Big Sister Is Watching You...in 50 countries

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Klassified

Yeah, this is ripe for propaganda, no question.

I don't really have a problem with a higher level of Politifacts or Snopes, dedicated to addressing accusations and conspiracy theories and supplying facts from both sides. However, such an organization needs to be completely non-biased and non-political. You can't do that with a committee appointed by a political figure and/or that answers to politicians.

You cant trust anyone with truth. Thus, freedom of speech.

Snopes and politifact are good reason for this. Submission/omission of certain facts to form a truth

Here's a good first assignment.......find the hundreds of "mis info" statements in this wiki story...

like maybe the "title" ⚔️🥥


George Floyd protests

a reply to: JinMI

You cant trust anyone with truth. Thus, freedom of speech.

a reply to: Klassified

Yeah ... she's going to need to explain that a bit beyond just making the pronouncement. I want her thought process on it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

Yeah ... she's going to need to explain that a bit beyond just making the pronouncement. I want her thought process on it.

After doing some reading and seeing a few videos of her, I'm not so sure she has any thought processes. At least none that you and I would find coherent.

To be honest, I find her statement that it's a "false dichotomy" to be non sequitur.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Klassified

Yeah, this is ripe for propaganda, no question.

I don't really have a problem with a higher level of Politifacts or Snopes, dedicated to addressing accusations and conspiracy theories and supplying facts from both sides. However, such an organization needs to be completely non-biased and non-political.

Surprisingly I generally agree - as long as they have absolutely no way to prevent someone they don't like from saying something they don't like - ie, ZERO enforcement powers, including an ability to somehow flag posts or hide them behind some scary 'disinfo' warning label.

Big sister is a complete and utter whackjob, a very dangerous whackjob.

originally posted by: Klassified
Big Sister is watching you.

Big Sister likes to Watch.

If all the private citizens' disinformation gets removed from the internet, then the internet will only contain the government's disinformation.

But it will still always contain disinformation.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Klassified

Yeah, this is ripe for propaganda, no question.

I don't really have a problem with a higher level of Politifacts or Snopes, dedicated to addressing accusations and conspiracy theories and supplying facts from both sides. However, such an organization needs to be completely non-biased and non-political. You can't do that with a committee appointed by a political figure and/or that answers to politicians.

You cant trust anyone with truth. Thus, freedom of speech.

Snopes and politifact are good reason for this. Submission/omission of certain facts to form a truth

"Truth" is what you would know if you knew everything. The government doesn't know everything.

Having them claim they do know everything is very worrisome. (Which is the requirement in order for anyone to claim to be able to accurately determine what to censor.)

originally posted by: Klassified


Addendum: It is my contention this will be left in place whether or not Republicans take the house and senate. Trying to do away with it will take months, if not years, as well as several court cases. The fact that the administration has set it up as a treaty of sorts with other countries further entrenches it. And if pushed on it, this will be the Republican reasoning for not tackling it immediately. I'd love to be wrong, but we'll see what happens...
Source 1
Source 2

That definitely worries me.

Treaties are considered equal with constitutional requirements.


It's a good thing nobody has yet found a way to make a treaty limiting the number of guns that private citizens can own.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're not expecting a govt. agency to be non-partisan, are you??

Non-partisan gov't agency is, to put it mildly, an oxymoron.

Like the FBI, and various other gov't. agencies, it will be put to malicious uses, almost immediately.