279
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

They weren't able to add more because a Republican Congress cut down approved funding to do so.

The "like your plan you can keep it" depended on private insurance continuing to offer plans that would not be tax advantaged. No additional funding was needed to see that that wasn't going to be viable.

It's not okay but it's not as big of a deal as you're making it, moreover it's been well reported that she renounced it apologized and since corrected it, so it's more to the point that it doesn't support your original argument.

At the beginning of the scandal, the content of those emails were treated as faked and the first response from the media was to self censor stories about them.

That's actually part of what made it a bigger story, is that when it later came out that they were real instead of people finding out about it months and months ago they found out in bits and pieces over time. In that instance the censorship actually likely hurt the Clinton's more than it helped; but the outrage is still felt mostly on the right as they saw it as another in a long line of censorship decisions that targeted the right.

[-] franklin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can honestly tell you that no one thought they were they were skeptical of the source, once they were authentic not one outlet called them fake.

And report after report shows the opposite of what you claim. Right wing News is favored on almost all online platforms and much of network news

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

They were never able to be called unauthenticated. They were published with DKIM signatures from the beginning.

[-] franklin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

you're confusing skepticism with oppression people taking a moment to believe something from Julian assange isn't censorship, He's not exactly the most trustworthy of sources no matter how much proof he brings up but once it was clear and it was pretty quick I think pretty much everyone bought on

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

Has WikiLeaks every published a false leak? Why would he not be trustworthy?

this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
279 points (96.7% liked)

Technology

59710 readers
1827 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS