1/ the "facebook whistleblower" is an op to push for more censorship. her today's testimony is for pushing more censorship to stem - get this - the danger of "political polarization" and "stoking division". manufacturing consent much?
2/ even worse, the "harming kids" narrative is based on an online poll (!). apparently 15% teens responded FB makes their lives worse, 34% that it makes their lives *better*, and 51% didn't lean either way.
this is how a "whistleblower" made it to congressional hearing lol
3/ the unsaid part is that FB is killing the old style media, and their narrative-making capability.
the other unsaid part is journalists were told to stop being little hall monitors.
it absolutely is a media hit op.
4/ note the format: for the last ~5 years the media were poisoning the well wrt. Facebook, by posting story after story of "blue site bad".
this all came to head today - a hitherto uknown-nobody whistleblower got in front of nodding-in-agreement congress in 2 days.
5/ this was in the works ever since Zuckerberg "sold out progressive cause" by selling to Trump's 2016 campaign the same data he sold to Obama's campaign earlier.
6/ for extra irony:
the media thinks itself so much better than Facebook that it lobbied - and got! - a law mandating FB pays *it* for it being able to post their content to FB.
7/ in US power flows a bit differently:
the media are gunning for new regulation that would force FB to limit "divisive ", "polarizing" content, etc. - nebulous concepts as *decided on the spot* by the reporting in the media.
10/ imagine the outrage if a random nobody posted this to Facebook,
rather than esteemed journalist Ashley to an esteemed newspaper Jezebel.
i disavow.
11/ media's strategy:
- amplify select voices of people who already agree with their propaganda ("the facebook whistleblower")
- prompt insiders to issue sweeping proposals on the wave of media's reporting
Power corrupts, and this is ultimate power, if in small doses.
2/ I love Upper Echelon Gamers' content - it's varied, intense, well researched and presented. He even earned a complimentary twitter ban to emphasize speaking truth to the power. RIP.
Saw him as "by the people, for the people" kind of journalism.
But is that the case anymore?
3/ What is a journalist to do, when given an easy, unquestionable angle?
Meta-question it. Always. Be the unpopular guy asking, "but are we seeing all that there is to it?" when people make teary eyes and the state sends legal cavalry for the - predictably always same - victims.
In a classic lefty inversion, Seth proposes using and brandishing force to enact political change through scaring the civilians.
Pretty sure that's *quite* close to normal understanding of terrorism - of which Seth accuses his target.
Note that Seth riles against Trump's petition of redress of grievances to courts and to legislatives. Note that Seth proposes government use force to prevent Trump from petitioning, and from speaking to his supporters. That doesn't square well with the Constitution.
2/ Trump won by arbitraging the landed gentry of US.
a wind of his kind is not merely one-time; he showed a path that people are willing to follow. also sowed a lot of messages that simply did not exist in popular consciousness on the neutral/not-far-left side.
need a repeat.
3/ "the landed gentry?"
historically in UK they were known as "lord of this, lord of that".
currently in US they are known as "editor of this, editor of that". (there is some more but that's besides the point rn).
3/ one of the accuser is now suing her employer, the Washington Post & its officers, for being barred from covering me-too style accusations, in particular the Christine Blasey Ford accusations.