Global Section 230

As far as I know, South Africa does not have the equivalent of a section 230. We are however, being shoved the same type of partisan, opiniated horse manure as the United States, but also the rest of the world.

News coming from America has already been pre-prepared, ready for the unwitting masses to accept as gospel.

Trump = Bad.

Biden = Good.

My realization and the reason for this post, is quite obvious.

A national law in America has become global policy in effect.

It's not long before the rest of the world follow suit. America falls first, then the rest of us are easy pickings.

Read the latest news South Africans are fed:

US politics - Latest news

And they even end off the article with this juicy piece of irony:





We are already where we dont want to be. And the propaganda which is good for the United States, ought to be good for everybody on a global scale.

a reply to: 19Bones79

There is a quote from 1984 that fits the current climate.

"HE WHO CONTROLS THE PAST CONTROLS THE FUTURE; HE WHO CONTROLS THE PRESENT CONTROLS THE PAST"

Welcome to control.

a reply to: 19Bones79

It's never had anything to do with America's section 230. That's always just been some deflection bull#. These companies operate globally. They don't what they do because of america. They do what they do for their own interests. Facebook, Google, the associated press all these companies and organizations pushing the same type of censorship and message are doing it because it benefits them. Not because it benefits one of the two make believe political parties in america.

The main reason they wanted biden had less to do with political ideology and more to do with the way it's now divided the us government ensuring pretty much nothing of consequence can change there over the next 4 years and business can just go on as usual for them, until eventually, they can just ditch the US for china and turn North America into a poor resource continent to fuel the new Asian consumer economy.

a reply to: dug88

You're telling me that a law that allows mainstream media to use propaganda against the citizens of the United States has nothing to do with the climate of fake news polluting the world today.

a reply to: dug88

One of the best two-paragraph synopses I've read in a while. If that '88 in your handle is the year you were born, you're giving me some hope that not all is lost on the up-and-coming generation.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: dug88

You're telling me that a law that allows mainstream media to use propaganda against the citizens of the United States has nothing to do with the climate of fake news polluting the world today.

That's an editorial, right? So most media has editorials that it uses to voice the particular option of that outlet. In most countries the right of centre will put their spin on things, those left of centre will voice theirs. AS long as it's accompanied by facts that can be validated, what do you think the issue is? If you buy from a particular media outlet that has an obvious political sway you shouldn't be surprised by the editorial.

I think what's disappointing you is that their editorial doesn't confirm your own personal opinion - isn't that really your problem? So buy something that doesn't challenge you to reconsider your own opinion, that will make you happier, not necessarily better informed.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Not sure where that idea's come from. Section 230 provides website owners protection from liability for user posted content. Without it, places like ats would become liable and responsible for the things users post. Any website owner would need to become extremely careful about what any user posted and if anything would lead to websites just removing user content altogether and leaving even less places for people to freely speak.

It doesn't grant anyone the ability to spread propaganda. I think you may have this confused with Obama's changes to the Smith v mundt act in 2012 which did enable the use of propaganda on american citizens.

a reply to: uncommitted

Ok, so the point I'm trying, and failing to convey, is that they claim to be a shining beacon of integrity and a news source "that you can trust".

There should be no political "sway".

There was electoral fraud committed in your election whether your "sway" allows you to admit it or not.

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: 19Bones79

I think you may have this confused with Obama's changes to the Smith v mundt act in 2012 which did enable the use of propaganda on american citizens.

You're absolutely right. My bad.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: uncommitted

Ok, so the point I'm trying, and failing to convey, is that they claim to be a shining beacon of integrity and a news source "that you can trust".

There should be no political "sway".

There was electoral fraud committed in your election whether your "sway" allows you to admit it or not.

Wasn't my election, but you've just shown your bias. You believe there was fraud because Trump says there was. No amount of BS videos or 'experts' actually prove otherwise, but you have your belief and anything that says otherwise you think is wrong.

You can go your own 'sway', you'll just end up believing what you want to believe.

a reply to: uncommitted

You are woefully behind the narrative, mate. The "there was no fraud it's all trump he's a dictator" story has been thrown down the memory hole ever since 20 states, other politicians, sworn testimony from citizens and good ol' fashioned math and science have shown otherwise.

But maybe just repeat its all trump by himself omg such a dictator over and over...its worth a shot!

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
a reply to: uncommitted

You are woefully behind the narrative, mate. The "there was no fraud it's all trump he's a dictator" story has been thrown down the memory hole ever since 20 states, other politicians, sworn testimony from citizens and good ol' fashioned math and science have shown otherwise.

But maybe just repeat its all trump by himself omg such a dictator over and over...its worth a shot!

Nah, you just keep following BS that vindicates your own opinion.

It is quite childish, but then it started with someone who couldn't believe everyone wouldn't vote for him, so hardly unusual that the people who slavishly follow him can't accept facts.

A bit sad, but I hope you get to have some kind of holiday, whether you believe there should be one or not.