OPNov 25, 2019·1 reply
FlaxCNN is real news, as much so is Fox and whatever you wanna bring up
S*** just has a bias, doesn't mean its "fake". They take their certain stances to please their audiences and bring in that ad money.
You want "real news", by how you seem to define it, read the AP. That s*** is only facts and no opinion/lean at all. It's also some of the most boring s*** to read as well.
man i disagree
govt cant be transparent with us. things that reach cnn is the narrative they want the public to believe- Nov 25, 2019
krishna boundI dunno man, I see where you're coming from, but I think you're giving the average population too much credit. You say you are expected to know the headlines on tabloids on fake, but is that really true? Me or you maybe, but National Enquirer has been in circulation since 1926 - people are still reading it. ABC, a "trusted source" put out a video about a firing range and said it was Syria - do you think most people saw the follow-up to it saying it was fake? People religiously follow things like Breitbart or Salon/Mother Jones which post highly manipulated information without questioning it at all. I think it's a lot more complicated of a problem then just weeding out a few clickfarms or something.
I try and not let myself get so cynical about the average population. But in reality, you are correct. Most people dont have the sense in which to weed out these things. They'll take it at face value and believe it.
To fix such an issue, is more than some "law" or whatever Yang wants to do. It has to be a certain generational push in trying to educate people. Is it possible? Yea. Will it happen? Most likely not.
- OPNov 25, 2019
i mean, i respect where ur coming from
- Nov 25, 2019·1 replyKorpse
man i disagree
govt cant be transparent with us. things that reach cnn is the narrative they want the public to believeThings that reach CNN, Fox, MSNBC, whatever are coming from the top down and they know exactly how they should interprete them and push them out. Theres no stopping this. They still give us news, however they put their "flavoring" on it. Now the issue lies in the viewer not knowing all these companys put their own "flavor" on what they report. So then they take what they say as absolute fact.
My fault is that I have too much hope in the public to learn that s*** isn't as it seems, and you can't take everything at face value. But thats probably because I would like to hide from the fact that this will never happen and society will be far worse because of it.
Nov 25, 2019·1 replyFlaxif just done as a blanket thrown over anything that can be called "misinformation" by the government, then thats bad
However, all people with no common sense who think they are super informed cause they read up on theories and jerk to Joe Rogan and Alex Jones, will jump to an extreme conclusion of this is going to be immediately abused.
Like f***ing chill, this could just get rid of the stupid s*** clickfarms put out for ad clicks n shares that are just straight up fake.
But at this point people should be well aware of the fact that regulation can lead directly to abuse. If anyone with money has motivation to corrupt for their own benefit, they probably will.
It’s regulation that allowed the robber barons of the 1800’s to lobby for legislation that crushed competitors, and then carry on to create monopoly capitalism. That snowballed into the federal reserve, which snowballed into the world wars, and basically the entirety of corruption we see in the world leaders today. so why not prevent this from happening with regulations on truth itself?
- OPNov 25, 2019Flax
Things that reach CNN, Fox, MSNBC, whatever are coming from the top down and they know exactly how they should interprete them and push them out. Theres no stopping this. They still give us news, however they put their "flavoring" on it. Now the issue lies in the viewer not knowing all these companys put their own "flavor" on what they report. So then they take what they say as absolute fact.
My fault is that I have too much hope in the public to learn that s*** isn't as it seems, and you can't take everything at face value. But thats probably because I would like to hide from the fact that this will never happen and society will be far worse because of it.
i think we work best for them as a zombie consumer population
feel bad? heres a pill
bored? entertainment is the greatest its ever been
lonely? here is ur personal brand profile. get laid, voice ur opinion. u have a platform
hungry? here's some new meat everybody has been killing each other for. we wont tell u how its made
dont know whats real or fake? dont worry, we'll decide for u(: 
Nov 25, 2019To be fair, what Yang is proposing isn't really that bad IMO
- Nov 25, 2019·1 replyfrank 2022
But at this point people should be well aware of the fact that regulation can lead directly to abuse. If anyone with money has motivation to corrupt for their own benefit, they probably will.
It’s regulation that allowed the robber barons of the 1800’s to lobby for legislation that crushed competitors, and then carry on to create monopoly capitalism. That snowballed into the federal reserve, which snowballed into the world wars, and basically the entirety of corruption we see in the world leaders today. so why not prevent this from happening with regulations on truth itself?
Well yes, and IMO I dont necessarily enjoy this position. Because of what you and others said. However, I just wanted to point out how it could be a good thing, if done correctly.
Nov 25, 2019·1 reply"Stop the spread of misinformation that is eroding trust in our institutions and fanning the flames of polarization in our society."
like trust isn't being eroded for a reason
like polarization is a sudden issue that hasn't been a normal part of politics in this country for decadesCan someone tell me what's appealing about this centrist loser lol
- Nov 25, 2019·2 repliesFlax
Well yes, and IMO I dont necessarily enjoy this position. Because of what you and others said. However, I just wanted to point out how it could be a good thing, if done correctly.
I think this kind of thing would have to be citizen-led, but first the public needs to want the truth. Right now its so easy to choose your own reality, and thats gonna be hard to give up. Itll take some kind of mass awakening.
- Nov 25, 2019frank 2022
I think this kind of thing would have to be citizen-led, but first the public needs to want the truth. Right now its so easy to choose your own reality, and thats gonna be hard to give up. Itll take some kind of mass awakening.
Oh I totally agree
Nov 25, 2019
Meli'd vote for mayor pete or bloomberg anyways
Pete the most radical out of all of them
- OPNov 25, 2019DeanBlunt
"Stop the spread of misinformation that is eroding trust in our institutions and fanning the flames of polarization in our society."
like trust isn't being eroded for a reason
like polarization is a sudden issue that hasn't been a normal part of politics in this country for decadesCan someone tell me what's appealing about this centrist loser lol
the writing couldn't be more clear. i honestly appreciate that instead of lawyer writing thats super inaccessible to casuals
but niggas in here really still dont understand what this could mean for freedom
- OPNov 25, 2019·1 replyfrank 2022
I think this kind of thing would have to be citizen-led, but first the public needs to want the truth. Right now its so easy to choose your own reality, and thats gonna be hard to give up. Itll take some kind of mass awakening.
remember the whole net neutrality thing?
i think thats a good example of people really coming together for a cause
we need something like that 10x
i dont know why it doesnt happen more often - Nov 25, 2019·1 replyKorpse
remember the whole net neutrality thing?
i think thats a good example of people really coming together for a cause
we need something like that 10x
i dont know why it doesnt happen more oftenmy guess is that its mostly bipartisanism. They got us looking at eachother while they do what they actually want behind the scenes. In reality both parties agree on the most important topics like surveillance, perpetual war, censorship, privatized central banking, etc.
that net neutrality s*** was a real ray of hope though. f*** a party line, i need my internet. whoever plans the revolution should be looking at that whole event for inspo.
- OPNov 25, 2019·1 replyfrank 2022
my guess is that its mostly bipartisanism. They got us looking at eachother while they do what they actually want behind the scenes. In reality both parties agree on the most important topics like surveillance, perpetual war, censorship, privatized central banking, etc.
that net neutrality s*** was a real ray of hope though. f*** a party line, i need my internet. whoever plans the revolution should be looking at that whole event for inspo.
lmao fr
race wars
s***wars
party wars
fear mongering
- Nov 25, 2019Korpse
lmao fr
race wars
s***wars
party wars
fear mongering the govenment for president 2020
Nov 25, 2019·1 replyWatching news in 2019
- OPNov 25, 2019·1 replyJetsRLove
Watching news in 2019
bro there are very good alt news nowadays
check out corbett report 
Nov 25, 2019Another great idea
Nov 25, 2019·1 replyYang is the equivalent of that one kid in middle school who ran for class president by saying they would give everyone free cake for lunch
Nov 25, 2019Meli'd vote for mayor pete or bloomberg anyways
yikes tehe
Nov 25, 2019Zaddy69Yang is the equivalent of that one kid in middle school who ran for class president by saying they would give everyone free cake for lunch
wunna
- Nov 25, 2019Korpse
bro there are very good alt news nowadays
check out corbett reportI watched his ww1 doc recently, it’s great stuff.
Nov 25, 2019
hot pancakesI mean it doesn’t sound that bad
Censorship is always bad, they'll keep moving the goal post on what is acceptable and what is not funny cuz everyone was hashtag going 1984 or whatever when Trump was in office but it's DNC who wants to kill your right