Posted on 06/04/2021 5:33:19 AM PDT by BusterDog
This line is from the actual published paper in PNAS.org: "Results are corroborated with independent sources of known IO accounts from US Congressional reports, investigative journalism, and IO datasets provided by Twitter."
Oh, sure, nothing can go wrong with their methodology (/sarc). Chilling, IMO. Even though they used the example of the French election for their published study, at the bottom in the Acknowledgements is this: This material is based upon work supported by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering under Air Force Contract No. FA8702-15-D-0001.
Exactly. And that is why freedom of speech was held in such high regard as a right by the Founders; and that is why the Democrats/Leftists want to get rid of it.
The article raises a good question since we have been getting fed bogus information from the lying fraud in charge of infectious diseases for quite awhile in this man made disaster.
We still are not seeing the truth in the main stream media,millions have died,the people responsible for all the deaths and carnage are still spreading lies and are being paid!
Answer to this is easy. Ban the DemoKKKrat Party, declare it (rightfully) a terrorist organization, arrest everyone at MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and 2/3 of those at Faux.
DONE!
“Why would you need to “STEM” the tide of any speech besides overt hate speech, terrorism, or criminal activity???”
*****
Doesn’t seem that long ago, late 80’s and early 90’s, I was in college and had a great, Ivy League educated poly sci professor.
He was a liberal, and a deconstructionist, not my cup of tea, but I remember very clearly his description of what was free speech.
There were very few limits.
You couldn’t yell “fire,” in a crowded theater.
You couldn’t incite violence, i.e. you couldn’t say, “I’m going to go shoot that dude,” and you couldn’t say, “Ya’ll need to go over there and shoot that dude.”
You could be held liable if you say something disparaging about someone that was not true and it caused them loss.
Other than that, speech was protected. He would even cite examples like the KKK and say, “While all reasonable people find their speech despicable, it is political speech and is protected. It has to be protected because if it is not, that’s a slipper slope. Where will it end?”
We are a long way from that and it seems to me that Poso has a case for liable here. Are they not essentially saying he is involved in a conspiracy network and limiting his career options in the media?
How refreshing it would be if a company like Google said, “Look, we do not have a political position. We provide products and services. If the government says that certain content is illegal, then we will take it down. Otherwise, we do not police it, if it’s legal speech, it stays up.”
Companies used to be like that, they would go a long way to avoid conflict.
Then they found they could gain power and global market share by partnering with globalist political entities and became adversarial to American sovereignty and the interests of the American people.
So did most of our politicians in both political parties.
“How refreshing it would be if a company like Google said, “Look, we do not have a political position. We provide products and services....””
~~~
Power corrupts, and the closer to absolute power that some of these entities get, the closer to absolute temptation of corruption they fall in to.
The desire to influence people is more alluring that even money. Power isn’t one of the seven deadly sins but it should be. The closes you get is a hybrid of pride and greed. Why is it that ALL of the “news” channels run wall-to-wall 24/7 politics anymore??? This includes the right leaning networks. They cannot help it! They cannot stop themselves. They probably agonize when a natural disaster happens and they have to momentarily postpone their influence peddling and cover something that cannot be related back to politics.
Google, facebook, twitter, even amazon and microsoft. They can’t just be in their respective businesses and markets. They’re too big not to be tempted by power.
“Power isn’t one of the seven deadly sins but it should be. The closes you get is a hybrid of pride and greed.”
*****
Thanks for posting that, z3n. That’s exactly how I look at the world.
I think all of life is explained through the lenses of the seven deadly sins and the seven cardinal virtues.
All of life’s choices, life’s purpose itself is the very act of working through choices in the light of these virtues and vices, often in areas where it’s hard to actually tell what’s what when you factor in our emotions, especially fears, and predilection for self delusion and blind spots.
I definitely see power as a form of pride primarily and can see how greed could be in there, too.
The ultimate power would be to be like a god, right? What could be more prideful than that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.