• shadysus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis

      … yea lol what?

      Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don’t go to them for content about Qatar in case there’s a bias. However it’s a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there’s usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.

      TLDR: Al Jazeera isn’t unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It’s definitely not a “mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]”

      What happened in this article is a bad thing:

      had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content

          • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Let the arseholes bring their ideas into the light, so we know who they are and what they think.

            Suppression is just a bad idea, and your naivete is terrifying.

          • Petter1@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            If we deplatform whole communities, they will meet in the dark and we have no way to see who is a shady mf

              • Petter1@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                As long as nothing illegal was written there, in my opinion, yes. But something against echo chambers should be done, I agree. But again, with banning them you encourage more echo chambers since there is no one thinking different than them in does dark not regulated chambers where they will flee to and find each other again. Hope that makes sense for you, generally problems don’t disappear by hiding symptoms, they just get out of sight anf come back worse than they where. I think, a better choice would be to invest in more (and better) education instead of ways to censor people.

                • aidan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree completely, I was just wondering if you applied it to situations like that

            • Gsus4@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It was ok when neonazis had no wide-ranging platform to organise in and were marginalized so they didn’t have a way to consolidate into a community that makes them feel supported enough to do anything stupid because they were so fragmented. It was a good way to keep them under control without harsher measures.

      • hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        If that’s such a problem, why’d they wait until this particular piece to deplatform and even then only the presenter’s profile?