(no title)
audit | 4 years ago
But the position he takes -- seems indisputably anti-democratic.
He inaugurated himself to be the 'judge' of what is disinformation.
Sort of moral and ethical luminary projecting the wisdom on the rest.
"... In this context, the disinformation project is simply an unofficial partnership between Big Tech, corporate media, elite universities, and cash-rich foundations. ..."
But it is the same oligarchical, elitist, freedom-suffocating stance that, then subsequently causes Department of homeland security to announce this:
"... Foreign and domestic threat actors, to include foreign intelligence services, international terrorist groups and domestic violent extremists, continue to introduce, amplify, and disseminate narratives online that promote violence, and have called for violence against elected officials, political representatives, government facilities, law enforcement, religious communities or commercial facilities, and perceived ideologically-opposed individuals.
There are also continued, non-specific calls for violence on multiple online platforms associated with DVE ideologies or conspiracy theories on perceived election fraud and alleged reinstatement, and responses to anticipated restrictions relating to the increasing COVID cases.
..." [1]
Really, question for the author, why call in the Orwellian Thought Police, why not let people work out themselves who to trust?
Why a need for 'control', a 'gatekeeper' ?
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/ntas/advisory/national-terrorism-advisor...
No comments yet.