I didn’t say they mischaracterize the site, I said they made an “effort to categorize The Daily Wire as ‘misinformation’”. They wrote a slanted article demonizing The Daily Wire and similar sites with input from only those with one view of the matter who push a specific agenda. It’s clear to me that this is a part of the widespread effort to deplatform “misinformation” initiated by the far left, taken up by the Democrats, and now being championed by the White House.
Yes, and I said I don’t think they go that far.
I addressed your argument. I’m not interested in semantics unless it will promote understanding.
Then you shouldn’t engage in it. Why would you tell me what you didn’t say when I clearly told you what I didn’t agree with?
I did my best to respond to your argument. I thought that you might have misread or misunderstood mine so I prefaced my response with a clarification of my position.
Alright. Well, it doesn’t seem that way to me, for the reasons I stated. I certainly don’t like the article though.
Why do you think the author wrote the article and the NPR published it? To me it was a very thinly veiled attempt to put pressure on Facebook to increase efforts to get social media giants to take actions to reduce the influence and reach of the right wing sites mentioned.
That seems like a stretch. If that were true, the article would look a lot different. I think they just believe what they wrote and someone thought it was worth publishing 
That is a very strange, and unlikely, take.
1 Like
I don’t think so, it can be seen all the time 
The article barely mentions misinformation, so it does seem unlikely that it was intended to demonstrate that, even if it was possible they might do that.
Seems like we could use a thread on censorship. This is a good enough start
What a strange flip flop since 2016 in the US. The right has traditionally been more positive on letting large corporations do their thing, although I don’t think that extended toward the current environment. While the left have been critical of letting large corporations just dominate politics and social issues.
Unfortunately for most people, they don’t understand most large corporations don’t care. There are some exceptions of some successful large companies that has always taken a causes as a company ethos, such as Ben and Jerries. Although they did struggle with balancing profits and social causes.
The real reason is really ESG investing tbh. When I was in the industry, that was a big thing now for private and institutional investors. It’s not a bad idea but it’s so white washed now. If companies don’t put out a fake image of social causes in their PR, they won’t make any ESG investment lists and it would greatly restrict their access to capital and negatively impact stock prices. I really hope people are more aware of this, thats why a company will put BLM on their website but remove black characters from movie posters in China.
It’s not just about the bottom line. They want to be on ESG lists of companies to invest in.
“Cause you know like…you know,like…and whatnot.” Can someone just summarize the main point? 5 minutes in and he kind of lost me already. Then he mentioned cancel culture. I am asking honestly because I actually couldn’t follow him. Listening with maybe some context might help and I want to try to follow it so I can think about it.
I disagree!
Flip on the closed captions and crank it up to 2x speed! I guess these people speak my language lol
haha. Will try to watch it again this week. The CC might help. 
This is by the guy interviewed there
I don’t understand people. I have never once thought twitter needed to censor CCP accounts for example. I know they spread misinformation but I have never once thought in my mind that I should tell Twitter to ban all CCP accounts.
Should be banned!