually doing that are in quite frankly in very short supply.

 

Do you think it matters whether they represent themselves as journalists?  Do people, particularly on the right or voters on the right give a good goddamn whether their favorite internet sound-biter is a "journalist"?  Do they even know what it a journalist?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Um, that he's completely full of shit because the Atlantic Council was formed in 1961.  It's a fucking think tank, not an "NGO" that performs any governmental or quasi-governmental function.

Benz is not a serious or credible person.

He's also probably a neo-Nazi/white supremacist, which explains most of his bitching about internet censorship. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/michael-benz-rising-voice-conservative-criticism-online-censorship-rcna119213

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Do you think it matters whether they represent themselves as journalists?  Do people, particularly on the right or voters on the right give a good goddamn whether their favorite internet sound-biter is a "journalist"?  Do they even know what it a journalist?

 

If someone is going to be held to a professional standard it’s probably rational that they are actually functioning as such.  

Certainly many seek information that confirms their bias.  Did people on the left give a “good goddamn” when they got information from the guy, as he put it, “followed a show of puppets making phone calls”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

He's also probably a neo-Nazi/white supremacist, which explains most of his bitching about internet censorship. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/michael-benz-rising-voice-conservative-criticism-online-censorship-rcna119213

He says he’s Jewish.  So I guess he could be Neo-Nazi Jewish, but that’s pretty rare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

He says he’s Jewish.  So I guess he could be Neo-Nazi Jewish, but that’s pretty rare.

The alt-right is chock full of self-loathing _________.

Have a look at the shit that's pretty credibly attributed to him.  

Is not spewing complete bullshit a professional standard?  Is it necessary to apply professional standards to condemn those like Rogan who give a shitbag like Mike Benz a platform?

It's like you people think just because someone isn't a professional journo, they have a license to spew bullshit and it's caveat emptor on the credulous.

Which is, actually, how the First Amendment is supposed to work.  BUT, the First Amendment does not apply, even implicitly, to private organizations.  If they want to deplatform a bullshit spewer, they have every right to do so and should do so because the First Amendment assumes that bullshit will be suppressed and denied.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's a fucking think tank, not an "NGO" that performs any governmental or quasi-governmental function.

Really?

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/2023-annual-report-how-programs-shaped-the-global-future/#eurasia

 

In 2023, the GeoTech Center deepened its programmatic work on commercial space, artificial intelligence (AI), and government capacity building.

 

sounds not remotely associated with government 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Which is, actually, how the First Amendment is supposed to work.  BUT, the First Amendment does not apply, even implicitly, to private organizations.  If they want to deplatform a bullshit spewer, they have every right to do so and should do so because the First Amendment assumes that bullshit will be suppressed and denied.

Totally agree.

problem is when the deplatforming is at the express instruction of the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Curious that Zuck didn't give that same testimony, in detail, under oath when subpoenaed in that case.  See, in particular, Slip. Op. pp. 16-21. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411new_197d.pdf

Could he be playing both ends against the middle?  

Quote

Zuckerberg has tried to change the company's perception on the right, going on podcaster Joe Rogan's show in 2022 and complimenting Republican nominee Donald Trump's response to an assassination attempt as "badass." He sent Monday's letter to the House Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Jordan, is a longtime Trump ally.

Unpossible.  Zuck has never been accused of being a slimy little fuck.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Haha 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Quote it.  I don’t see any reference to Zuck testimony on the pages you referenced here

That citation is to the Supreme Court addressing the factual allegations of one Jill Hines who allegedly was censored by Facebook at the behest of the government.

Quote

Of all the plaintiffs, Hines makes the best showing of a connection between her social-media restrictions and communications between the relevant platform (Facebook) and specific defendants (CDC and the White House). That said, most of the lines she draws are tenuous, particularly given her burden of proof at the preliminary injunction stage—recall that she must show that her restrictions are likely traceable to the White House and the CDC.

That case was, strictly speaking, between the plaintiffs and the Biden administration.  But you can be relatively certain that if Facebook people, including Zuck, had gone on record stating their censorship actions were directed or coerced by the government, that evidence would have been introduced and would have played a significant role in the decision, in which, as the referenced section denotes, Facebook and others made the complained of and other "censorship" decisions before the government got involved and therefore the plaintiffs failed to prove that the government coerced the decisions.

And Zuckerberg has no motive, whatsoever, to tell Gym Jordan what he wants to hear.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That citation is to the Supreme Court addressing the factual allegations of one Jill Hines who allegedly was censored by Facebook at the behest of the government.

That case was, strictly speaking, between the plaintiffs and the Biden administration.  But you can be relatively certain that if Facebook people, including Zuck, had gone on record stating their censorship actions were directed or coerced by the government, that evidence would have been introduced and would have played a significant role in the decision, in which, as the referenced section denotes, Facebook and others made the complained of and other "censorship" decisions before the government got involved and therefore the plaintiffs failed to prove that the government coerced the decisions.

And Zuckerberg has no motive, whatsoever, to tell Gym Jordan what he wants to hear.

 

Really?  So your source is that if  Zuck did testify as such it would have been included.  

 

Strong, really, really strong.  You make a living at this?

 

LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Really?  So your source is that if  Zuck did testify as such it would have been included.  

 

Strong, really, really strong.  You make a living at this?

 

LOL.

Are you fucking kidding?  You file a lawsuit claiming Facebook censored your content at the behest of the government.

One might think that testimony from Facebook would be critical to that inquiry:  "Yes, we took down and demoted content because of pressure from the gubmint."

You depose Facebook people, none of whom corroborate that, but admit they had conversations with government officials about it, but contend they made the same decisions before and after the government conversations.  Or maybe you don't depose Facebook people, because you find out they aren't going to tell you what you want to hear.

In the event, the absence of testimony like the above says a lot.

It's like you people keep saying you have proof of voter fraud (not during the 2020 election, but in support of all the vote suppression measures taken in the name of election integrity), yet you never introduce it in court.  But it's out there!  I seent it in my head!

Addendum:  I have seen the Zuckerberg letter, but can't find it anymore on the intergoogles.  What it really says, more than anything, is that Facebook likely won't censor political speech in the future, even lies.  It's much stronger on that point than government pressure.  It also states that Chan Zuckerberg won't fund voting access anymore.  It is very clearly an effort to curry favor from Jordan and his committee.

Finally, I don't condone government pressure to deplatform people.  I'm not fully convinced that's what happened here.  It would probably be preferable that the government not communicate with platforms at all, but that's not realistic.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

You think there's anything else in a court of law?

Of course there isn’t.  
 

You made a direct claim about what Zuck said under subpoena.  Then stated you are, “relatively certain” what he said because nothing appears in a case related to his company.  
 

classic lawyering.  Relatively certain till the bill comes 

Edited by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Of course there isn’t.  
 

You made a direct claim about what Zuck said under subpoena.  Then stated you are, “relatively certain” what he said because nothing appears in a case related to his company.  
 

classic lawyering.  Relatively certain till the bill comes 

What I actually said was that Zuckerberg didn't give that testimony in the lawsuit. 

The absence of that testimony says as much or more than a self serving unsworn letter to a meddlesome congress critter. 

And it's not some random case connected to his company. It is THE case concerning Biden administration coercion of ISPs.  It is exactly the subject matter of the letter to Gym. 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Lol

of course.

 

head up ass

I know you’re aggy but did you actually get a degree? I honestly want to know

 

If yes in what?

Edited by Sawbonz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I know you’re aggy but did you actually get a degree? I honestly want to know

 

If yes in what?

Underwater basket weaving 

 

think about what you’re saying for two seconds.  You completely disregard the first party discussion of the topic at hand because he’s talking to someone you politically disagree with.  Peak megamind enlightenment right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incredulity said:

Underwater basket weaving 

 

think about what you’re saying for two seconds.  You completely disregard the first party discussion of the topic at hand because he’s talking to someone you politically disagree with.  Peak megamind enlightenment right there.

I disregard everything you say because you are a moron

 

and Zuckerberg is the definition of conflict of interest talking on this subject even if he weren’t a billionaire habitual liar

 

I don’t disagree with Rogan politically. I mean maybe I do; I honestly have no idea what his political beliefs are. He is a chronic stoner who got famous getting people to complete middle school gross out dares on TV. He has millions of followers because, well, the average American has an IQ slightly above yours and he appeals to that type of person  

 

I am going to conclude you do not have a 4 year degree, even from aggy

 

maybe an associates from Blinn

 

You're not a Realtor by chance are you? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Name calling is assuredly the sign of a superior intellect and winning arguments.  Keep it up.  You’re telling on yourself.  

I’m fine with that in this instance. You haven’t contributed anything of substance to this or any other thread that I can recall

 

My statements regarding Rogan and Zuckerberg are factual. Others here have given third party sources to explain the issues which you have ignored, as is your wont.  You get pantsed and come back to the thread 2 weeks later with a fucking Joe Rogan clip

 

I have attempted to educate you and engage you with intellectual honesty in DT on scientific topics and you ghosted those responses. I’m left with nothing but scorn and contempt for you, and will continue to ridicule you until you improve or I decide to put you on ignore

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I have attempted to educate you and engage you with intellectual honesty in DT on scientific topics and you ghosted those responses. I’m left with nothing but scorn and contempt for you, and will continue to ridicule you until you improve or I decide to put you on ignore

Please direct me to any example of this. I don’t care what you think of me.  I don’t agree with the assertion I have ignored direct conversations.


 

Zuckerberg says REPEATEDLY that the very thing TH said didn’t happen did in fact happen.  Your response to which is literally sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming you aren’t listening to that.  Then in a fantastical leap of logic, I’m the moron.  Completely bizarre.

Edited by Incredulity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Underwater basket weaving 

 

think about what you’re saying for two seconds.  You completely disregard the first party discussion of the topic at hand because he’s talking to someone you politically disagree with.  Peak megamind enlightenment right there.

No because Zuckerberg is a lying shitweasel that will do whatever benefits him right now.

He had an opportunity to present such testimony under oath in a lawsuit and did not do so.

The plaintiffs in that suit had every motivation to secure such testimony had it been factual and favorable to them, but they did not.  And, the Supreme Court, via handmaiden-in-chief, expressly found that Facebook made similar, if not identical moderation decisions before and after contact with the Biden administration.

Now, only now is Zuckerberg giving statements that are a) not factual b) hyperbolic opinion and c) to curry favor with people like Rogan, his audience, and Trump, while also completely reversing position on moderation of false content.  

Not opportunistic in the slightest, no not at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Incredulity said:

Please direct me to any example of this. I don’t care what you think of me.  I don’t agree with the assertion I have ignored direct conversations.


 

Zuckerberg says REPEATEDLY that the very thing TH said didn’t happen did in fact happen.  

It was in regards to nursing shortages post Covid iirc. I even linked a pubmed article. 
 

As far as what Zuckerberg said, all that matters is what he is willing to say under oath, and he didn’t say any of that under oath

Your username should be changed to  will fall for anything 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sawbonz said:

It was in regards to nursing shortages post Covid iirc. I even linked a pubmed article

So it’s one instance?

You don’t like me.  That’s fine.  I again don’t agree that I ghost arguments.

One thing that has happened to me is I have  been given timeouts over the years, which makes cold stops appear like ghosting.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never understand people stanning for billionaires. Like literally no one that posts here, statistically, will ever be a billionaire. Quit making them out to be heroes they're not. They're, by and large, all terrible people and generally a threat to the stability of this nation. But sure, maybe if they see your post they'll like you in real life or something. Again, I don't fucking get it.

Edited by Longhorn_Fan68
  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...