So you’re saying part of the news articles from wapo, wsj, nyt, economist, ft etc etc are propaganda, i.e, part of the mainstream media is propaganda?? 🤔🤔
No, I‘m saying what I said. Please read and comprehend.
There will always be people like you and I do not fault you, personally. But it is proof that this forum needs better moderation and rules to deal with false balance.
I think you need to check the definition of the term ‘moderation’. Removing posts because they seem skewed or one-sided sounds a lot like ‘censorship’. 😅
Someone who posts cats doesn’t get censored (or moderated as you put it) for not posting enough dogs.
Limiting how much one single person can define the narrativ of a forum with clear rules might be a more sensible approach instead of removing posts based on content. Please have a look at the situation: Roughly 40 negative posts about Ukraine/US/NATO in just the last week (and very little else) on a newish account certainly makes me think OP is pushing his agenda, not regularly participating in a forum.
Sure, but anyone can push their agenda which funnily enough is exactly what happens. If OP was actually posting fabricated stories and fake propaganda, yes, that would need to be moderated and censored. But OP is posting news from reputable sources such as WSJ, and even if OP feels a bit differently to us, OP is still nevertheless entitled to post reputable sources to back up their feelings about the matter.
Do you you have anything of value to say, other than “OP is bad” or “source is bad” or “fake news because I don’t like it.” Something about what the article actually deals with? I guess not.
So you’re saying part of the news articles from wapo, wsj, nyt, economist, ft etc etc are propaganda, i.e, part of the mainstream media is propaganda?? 🤔🤔
No, I‘m saying what I said. Please read and comprehend.
There will always be people like you and I do not fault you, personally. But it is proof that this forum needs better moderation and rules to deal with false balance.
I think you need to check the definition of the term ‘moderation’. Removing posts because they seem skewed or one-sided sounds a lot like ‘censorship’. 😅
Someone who posts cats doesn’t get censored (or moderated as you put it) for not posting enough dogs.
Limiting how much one single person can define the narrativ of a forum with clear rules might be a more sensible approach instead of removing posts based on content. Please have a look at the situation: Roughly 40 negative posts about Ukraine/US/NATO in just the last week (and very little else) on a newish account certainly makes me think OP is pushing his agenda, not regularly participating in a forum.
Sure, but anyone can push their agenda which funnily enough is exactly what happens. If OP was actually posting fabricated stories and fake propaganda, yes, that would need to be moderated and censored. But OP is posting news from reputable sources such as WSJ, and even if OP feels a bit differently to us, OP is still nevertheless entitled to post reputable sources to back up their feelings about the matter.
Do you you have anything of value to say, other than “OP is bad” or “source is bad” or “fake news because I don’t like it.” Something about what the article actually deals with? I guess not.
I didn’t say or imply any of these three things you misquote me on.