Which is some bullshit, because Russiagate was long-ago debunked, as well as the actual efficacy of Cambridge Analytica (it largely wasn’t). But thanks to Rachel Maddow’s daily conspiracy theorizing over the span of years, most liberals still believe that foreign State propaganda is going to Manchurian Candidate the populace and steal their democracy. Which makes them rather accepting of the idea that the government should decide what is mis/dis/malinformation. In other words they’ve been primed to accept censorship.
lemm.ee user, you seem confused about who has washed up on whose shores. If you understood this instance better, you would see that, unlike most instances, this isn’t a haven for liberal hegemony.
Which is some bullshit, because Russiagate was long-ago debunked, as well as the actual efficacy of Cambridge Analytica (it largely wasn’t). But thanks to Rachel Maddow’s daily conspiracy theorizing over the span of years, most liberals still believe that foreign State propaganda is going to Manchurian Candidate the populace and steal their democracy. Which makes them rather accepting of the idea that the government should decide what is mis/dis/malinformation. In other words they’ve been primed to accept censorship.
Removed by mod
Jeff Gerth at Columbia Journalism Review on Russiagate: Editor’s Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four
IT Pro: Cambridge Analytica models were exaggerated and ineffective, [UK Information Commissioner’s Office] claims
We’re orphans living in a Siberian labor camp, forced to post Putler talking points 14 hours a day for our gruel.
Removed by mod
Man do you ever suck at this: I’m an elder gen-x senior software developer at a Fortune 100 tech company.
Removed by mod
lemm.ee user, you seem confused about who has washed up on whose shores. If you understood this instance better, you would see that, unlike most instances, this isn’t a haven for liberal hegemony.