[flagged]
There has been an outrageous amount of censorship of the Palestinian story in most of the US media, and frankly also a lack of nuanced explanation of the dominant Israeli perspective (which is far more nuanced than the typical American perspective).
In general, I recommend the following rules for propaganda hygeine:
- If someone uses the word "terrorist" or "terrorism", subtract a point of credibility. The word is an emotionally charged label that removes clarity.
- If someone refers to the desire of preserving "stability", subtract a point of credibility. This phrasing is typically used to mislead/misdirect.
- If you discover that important information (such as the charges brought before the ICJ) is being suppressed, subtract a point of credibility. Fairly important international law developments that ought to focus the discussion on concrete issues and considerations.
- If someone does not accept the label of apartheid as having a common literal meaning and insists that the word only applies to S. Africa, subtract a point of credibility. Things like Apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc., are part of many nations' histories. It does not do any good to pretend that these things are impossible today.
There are very credible arguments in favor of both sides in the conflict, but increasingly people seem to believe that suppressing information is the best way to make the world a better place.
Here's another: if someone gives you a list of rules that are carefully crafted to only apply to those that are against their preferred narrative, subtract a point of credibility
A few more:
- If both US political parties agree on it, it's probably a bad idea.
- Any time we are told that a foreign leader is insane or unstable, it's propaganda intended to dehumanize and discredit democratic forces in that country (even if the country is not a strict democracy).
- Logically, asymmetric conflict is going to necessitate different tactics. Don't fall for the idea that smart bombs are civilized but stones thrown are barbaric.
- Don't assume the US or its allies are the good guy. Countries make mistakes and rarely course-correct.
- The humanitarian justifications for war/conflict/killing are rarely the real story. Often there is a national interest-driven motivation, but but making it about a hard-to-disagree-with moral cause the debate about what is actually the national interest is suppressed.
- If someone tells you that it is disrespectful to question your own country or political leaders' competence or motivations, subtract several points. Democracy is a consensus mechanism, not a guarantee of consensus. Dissent is part of the recipe.
Please add more!
This is just such a childish take.
It certainly lacks eloquence compared to a tactic such as name calling...
So what you’re seeing is a good content, but worth considering when you get shown policy-charged content - when and why is this in my feed.
Edit - or, to put it more simply, you should try to answer the second part of your comment - why is a state-sponsored social media company the only one showing me this right now?
I think TikToks initial succes was mainly due to a "fair" feed with no algorithmic nudging.
Facebook used to be like that but somewhere around 2012 to 13 posts or articles could not go viral anymore, in the organic avalanche way it would earlier. Facebook wanted you to pay up for the reach I guess.
If TikTok nudge people they will lose their edge.
There is a lot of politics around the TK bans but one true aspect is the Natsec angle. It’s as if FB’s newsfeed was optimized for patriotism, vs ads.
But bc TK pays well and Has a office in SV… blind eye. Blows my mind that westerners work there. There’s bad jingoism and then there’s considering your role in a global power struggle directly based on technology and these companies.
Just as nudging their own youth into practicing guerrilla warfare techniques while nudging ours into questioning their gender is in line with what I’d expect from them.
To claim they don’t nudge is laughable.
That's always a worthy, necessary even, consideration.
> you should try to answer the second part of your comment - why is a state-sponsored social media company the only one showing me this right now?
You may be right in this specific case, and I tend to agree - though mostly out of lack of knowlege.
But I gotta object the insinuation that private media is somehow more reliable. Every outlet has an agenda. Al Jazeera English is by far the best journalistic TV I know (disclaimer, haven't watched in a few years). Funded by the government of Qatar…
Specifically just making a claim on if you vet reliability by national security/global politics topics that we all see playing out in the news, then it’s worth considering your specific role in it as a user or tech employee of TK.
Social networking hasn't influenced my point of view, but it has allowed me to access voices that I've always wanted to hear from, there was just no way to get to them before.
While those glued to TikTok are very offline people.
> Israel's attack on Gaza and the West Bank.
This is true in more ways than you think.