It even had an additional electronic component which made it accept PAL signal, in addition to its native SECAM.
PS: Some say SECAM was technically superior to PAL, but dunno.
1. It is just a proposal: “The proposed legislation, which is supported by Vyacheslav Volodin, the parliamentary speaker, a close ally of President Putin, could be discussed by parliament as early as this week, state television reported.”
2. Another wild proposal, to forcibly conscript protestors, was shot down by Kremlin:
https://twitter.com/GazetaRu/status/1499402119836622858
It’s disappointing to see not one comment here suggesting that someone read beyond the headline. Et tu, Hacker News?
https://nitter.snopyta.org/MarkAmesExiled/status/14991264245...
No one is innocent here. On Spanish media they dared to use videogame images (Arma 3) as real footage, ditto with a Chinese civil explosion (causality/accident) as a Russia bombing strike.
I'm going to go with jailing citizens for 15 years as much worse than mildly critical journalists in Russia.
Ignoring your combo whataboutism and gish gallop. Don't think Russia has much jurisdiction over some Spanish news channel.
Look what happened in Ukraine. Among neonazis, they supported this:
Ukraine's 2017 education law will make Ukrainian the required language of study in state schools from the fifth grade on, although it allows instruction in other languages as a separate subject,[65][66][67] to be phased in in 2023.[68] Since 2017, the Hungary–Ukraine relations rapidly deteriorated over the issue of the Hungarian minority in Ukraine.[69] According to the New Europe:
The latest row between Kiev and Budapest comes on the heels of a bitter dispute over a decision by Ukraine's parliament – the Verkhovna Rada – to pass a legislative package on education that bars primary education to all students in any language but Ukrainian. The move has been widely condemned by the international community as needlessly provocative as it forces the historically bilingual population of 45 million people who use Russian and Ukrainian interchangeably as mother tongues to become monolingual. Furthermore, the large minorities of Hungarians, Jews, Poles, Tatars, Gypsies, Romanians, Caucasians, and Gagauz generally speak and receive some formal or informal education in their own national languages, all of which will be adversely affected by the new draconian language statute.
Also:
Lviv Oblast Unian reported that "A ban on the use of cultural products, namely movies, books, songs, etc., in the Russian language in the public has been introduced" in the Lviv Oblast in September 2018.[71] Critics[who?] called the law ill-defined, illegal, and unconstitutional, and a successful January 2019 court challenge by the Chuhuiv Human Rights Group was dismissed on technical grounds in May, and could lead to a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights.[72]
They tried to ban the public usage of Russian in Ukraine.
That's a little step towards fascism.
Silverfish's brow furrowed. "Well," he said, "yesterday you said—"
"I mean metaphorically," said Dibbler quickly.
"Oh. Well. Metaphorically? I suppose not—"
"There you are, then."
— Terry Pratchett
To your credit "to" in the headline here could be considered misleading. It implies "[If the proposal by Volodin, a close ally of Putin, is successful] Russia to punish ‘fake news’".
Hope the war ends soon, the "rebel" provinces gets a referendum and if they opt to be part of Russia, they should have a clause to be Russian AND part of the European Union. Everyone wins. Russia too, even if it "hates" the West they need us the Europeans economically far more than a war mongering USA.
I also don’t get “among neo-nazis” line.
In any case language question is more a Russian propaganda talking point, I don’t see it being major topic in the Ukrainian political life.
And if you think nobody in America wants to jail journalists and media CEOs, go look at any forum with a substantial amount of Republicans talking freely.
The are not separate phenomenon at different stages, they are a global, coordinated group. They were coordinated by the massive cash flows coordinated by a small group in Russia. The use coordinated tactics, in concert with each other.
> In 2010, Assange gained unauthorized access to a government computer system of a NATO country. In 2012, Assange communicated directly with a leader of the hacking group LulzSec (who by then was cooperating with the FBI), and provided a list of targets for LulzSec to hack.
> Assange conspired with Army Intelligence Analyst Chelsea Manning to crack a password hash to a classified U.S. Department of Defense computer.
If this is true then he is not a journalist.
But yes, we need to take it extremely seriously in the West and fight against any and all encroachments so that we don't slide further towards authoritarianism. Recent trends have been concerning.
It’s especially sad trying to cite him in this context, as we already know that he censors and threatens whistleblowers who ask him to publish documents on Putin.
Coincidentally enough, he has signed a contract with Russian state tv for his own tv show. He’s also been confronted about these facts and doesn’t bother denying any of it.
And that's ignoring the whole rape thing with Assange.
In Czechia up to 1 year for publicly supporting Russia (two people already detained): https://www.praguemorning.cz/expressing-support-for-russia-o...
In Slovakia, supporting [Russian] war propaganda 10 to 25 years: https://spravy.rtvs.sk/2022/02/za-podporu-vojnovej-propagand...
EU banned RT and Sputnik:
"It shall be prohibited for operators to broadcast or to enable, facilitate or otherwise contribute to broadcast, any content by the legal persons, entities or bodies listed in Annex XV, including through transmission or distribution by any means such as cable, satellite, IP-TV, internet service providers, internet video-sharing platforms or applications, whether new or pre-installed"
RT and Sputnik are literally Russian government entities.
What did this war look like? What actions did the government actually take to fight journalists covering POTUS unfavorably? Because I just remember an incredible amount of pearl clutching by journalists about how dangerous it is to say bad things about the press and how democracy would die in darkness if their credibility was questioned. It never actually stopped them from continuing act the same way.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/trump-vs-media-freedom-of-press-d...
Now that is out of the way, should we switch our focus back to how Russia suppress any domestic news about the ongoing Ukriane war? Or “special operation” as it’s only allowed to be called?
As if it's wrong to point out that tweeting and a 15 year jail sentence are not equivalent.
I can't understand what this means... are there really Russian vote-bots here or something?
You then claim that this is the "same authoritarianism" as that of Putin's Russia, where the press is firmly muzzled, where you can and will go to prison for in any way openly criticizing the United Russia Party or Putin himself and where reporters or political opponents are regularly, frequently murdered even abroad for going against the grain of Putin's narratives too often.
No, these are not cases of different stages, they're cases of entirely different worlds. Trump's authoritarian noises were mostly just noises and sloppy backlash. Putin's authoritarianism is the real thing.
If we are being completely honest, we won't pretend the last three (whether you mean Obama, Trump, Biden or Bush, Obama, Trump) were special in that regard.
I'm a liberal and would like to point out that fellow liberals say the same about conservatives. We're wasting energy and making enemies fighting a narrative warfare, and it's frankly very stupid.
Jail the their protestors, but not our own. Deplatform their voices and curtail their free speech, but not our own. It's the exact same behavior in both sides, yet both parties rush in to say how they're different and morally correct.
We need to mend ties, not strain them further. We're becoming too polarized, and that's exactly what authoritarians that eye the end of Democracy and its influence want. We're focused on fighting our petty squabbles instead of positioning ourselves in the global sphere.
If you think any of our manufactured crises are even in the same order of magnitude as what Ukraine is facing right now, then they're already winning.
My worry isn't in owning or being owned by the other party. It's that Democracy is shown to be less effective, that free speech is put in a box, and that we end the century in shackles. No future under those pretenses is worth looking forward to.
If there's one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on, it's that tech isn't censoring the things they want censored.
But this is not a left/right political issue. That is incidental. The social exploit of this foreign operational is orthogonal to political ideology and both side stand to suffer substantially. Trump's lack of conservative ideology bona fides are well documented.
Describing media outlets he didn't like as "a war against .. media" is sensationalist. Saying this is "the same authoritarianism in different stages" is the same as saying getting angry is the same as genocide - "same anger in different stages" which is what ahs given rise to the draconian "literally Hitler" attitude to any dissent; This in itself is totalitarian.
"So we're supposed to protect you against Russia and you pay billions of dollars to Russia and I think that's very inappropriate"
Trump 2018
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-pipeline/trum...
From the center of strategic and international studies. It describes how the same ideology (white male christian) worldview is connected to Putin and Trump, and how the West is viewed as decadent through the moral lens of the fundamentalist churches in both the US and the Russian orthodox church.
Conservatism in the US is not what conservatism in France is. Conservatism in Mexico is not what conservatism in Brazil is.
Putin's version of conservatism, as mentioned in the article, is only applicable to Russia and countries with similar culture.
Comparing Trump to Putin is like comparing Nixon to Brezhnev.
I notice that Democrats aren't forming white supremacist militias, plotting to kidnap state governors, attacking Congress specifically to overturn the results of a national election, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN3z3eSVG7A
The YT comment section actually has a few gems too.
https://youtu.be/e4an0MlF27k?t=11397
Twitter and facebook are being blocked. Youtube and group chats in telegram/signal/etc are the only things left right now.
7670 people have been detained so far.
I hope the citizens realize it can be just as bad in the West if we give governments and corporations more control
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/03/world/europe/russia-ukrai...
This is the silver lining as people on Reddit are reporting a marked decrease in right wing trolling in all their social media
Does anyone know of any organizations studying the ongoing levels of creation and engagement with that type of content?
The wording of the Hong Kong national security law asserts jurisdiction over people who are not residents of Hong Kong and have never even set foot there. This means anyone on Earth, regardless of nationality or location, can technically be deemed to have violated this law and face arrest and prosecution if they are in a Chinese jurisdiction, even for transit.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/07/hong-kong-nat...
UK law people making social media posts could face two years in prison over Fake News https://www.rt.com/uk/539103-trolls-prison-psychological-har...
Another proposition is to send anti-war protesters to war “so that they can see what's actually going on”.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but I think there may be some potential problems with that approach.
This description matches everything that Putin and his lackeys have been doing since 22-02-2022
We'll see how the gamble goes. We may see Russia become North Korea 2.0 with the Putin family as the new Tzars of Russia. Or maybe a second governmental collapse is imminent.
We’re not free anymore. Haven’t been for a long time.
Bring back the FCC fairness doctrine.
Constitutions alone do nothing. If we're not on guard, collectively, we could easily end up without freedom of speech and press in practice.
The actual war isn't going well at all. Their reg troops are driving by wrecked russian equipment destroying their morale.
So they can't deal with reality, send everyone who dissents to prison.
Note that even in the quoted allegations he pretty much didn't actually even do much at all. I don't know Assange, but I don't have doubts about who to side with.
From the article “Here traditionalism and identity are fused together such that disrupting one threatens the other. Any demographic change (particularly immigration from Muslim-majority and non-White countries, exacerbated in the public perception by low birth rates) is viewed as a direct challenge to identity and tradition.”
So maybe the better word is “strategic conversatism” as per the article.
What I fear most is a return to the historical mean - where the vast majority are mere peasants. Ignorant, and systematically oppressed, restrained, and exploited.
There's a difference between having LEGITIMATE business long BEFORE your dad has power vs. getting put on a board of a corrupt energy company WHILE your dad is overseeing the country relations as VP. One is capitalism, one is nepotism.
But all that being said, the statement "they get most all of their money from Russia" is wrong at face value. Their businesses do not get the majority of revenue from Russia. Back that statement up with a source so it can be torn apart.
There's a clear intent to derail and muffle.
Welcome to the world of Russian digital propaganda machine.
They even have puppet accounts arguing with each other, as was discovered by Russian media.
Fitting, because the Reagan administration didn't realize at the time that they were accidently convincing the increasingly old men leading the USSR that the US was preparing a first strike on the evil empire.
So, Putin is now saying, “It’s independent,” a large section of Ukraine. I said, “How smart is that?” And he’s gonna go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s strongest peace force… We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen. There were more army tanks than I’ve ever seen. They’re gonna keep peace all right. No, but think of it. Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well."
Trump 02/22/2022.
(emphasis mine)
Full audio interview here:
https://www.clayandbuck.com/president-trump-with-cb-from-mar...
Obviously it wasn't as clever as Putin hoped, because nobody in the whole world except a few Russian HN posters believe it. But saying that your opponent has a clever plan does not mean you're on the opponent's side.
(note to mods: after debate, the answer was 0, plz no rate limtz)
Someday, I'll come for repayment.
How do you know that if you can't see them? And if you have been looking at them and have made a judgement why can't other people do the same?
> Such things are never tolerated in war.
Wait, what?! The Czech Republic is at war with Russia?
> this is a period in human history where we're going to have to let go of some naive notions pertaining to "freedom of speech".
And replace it with a sophisticated, jesuitical understanding? I'd prefer if you were honest and just said you do not believe in Free Speech.
Besides that I think that Putin made genuinely smart strategical steps to ensure that nobody will get between him and Ukraine... How it will turn out we yet have to see.
Cornering a leader with nuclear capabilities benefits nobody and can get dangerous, leaving him with nothing to lose. I think Trump wanted to use Russia to counter China.
No, but people like to self-censor sometimes ;)
I agree that local police assaulting journalists is awful, they should be fired and prosecuted. And I'm aware that Trump made some dumb ass comments praising that shit, but it doesn't constitute a war on the press. You're talking about some isolated disparate instances perpetrated by unrelated local police departments during a summer of protests and riots. That isn't an act of the executive branch of the federal government. The US doesn't have a strong presidential system like say for example France. The us president has virtually 0 control over any individual police departments other than threatening to yank some drug war funding.
There do exist levers the executive branch could pull to attack the press, e.g. via the FCC or by having the DOJ prosecute sources. The Trump admin didn't do those things despite all of his bluster. He basically ended the policy of aggressively prosecuting leakers and spent all day engaging with the media. Sure he's a shit bag who did crimes, but the war on the press stuff is overblown.
Empty condemnation of Russia while we simultaneously prosecute the publisher of information which helps us decide whether we are behaving in an immoral manner is not merely hypocritical: it's corrosive of the fundamentals of our society.
Right now the Afghans, Iraqis and Syrians that we murdered and the Yemenis that we are helping murder make condemnation of the Russians not just odd, but erodes all possibility of working in a fairer world.
However bringing up Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria (where Russia is inflaming the situation too), and Yemen is whataboutism. The discussion was about Russia's shitty record on press freedom.
But if we are trying to dig into the current conflict, the US hasn't invaded anyone for territorial expansion in a long fucking time. Russia has recently invaded Ukraine three times, Chechnya twice, and Georgia.
No, of course it isn't. But many people I know, myself included, are afraid to speak out against what we see as new forms of hate levied in their name. The CHAZ or the hijacking of this brutal war against Ukraine into a commentary on care only being bound to race or the evacuation of cisgendered women and men from their own bodies by way of language so that everyone is "just" a vagina-haver or penis-possessor are just a few examples of where I see these pushes become the very weapons of the forces its proponents profess to fight.
> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?
As a liberal (or what was liberal 10 years ago), I mostly notice how much people who stand for these issues attack others who have a different opinion and try to silence them.
This is the first time I'm giving voice to some of these deeply unpopular opinions in the new liberal left spaces like HN, for which I fully expect to be downvoted and potentially flagged into oblivion.
I don't think the oft-violent rhetoric and deplatforming crusades of the new left is the right way of effecting positive change on the world.
Framing it this way is misleading. "push back" that entails violent, harmful and illegal behaviour maybe wrong with total irrelevance to what you are trying to achieve.
> Do you notice, how much people, who stand for those issues, get attacked in the public discussion?
No, I see the opposite, to the extend that extreme virtue-signalling on these topics is met with no opposition, because no-one wants to be labelled an *-ist.
Isn’t it an issue of framing? E.g. it appears that some think that the solution to racism appears to be implementing institutional racism indefinitely until racism is cured.
This is distracting from the real issue of class warfare which is what psyops relies on to divide prior arguing past each other.
Democrats think Republicans are evil racists for trying to shut down diversity mandates. Republicans think Democrats are evil racists for trying to impose diversity mandates. They both want to eliminate racism, but their worldviews cause conflict on how to do that.
There are some legitimate fundamental differences on LGBT rights, I'll admit. Not so much on LG, but as you get further into the abbreviation, it increases.
The thing is, those are all non-issues now, and have been for a while. The reason the MSM is known as fake news in the US, is that they keep trying to push these as current issues, even though they've been settled.
The US is deeply disruptive to any of that happening because it opens the door to the MiniMe despots being able to claim that spending stupid amounts of GDP on weapons and having a "strong leader" is the only thing which will see them safe from being invaded "not for territorial expansion" during a "long fucking time".
That's why it is appropriate, relevant and not simply whataboutism.
Russia and other states are worse than the USA because they need to be in order to claw their way up the dungheap piled up by US foreign policy. And there is little inherent in US norms or culture which would prevent similar anti-democratic and anti-liberal punishments. To back to the OP: these are all shades of authoritarianism and we see calls all over the media and this very forum in favor of censorship, war and other stupidities.
Don't kid yourself, this isn't whataboutism, it's the very subject under discussion: Russia is violating international agreements and norms and in part this is because the USA has shat all over those for a very long time.
The Texas right-leaning lege just got through passing a bill that was designed to be hard to assail in the courts that hands out money for turning in anyone who assist someone in seeking an abortion, robbing people of their rights over their own bodily autonomy.
Florida gov't is trying to pass bills that prohibit talking about gender orientation and identity, racism, and equality in the workplace and classroom.
This isn't a "non-issue". This isn't "settled". We're still fighting for our rights and freedoms, and those of our children. I'll be damned if I'm gonna let some greedy nutjob politician deny my children (or anyone's children) the right to be who they are or want to be.
If they don't like gender transitioning, then they shouldn't transition, but don't tell me or mine that they can't!
“ He and his pals are flat-out pushing anti-trans agendas that accuse parents of children seeking gender-affirming treatment of child abuse.”
Isn’t this, by definition, a very debatable topic with pros and cons that have to be weighed. Where one comes down, I.e. their preference for policy on this, will be informed by their background and biases.
E.g. it isn’t entirely obvious that we should give minors, who legally can not consent to many activities, access to ethically untestable non-reversible treatments.
These issues are actually the purpose of politics. E.g. it is a feature of the system that there is debate on implementing the preferences of a democracy.
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/florida-s-don-t-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/judg...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-transgender-care-lawsuit-...
That's just not true.
Trump's commentary on the violence against the press: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/media/trump-velshi-msnbc-shot...
>“They can’t stand the fact that this Administration has done more than virtually any other Administration in its first 2yrs,” he continued. “They are truly the ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!”
(https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437610-trump-cal...)
And surely media can be bad, can harm people, can lie, but "ENEMY" is interesting.
You can make a good case that the guy damaged the discourse and eroded trust in institutions, but news and journalism have flourished in recent years.
By your argument chemotherapy is assassination by poison and setting a broken bone is assault.
Studies show that gender-affirming treatments and care can reduce thoughts of suicide and self-harm.
No one is pushing these treatments on unwilling minors. To take away peoples' rights to these treatments is unconscionable. And to direct people to be charged or investigated for child abuse is even more so. It's just another point that puts people in fear of the authorities.
Honestly, you're voicing for support of the person you're responding to, here. These aren't "non-issues" as GGP claimed.
But, puberty blockers, the medical treatment under fire, aren't non-reversible.
Yes, it's an administrative motte & bailey. Police support, individual and organizational, for Trump is incredibly high and their loyalty to him transcends official channels. He's explicitly endorsed violence against journalists, brutality towards suspects, and celebrated the execution of Michael Reinoehl. While he didn't have direct control over the state police, he spoke directly to them frequently, and encouraged all of this.
Remember when Hillary's mentor (Mr. Byrd) was a former KKK Grand Dragon (and Democrat Senator)? Or when that democrat attempted to assassinate a dozen Republican lawmakers on a baseball field? How about the one who killed five cops in Dallas? Or the ones who engaged in (or cheered on) the 2020 riots that did billions of dollars in damage (including a months-long attack on a Federal courthouse in Portland, complete with firebombing!)?
All of this finger pointing bullshit is a distraction, intended to scare stupid people to the polls.
Not to excuse his actions at earlier times in his life, but by the time he was a “mentor” to Hillary Clinton he had renounced racism and and segregation and was the longest serving member in the US senate and an expert on its procedures.
Pointing out that the Democratic Party was full of southern segregationists in the early 20th century is pure laziness.
Additionally, the federal courthouse wasn’t “firebombed” some groups broke in and set fires. It was violent and destructive but you’re vastly exaggerating the scale.
Remember the accusations of racism that were used to shut down the lab leak theory? Or the demands to censor scientists with any dissenting viewpoints over Covid? The cover up of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that resulted in journalists from the Post being banned?
The "war on disinformation" their obsessed with is not any different from a "war on fake news". Censorship is a tool of cowards and there are plenty of cowards in both parties that will use it to shut down any dissenting view points.
Letting them scape-goat and demonize unchecked doesn't help anything either.
Social media already has a big problem with filter bubbles. If you go to a place where 99% of people there are one party's partisans and try to rebut their misinformation, you get dogpiled. People insult you and sling baseless accusations of racism, which deters people from attempting to debate when they're highly outnumbered. So any place which has any partisan bias gets an even bigger one until everything is totally polarized.
Platform censorship makes it even worse because the platform's censors will be in one bubble or the other, their censorship decisions will be biased in that direction and push anyone on the other team onto other platforms and we end up with entirely partisan platforms that never talk to each other, and are thereby both highly misinformed about different sets of things.
The problem is that most are convinced that it’s all “fake news” and their preferred source is the “least fake”, all while getting pulled deeper down the rabbit hole.
I see the same dynamic with my teenage kids and the YouTubers /etc they watch on topics they’re interested in. They hear something, get overly excited about it, and then fixate/share/etc. I almost feel it’s a part time job to show enough interest to where they’ll talk about it so I can try and help build the reflex of distill out fact/assumption/inference, and reframe narrative to a set of possibilities that for facts. It’s actually been a challenge b/c often things sound stupid if I'm too reductionist and they shut down. But TBH usually sounds stupid b/c it is stupid manufactured drama that sells YouTube ads. Same dynamic whether some Roblox gamer drama, MLB lockout drama, or politics — all “news” eventually optimizes to maximize ad revenue, competing with creative entertainment for attention.
lol, Rise of the Moors super invested in universal healthcare and social safety nets now?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say supposed sovereign citizens aren't very active in local party politics.
Democrats encourage anarchist militias who openly advocate for violence and arson, try to de-legitimize election results through "Russia-Gate" conspiracies, openly cheered on the fire bombing and attacking of police officers and government buildings(court houses), spread misinformation about the Kyle Rittenhouse despite all expert legal analysis saying they were misinformed.
US intelligence confirmed that Russia tried to swing an election, so this isn't a "conspiracy." As for the rest of your points, those positions were never embraced by mainstream Democrats.
(FWIW I don't like trump but I still believe he would have won 2016 with or without Russia, its a cop out to blame Russia for that)
We literally had Democrat senators saying "rioting is the voice of the streets"(AOC), and calling Kyle Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist, whole portions of cities in democrat run cities were given to anarchist militias like in CHAZ and were flippantly calling these groups "peaceful" while they engaged in looting, arson, and attacking police officers.
The Democrats have the election as either a sham or the most secure election ever based on if their side won.
That doesn't really mean anything on the ground. The situation in the US is 100% different. Some dumb-ass president can love authoritarian shit all they want, but don't have a ton of actual power to lock up journalists. Russia just today shut down its last non-government owned TV station. That just can't happen in the US legally, and the courts are quite protective of speech and property here. The Trump years saw numerous cases of supposedly friendly judges telling him to fuck off. And the few avenues he did have to legally attack journalists, like prosecuting their sources, he didn't use unlike the previous administration.
Frankly he's just a stupid demagogue, and a symptom of the erosion of trust in institutions. But he didn't wage war on the press. THere's no evidence to support that outside of his bluster. He belongs in jail, but not for this.
For instance - I disagree with you on the lab leak theory and laptop comments. I understand you feel about them strongly, but I think you are smart and should reconsider the source material for those claims. Further, I feel the way you expressed it was regrettable: "blood on their hands" is unnecessary and inaccurate. You could have phrased that in ways that were more accurate, more effective, and less inflammatory.
Everyone is literally less intelligent, less capable of rational decision making, and more susceptible to manipulation when they are angry. I have certainly been guilty of this before, and I am just trying to share some of what I have learned.
One final comment: one thing that all social media including HN could do is remove user-visible up and downvotes. It engages the brain in a similar way to gambling (https://www.brainfacts.org/diseases-and-disorders/addiction/...) and creates self-reinforcing conflict that can be exploited.
Notice what you're doing though. The information content of this is effectively the polite version of "stop being mad and wrong, go read a book."
It contains no actual rebuttal of anything. You present no new facts or reasoning, only an assertion that you disagree which was already implied.
That is correct and intentional. My core point is that everyone can benefit changing how we disagree and when we choose to disagree. In what you quoted, I was just trying to make the point less abstract with a concrete example. I wasn't trying to be persuasive or reach some sort of resolution. I could have been more effective, thank you.
I don't see how pointing how both parties are guilty of engaging in censorship is wrong. I am advocating for the position that censorship is a tool used unfairly by both parties when they are given the chance, I don't like conservatives or republicans either for how they treated Edward Snowden and Juliane Assange.
Hunter Biden has gone on record saying that laptop might have been his.
Don't presume a persons sources without asking first. You strike me as a smart person as well and should check these sources out with an open mind before dismissing them.