mr_engineer

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/us-vaccinated-people-now-make-majority-of-covid-deaths-united-states-coronavirus-cases-2022-11-24-826210 Here's another one. 'Vaccinated deaths make the majority of COVID deaths'. And, here's Joe Biden calling this a 'pandemic of the unvaccinated'. In 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/09/09/remarks-by-president-biden-on-fighting-the-covid-19-pandemic-3/

@Consept My point is that this idea that governments are going to come together and form a world-government with values of 'sustainability' - this idea itself was said to be 'false'. And now, it's happening. The fact-checkers claimed a whole bunch of stuff. I only need one counter-example to show you a reason you should doubt what they're saying.

@Consept I mean, sure, you can mince words and stuff. But, ultimately, the sustainability-talk is to restrict people's access to resources like power, fuel, space, etc.

The job of the alt-media is to say what the mainstream-media isn't saying. It's not to 'be unbiased' and 'give all the facts'. These expectations only get placed on the mouthpieces of the governments. Why isn't the US-media interviewing people whose lives have been destroyed by lockdowns? Why was there so much repression of the Canadian truckers?! Why do people have to go outside the Parliament and honk their horns so that people have to listen?! And then they get crushed violently. In a true democracy, the media represents the people and holds the government accountable. Not the other way around.

Sure! The New World Order was called a 'conspiracy-theory' and fact-checkers claimed that it's false. This was 'about 2 years ago', as the site says. https://thelogicalindian.com/fact-check/new-world-order-one-government-agenda-21-2030-un-22501 But then, we have a world government forming right now!! This happened in 2022. https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/home

@Leo Gura The 'fact-checkers' are on a huge crusade to prove their 'absolute truth' to people. 'We have the facts, that somehow just fit with our agenda, all the claims that don't fit with them just happen to be false'.

A lot of alt-sources aren't political. (Some are, and I agree with you on the toxicity of those sources) That's a huge appeal for a lot of common people. They may not be able to articulate it in an intellectually honest way. Whatever the agenda of the alt-media may be, the reason people listen is that the bigger alt-media have data to back their claims. Some have credentials, but are censored by the mainstream cuz it didn't fit the mainstream's agenda. The 'fact-checkers' will, of course, deny this data. But, who pays them?! The mainstream!

Maybe you should also have integrity in how you implement those guidelines and rules, right?! Or you're going to practically interpret them in the language of whoever pays you off and you're going to censor all dissent?! It's interesting how these abuses of censorship always seem to have a PC justification. And then you have people telling you why there is censorship. Thank you for telling me what I already knew. My question is - why is it being abused?!

This, I don't know. My point with the 'smarter people' is that they'll be more intellectually honest with their reasons for consuming it. *The alt-media talks about what the mainstream omitted.

They don't have to answer for lying by omission, though. The alt-media talks about what they omitted. Correction - if you ask the smarter people consuming alt-media, they'll say 'It is biased, but it tells me what I need to watch out for from the mainstream'. They are a mouthpiece for Biden's government.

The mainstream caters to people who want to be told what to believe, whereas the alt-media caters to people who have an open mind to thinking about things differently. And in a way that's potentially more beneficial to themselves.

Yeah, which is why when they fail to be unbiased, they don't have to answer for that. That's what I meant. But, if the mainstream claims to be 'unbiased', they should have to answer for that! And they should openly admit to their failures to do their job of 'being unbiased'. If you ask people who consume alt-media whether alt-media is purely unbiased, they probably won't say 'yes'. But, if you ask people who consume mainstream-media whether it's purely unbiased or whether it's 'objective' enough for them, they probably will say 'yes'. These two media-niches meet different needs for different kinds of people. They can definitely be partisan and for their favorite political parties. And, if you're dipping your finger in the pie of politics, that is essentially what you're doing. You're being the mouthpiece of that party.

Now, why does the government care about an image of 'objectivity'?! Because if entity A is more 'objective' than them, then entity A gets more public support than them. And, government is all about public support and power. That's what politics is about. So, they have to maintain this image. Same applies to licensed news-sources. But, the alt-media is purely grassroots. And, the government 'objective' systems are going to have a problem with this. So, they'll censor them.

They don't have to say they're biased, because they're not lobbying to governments. So, they aren't taking on the responsibility that governments give them, which is to be 'objective'. But, the mainstream is backed by the government-systems. And, because people live under the government-systems (and they know that the mainstream is paid off by them), the mainstream is basically the mouthpiece of the government. So, their job is to be 'objective'. In which case, they have to admit to their failures in being 'objective'!

The mainstream lies by omission. They do not cover the big protests in Europe. This takes away the voices of people whose lives have been destroyed by the government-measures. You can have your justifications for the government-measures. But, the censorship is a sin. Fine, then. Welcome to the alt-media, who explains why they're doing it! They have an alternative explanation for it.

Why do they think they have the right to censor who they disagree with, then?! If this is not a crusade for their 'absolute truth', what is it?!

Bias ceases to be a sin when you're admitting to the relativity of your truth.

Yeah, but they don't define 'the absolute truth'. Their truth is a relative truth, and different from the mainstream. In disagreement with the mainstream on a lot of counts. The mainstream defines the 'absolute truth'. They are out for blood to define their idea of the absolute truth. It's way more fundamentalist than the alt-media.

Most people don't want to be indoctrinated with 'the absolute truth'. They would rather consume media that challenge their perspective, their conditioning and that gives them an alternative point of view. This is a very relieving stat, by the way. The truth is that 'the absolute truth' cannot be ideologically defined. So, this endeavor that the mainstream has embarked on is a futile one. And it is much more realistic to say that there are different sources with their biases and to integrate these perspectives, these sources and to come up with one's own idea of 'objective truth'. And to then come together with other multi-perspectival Tier-2 people and discuss that point of view and see whether you agree on that or not. Most truth/falsehood cannot be proven, though. The mainstream is not in the business of giving the truth, even though that is their claim. They stay within the limits of mainstream-science. Which is funded by corporations who want to get their way. The alternative-media is very banned. Very restricted. And yet, funny how people find ways to get to them!! Regulation is also biased. No, I want the mainstream to just be more open about their biases. If they did that, then paradoxically, their trustworthiness would go up a lot! Cuz they're telling the truth now. Bias is not the issue. The false claims about 'being unbiased' or 'objectivity' are the issue.

The alternative-media is not a 'source of information'. They are simply shining light on the loopholes of the mainstream. When you compare them like this, you are comparing apples to oranges. Because the mainstream takes on the responsibility of defining 'the truth' and 'sharing information'. That's not what the alternative does. I think both have their place, as of now.

It definitely shines light on details that the mainstream doesn't want to look at or sweeps under the rug. And that's very important, given that the mainstream is hypocritical about its 'objectivity'. It's good enough to prove that you shouldn't trust the mainstream. Their job is not to be 'accurate' or 'closer to the truth'. It's to represent the voice of the people on what the mainstream is doing. The mainstream, which is bought and paid for by the governments. They do not represent the people anymore and the people need their own media. The alternative serves that function. Now, what is 'the truth'?! Is it what the government says it is?! If that is the case, then no. It's not 'closer to the truth'. If that's what you're looking for, just listen to the mainstream! The alternative media is for people who need a voice.

You are obligated to follow the law, as a social-media platform. My point is that your position as Twitter should be for free-speech. And you censor very sparingly, where you have to co-operate with law-enforcement. You are censoring the voice of common people in a so-called democracy. The people responsible for this should be hanged, honestly. It distorts the public's idea of public perception. And it demoralizes individuals who are not for these restrictive government-measures. People whose livelihoods, businesses got destroyed by the lockdowns and now by the climate-policies.

The alternative sources don't claim to be unbiased. But, the mainstream makes this claim. So, bias in the alternative-media is less hypocritical than bias in the mainstream.

This is illegal stuff. So, no. The law is very obviously being broken in these cases. But, what about the protests in Europe?! What about the Canadian truckers?! Why were they censored?! These are normal, working-class people protesting against the problematic government policies. This is criminal-level censorship by social-media.

This is some Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' stuff. We, the state, have the truth. And you get to believe us or shut the fuck up. No room for disagreement. The point of discourse is to debate and have a civil discussion. Censorship is the opposite of that.