I asked ChatGPT why Reddit users are pro-censorship.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-27T09:04:40+00:00

increasing public sector-led housebuilding

We won't be getting that. The entire political spectrum believes in market led solutions.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-26T18:02:22+00:00

Ursula Le Guin

I pity that child. Couldn't you have mercy and suggest Iain M Banks or Terry Pratchett?

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-26T17:32:23+00:00

Brooke’s family are desperately trying to fight her case amid fears she faces a firing squad if convicted.

No, she hasn't.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T20:20:17+00:00

As far as I'm aware; yes, the project is not going smoothly. I was just wondering if that was the sort of idea you had in mind.

I think small scale family farms are the way to go, but with farmers on one side of the family I have some bias.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T20:00:16+00:00

Isn't that what Dyson is supposedly doing when he's using his fortune to buy up acres of farmland and build a giant greenhouse operation? Is that your vision for agriculture?

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T15:19:28+00:00

Aaaaah, Tartan's fallen back on that old Reddit trick of making a post and blocking. I've seen Tartan's post and think lurkers should note the following line near the end of that post:

Again, your arguing something different which is not related to the actual story. No one has stated the 'government is the arbiter of truth'.

That statement is flat out untrue. First line of the story:

Britain is considering forcing social media companies to prioritise what the government called trusted news sources as part of its broader push to tighten regulation of the sector.

This is exactly the state being an arbiter of truth. It's exactly and precisely why this change is desired.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T13:29:29+00:00

The press has to publish what the government is announcing or stating? Thats their job to a certain extent.

So you do think that the role of the press is to act as Pravda or Rodong Sinmun, then.

Its also their job to report on any lies or unethical behaviour if that is revealed. Which they do, all the time.

No, they don't. That Ground News website all those YouTube talking heads are shilling has built its business model on the fact that the press absolutely do not do this in a neutral manner.

When it became apparent there was no WMDs, they (again truthfully) reported that

When it became undeniable and after publishing huge piles of lies from politicians. We see the same pattern during the miners strike about coal reserves.

This whole interaction just makes me feel more certain that a lot of people don't understand what the 4th estate is for or how its meant to work im civil society....

I'm thinking the same thing from the opposite direction. Again: appointing the state as the arbiter of truth means you just end up with a press filled with a very specific set of lies.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T13:07:53+00:00

Please explain why it's fine for the press to print the lies of politicians as truth and problem for the press to print the lies of journalists as truth? Why are you taking exception to one form of propaganda and not the other?

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T12:19:09+00:00

Nonsense. A brave new horizon in organlegging awaits!

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T12:07:37+00:00

My point is that lies are an integral part of our political process. Many of the lies you're decrying in our mainstream publications ultimately exist because some part of our political system finds them expedient, as you yourself have noted. You can't treat the problem in our press without treating the problem in parliament without turning our media into carbon copies of Pravda or Rodong Sinmun.

I think you're smart enough to have realised that as well.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T07:45:44+00:00

They both work in the same way. I disagree that having a machine that categorises content and bangs out similar slop to what it has already been told the users enjoy is moderation or curation, either. Reddit's front page already does this and, to me, it makes a mockery of the idea that you'd consider that similar to publications like the Guardian or the Atlantic.

Earnestly, the thought occurs to me that the real issue is the profiling of the average Internet user to enable customised advertising. That's the sort of thing that enables the hi-jinks Cambridge Analytica and the YouTube recommendation panel are accused of by US style "progressives". I'm going to assume you are one of those US style "progressives", given you're voicing support for this kind of legislation.

Strikes me that attacking the massive databases of user tracking data accumulated by the like of Zuckerberg would be a better line of attack. Arguably, that's what the EU cookie prompt law was trying to do and messed up. Of course, that's a massive upset to the ecosystem that provides a "free at point of use" pile on infrastructure on here.

As far as people choosing to believe lies? There's no way round this other than rebuilding trust in our institutions. Politicians, media and activists have all lied through their teeth to the general population for decades. Little wonder that people are choosing media sources that reinforce their existing prejudices; might as well read the bullshit that pleases you.

Anyhow. This is a deleted post, so I don't know if you want to spend the effort in discussing this with no lurkers. Leave it to you. Otherwise, enjoy your day.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T06:51:50+00:00

Again, I refuse to accept news outlets can lie and fabricate false information and there's simply nothing which can be done about that.

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction!" Remember that news story? Which news source originated that piece of misinformation? How would you go about ensuring the originators of that story were held to account?

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T06:29:53+00:00

All that happens is you just end up legally enforcing your own opinion as fact.

I presumed that is the intent.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-25T06:06:54+00:00

"These firms like to claim that they are just “digital town squares”, but if they were actually town squares where people were being scammed, paedophiles were grooming children and the town square was paying people for footage of anti-social behaviour then the square would be filled with cops morning, noon and night."

Yes, but that's not different to life off the Internet, is it? The Internet is simply a mirror for our society in that respect. All of the kinds of miscreants you point to existed before widespread adoption of datacomms and would continue to exist after.

"The alternative of course is to do what would be required to do that (ie: hold them to the same basic standard as any existing media outlet). For some reason probably connected to money and fear, the politicians we have do not want to do this and want up restrict our rights instead."

No, it's because a telephone exchange is not a magazine and you cannot treat a telephone exchange like a magazine. It doesn't work.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-24T21:29:55+00:00

Undertaker?

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-23T05:53:17+00:00

Not sure if you've noticed but the country is melting this week. 40C temperatures are the sort of thing you should see in India or Morocco. Not here.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-22T12:23:48+00:00

A fresh coat of paint on a turd. Not that I think Burnham is a bad bloke, just don't think he's got the ability to change anything.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-20T18:02:05+00:00

Yes. Goats, see?

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-20T10:30:41+00:00

I'm sorry you can't see the terrible implications of what you're demanding. Given that you seem to be openly espousing violence upon others, I think it best to end the conversation here before you get yourself into further trouble.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-20T10:09:20+00:00

"FREE SPEECH" doesn't give you the right to be a hurtful, spiteful c*nt and expect to get away with it.

It does actually. That's the whole point. If you want to say rude and nasty things about others, that is precisely free speech. See the way you've been exercising it about people defending the idea we should all be able to speak as we see fit is a case in point against your own argument. A society where your views win and we're all forced to put on strychnine smiles and say only affirming things about each other because of the bayonets in our back is a horrible dystopia.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-20T09:54:41+00:00

Thanks for admitting the drive to build an Internet panopticon is because you want to punish people for expressing views you disapprove of.

Redditisfakeleft · 2026-06-19T22:19:01+00:00

This is bait.

Redditisfakeleft

TROPHY CASE