The War That Broke Social Media(bloomberg.com) |
The War That Broke Social Media(bloomberg.com) |
When I got a down vote I guessed that it was for the second sentence. But it sent me into a whirl of thought. What do you feel that results in a down vote for something so abstract? I assumed it was someone on one side of that conflict, but which. Either way they must feel that they are somehow culpable or why take offence. So really was it for highlighting what they already thought? Is that the real cause, something like - I feel uneasy about my side so I would rather you didn't challenge me with it?
Or maybe it's just about robots.
I find myself actively disregarding every article and a piece of news, especially since the hospital bombing affair. Just can’t trust anyone to not be pulling a trick by embellishing numbers or leaving out a crucial piece of information. I don’t think that’s a new concept or that it started now, but it’s become apparent to me in the last few weeks.
I don’t envy the role of people who have to make actual impactful decision, often on the basis of incomplete reports.
> I don’t envy the role of people who have to make actual impactful decision, often on the basis of incomplete reports.
They often have more accurate information than we have. (If nothing else, they don't have to wade through their side's propaganda and lies.) But yes, they still have the problem, and it's still really hard.
I don't get it, I have to wade through my own country's propaganda and lies to get to the truth. Why would that be different for an Israeli or Palestinian? Unless you're part of creating it, the rest of us are as vulnerable to our own government's propaganda as the actual target.