I like watching Netflix with Mrs d00d; she likes a bit of soap, rom com. We enjoy the interaction: guessing what’s coming up next, being first to know who done it.
Absolutely, every time d00d.
Once upon a time you could rely on the news, but not since somebody realised they could control the masses with it…
Even if some of the atrocities did happen, what can we do, or want to do about it.
Virtue signalling and arguing with people on a forum is the best you can expect…
1 Like
Let’s consider that notion. What you call MSM is of course a mix of press, television and online news reporting. These are all groups of professional and trained journalists and reporters. With the back up of analysts and specialists. The spend every day gathering, analysing, assessing, verifying, background checking and cross checking news stories. Certainly they can be lazy and miss details. Certainly they can be biased and present one angle more than another. However, the press (and here I include TV news) is the fourth estate that holds power to account, that identifies falsehoods, that digs into links, connections and actions some might want to keep out of sight.
And then there are bunch of keyboard warriors on social media pumping out anything that might gain them clicks and revenue. No checks.
I wonder which is a healthier source of info and insights on the world. Hard to decide, isn’t it?
1 Like
I am a tremendous supporter of the fourth estate, but there are no required credentials for journalists, and no ethical oaths for which there are consequences for bad journalism. When news organizations were smaller and independently owned, there was a greater effort to offer unbiased news, but now, wise readers believe “journalists” are more inclined to be propagandists.
There is certainly a problem with the belief that “We are all journalists now,” but one of the benefits of the internet is that people are quick to point out potential flaws and outright deception, allowing the public to research stories on their own. I wholly agree that one of the most significant problem is that clicks = revenue to the poster.
3 Likes
When you put it like that, yes, it is hard to decide. And the answer is, in a word, both. Whilst the Journos are sitting around their Paddington HQ with Whitehall officials deciding on what the UK official line will be, the keyboard warriors are providing us with an alternative story. Not a bad thing surely? Let’s keep an open mind on this.
2 Likes
1 Like
I’m dead against any sort of censorship (for adults) it’s what the government starts with when they want to control everything in our lives (Russia, North Korea etc.)
If parents stopped giving their kids everything they wanted and used a bit of restraint there would be no need for this.
If you’re going to give your children the means to access content they shouldn’t be seeing or hearing, it’s your own fault when the go off-the-rails.
I don’t see why the rest of us should be inconvenienced because of a few feckless parents.
2 Likes
Just to check this stance - does that mean happily allowing racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemitic, islamophobic (etc.) abuse, hate and threats? After all, its just words. No real harm done, eh?
And you forgot racist remarks against White folk, Christians, monogamous people and Yorkshire folk…
1 Like
Absolutely, although I’d hoped the “etc.” would cover anything I forgot.
But I’ll admit that even if I took days to consider every single possible group I would most probably not identified folk from Yorkshire as a group at threat from hate speech. Such folk are, to a man and woman, charming, welcoming, loving of their southern friends, generous to a fault, fashionable, considerate, smart, modest about their county and most definitely without a chip on their shoulder.
1 Like
Merry Christmas Lincs…
As I was saying, censorship is the thin end of the wedge, the government wants to control anything and everything, they’ll use any excuse to keep control, that is a fact.
1 Like
The government can’t have it both ways Boomer, they provide us with a portal (the internet) to access all areas of our private lives to keep us informed with their propaganda and brainwashing, but then moan when we use it to group together and realise that we are being taken for fools and sussed out their agenda.
2 Likes
The Genie is out of the bottle…and rampant!
2 Likes
There is a lot in this one sentence.
Removing social media access is not, on its own and in of itself, censorship. If information or messages needs to be shared then there are other mechanisms with which to do that. So its not the message that is being restricted - it is the mechanism of sharing a message. And here it is only being restricted from a certain group (under 16’s).
Unfettered sharing of messages can be good but also be bad. Social media is awash with lies, misinformation, abuse, propaganda and short videos of fluffy kittens. Some of this is harmless and some of this is most definitely harmful. The social media platforms have shown themselves to be unwilling to control the harmful stuff. They completely walk away from any responsibility on sharing harmful content. This is unique in the history of communication. And not good.
Lastly, how does your claim about the government wanting to control anything and everything work when there is a change in government? How does this apparent desire to keep control sit with the misinformation pushed out by other (non-government) agents?
1 Like
The media prompted by the establishment don’t like to give the impression that hundreds or thousands of people think the same and band together…Divide and conquer is always the establishments way of removing dissent from the general public, and that’s why they try to limit gatherings on social media or anywhere else.
And the majority of this is actually from the establishment.
Because the government are not the ones running the show Lincs. All governments are ultimately controlled by the people they owe money to. People who can shut down any country that doesn’t follow the agenda. Most governments just do enough to pacify the general public and prevent conflict, it’s called ‘social engineering’
2 Likes
Surely then, if we follow your logic, social media is the perfect tool for this shadow group (who run the show as you claim). It is the perfect mechanism for identifying people with shared views. It is perfect for manipulation and spreading false information. It excellent for stirring up hatred and suspicion. Perfect for false agents, fake images, outrage and outrageous claims. In fact, as you note, “the majority of this is actually from the establishment” - you are saying that people are right now being duped into their outrage.
Ok. Where does that get us?
Well, it means the concern over people coming to one’s country through irregular means is a fabricated concern.
It means that Reform is not really that popular - just folk are being told it is and now think Reform is something worth voting for.
It means Brexit was never popular until now - when it is no longer a bad idea.
Or do these things avoid the influence of this shadow group controlling everything (err, not everything, of course, everything except the stuff you agree with).
2 Likes
I couldn’t have described social media better myself…
1 Like
But @OldGreyFox … Unless I misunderstood @Lincolnshire means that even your theory is based on what you do and don’t believe to be ‘fake news’ or ‘social engineering’ … so you are as subject to been manipulated and brainwashed as much as the rest of us.
Worse, you are trying to convince the rest of us it is all unreal.
Which it might be … it’s not as ludicrous as it sounds… but by dint of the same argument why should we think your truth is the actual truth?
God, it is times like this I wish I believed in a higher power that only delivered the truth and nothing but the absolute Truth. 
1 Like
Ignore that post I just made … I can’t even understand it myself.
1 Like