You cannot tell me with a straight face that if the suspect’s political ideology were far right, that the media and large tech platforms would be employing the exact same response. This isn’t a matter of legal proceedings, it’s glaringly-obvious demonstration of what mainstream media and their counterparts will do in order to silence any story that may damage the credibility of their beliefs. This was an anti-white hate crime. It is being suppressed. If this were an anti-black hate crime, it would be covered worldwide, court orders be damned - and you know it.
Again, if the perpetrator instead happened to be a far right terrorist instead, this same response would NOT be happening, and you know that. This is a case of media bias and suppression, and you can dress it up any way you like. There are plenty of ways in which cases like these SHOULD be handled by the media, but historically aren’t. Why is this particular case so special? Why are news organizations and big tech platforms trying so desperately to bury this particular case, when their response wasn’t such for high profile far right terrorist/racially-motivated attacks in recent years? It’s not like the media has ever given a shit about doing the right thing. If you truly believe these platforms operate on objective reasoning, then why have they never employed it until now? It couldn’t be that the difference between this attack and others is that Nashville just happens to have been acted out in the name of anti-white hate (based on the shooter’s own writings and political ideology?)
Media companies only care about profit. Mass shootings are guaranteed profit for large media companies, and history has shown that they will happily share any story guaranteed to bring in more revenue and spark outrage, especially given that any fines issued for breach of confidential legal information will pale in comparison to the revenue earned. So what’s so special about this one? It’s the first in a long, long time to run counter to the mainstream media and big tech’s generally left wing narrative. They’re protecting their own. If you look into the HRC and CEI, which most of America’s large media companies are beholden to, then there are genuine financial consequences for not staying in line and protecting the ideology they espouse.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy your argument on this. We fundamentally disagree here.
Removed by mod
You cannot tell me with a straight face that if the suspect’s political ideology were far right, that the media and large tech platforms would be employing the exact same response. This isn’t a matter of legal proceedings, it’s glaringly-obvious demonstration of what mainstream media and their counterparts will do in order to silence any story that may damage the credibility of their beliefs. This was an anti-white hate crime. It is being suppressed. If this were an anti-black hate crime, it would be covered worldwide, court orders be damned - and you know it.
Removed by mod
Again, if the perpetrator instead happened to be a far right terrorist instead, this same response would NOT be happening, and you know that. This is a case of media bias and suppression, and you can dress it up any way you like. There are plenty of ways in which cases like these SHOULD be handled by the media, but historically aren’t. Why is this particular case so special? Why are news organizations and big tech platforms trying so desperately to bury this particular case, when their response wasn’t such for high profile far right terrorist/racially-motivated attacks in recent years? It’s not like the media has ever given a shit about doing the right thing. If you truly believe these platforms operate on objective reasoning, then why have they never employed it until now? It couldn’t be that the difference between this attack and others is that Nashville just happens to have been acted out in the name of anti-white hate (based on the shooter’s own writings and political ideology?)
Media companies only care about profit. Mass shootings are guaranteed profit for large media companies, and history has shown that they will happily share any story guaranteed to bring in more revenue and spark outrage, especially given that any fines issued for breach of confidential legal information will pale in comparison to the revenue earned. So what’s so special about this one? It’s the first in a long, long time to run counter to the mainstream media and big tech’s generally left wing narrative. They’re protecting their own. If you look into the HRC and CEI, which most of America’s large media companies are beholden to, then there are genuine financial consequences for not staying in line and protecting the ideology they espouse.
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy your argument on this. We fundamentally disagree here.
Removed by mod