• Skysthelimit [none/use name]
    hexagon
    ·
    3 years ago

    How unnecessarily reductive. Plenty of good independent sources out there. You always know if they're good or not because if they are, they'll get interfered with.

      • SorosFootSoldier [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        3 years ago

        if you haven’t had your wig split youre gonna end up seeing either The News or Thats Just What They Want You To Think because the algorithm is good at presenting what is popular and that just so happens to be those two things.

        Literally the point I'm trying to make lol

          • Skysthelimit [none/use name]
            hexagon
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            Nice conversation we're having about the NYT telling us not to think, isn't it? How quickly you derail it to pound your favorite drum. Who even said anything about Youtube? You're having a completely separate conversation here.

            “Whenever you give your attention to a bad actor, you allow them to steal your attention from better treatments of an issue, and give them the opportunity to warp your perspective,” Mr. Caulfield wrote.

            The NYT here is trying to feebly convince people not to listen to anyone but "authoritative" voices like themselves.

            His quick searches showed a pattern: Mr. Kennedy’s claims were outside the consensus

            Because we all know the consensus created by organizations like the Times is the correct one. This is literally Orwellian. Ignorance is Strength. I never thought I'd see that one in reality...but here it is.