Doubled-edged sword, Padeen, agreed. On one hand, people making inflammatory remarks and grossly inflated stories online have a negative effect on people's lives, at worst, spreading deliberate lies to create confusion through manipulation. On the other, if people of extreme beliefs are forbidden of expressing their opinion, it prevents them from learning a more realistic and moderate viewpoint, politics aside.
reply
share
Thrillhouse (1509)
6 years ago
You are talking about the New York Times saying Iraq had WMDs. Alex Jones said they were lying. Lying mainstream censors the alternative, not the other way around. Think about it this way. If the mainstream were telling the truth, there would be no need to censor. We don't censor the flat earth theory, because we can simply show the earth is round and not fear persuasion.
reply
share
twinA (4827)
6 years ago
All sources of information need to be held accountable. There's some news where not all the facts are known or it's safer to not reveal every bit of info since the jury is still out on the verdict. About flat Earth truthers, I read a funny story pertaining to a person's real life encounter one, who was told that the Earth must be flat, why else would gas stations only sell flat map models?
reply
share
Thrillhouse (1509)
6 years ago
Held accountable by whom? The New York Times cannot hold itself accountable. Nor can they hold anyone else accountable by censoring them. You are using the word accountable as a weasel word.
reply
share
twinA (4827)
6 years ago
Open to public scrutiny and where the laws regarding the matter are concerned in the eyes of professional journalism. If an author intends to express a viewpoint, it must be acknowledged as commentary on events, so readers can better substantiate fact from opinion or readers must be aware of it, as you are with the New York Times. We're free to read what we want, but more research on our part must be done so we're not stuck in a media echo chamber.
reply
share