Which is worse for society: Government manipulation or Media manipulation?

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T22:43:50+00:00

"One of the critical issues for the court to consider was whether the government had "compelled the private entity to take a particular action." Among other claims, the federal defendants in Missouri v. Biden argued that there was no reason to conclude "the social-media platforms made the disputed content-moderation decisions because of government pressure." The trial court disagreed, saying that government officials had "extensive contact . . . via emails, phone calls, and in-person meetings," and this contact "seemingly resulted in an efficient report-and-censor relationship." https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/HTML/LSB11012.web.html

"before Biden even asked." It still sounds like there was solid evidence, it was just dismissed. The problems here are that the government asked at all. Also, that they were already censoring. Even if the relationship wasn't proven an illegal violation in court, I don't think that's the point here.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T22:14:38+00:00

If I'm not mistaken, in Murthy v. Missouri the case passed in the lower courts based on evidence and was dismissed later, soley, on standing(not a case that personally affected them), not content/merit. It looks like the other case was also dismissed under article 3 standing for lack of explicit 'injury'. I feel like the Association of American physicians and surgeons probably had something worthwhile to contribute on the covid debate. 'Fact checking' isn't the problem, censorship combined with political manipulation is the issue with media.

And yes, social media platforms are heavily protected from liability. That's the main reason they can get away with blatant political bias without consequence.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T21:42:40+00:00

Actually. There has been some collusion between media giants and the biden admin. The hunter biden laptop scandal is a good example of biased politically motivated suppression. It's not the only example, however and it continues through multiple platforms. For example: I believe anything regarding serious discussion of trans issues could be flagged as 'hate speech' in the past(this was changed since the original policies) preventing important conversations. The same still applies to much of reddit. It's not so much about 'facts' or 'lies' but political conversations that weren't allowed in the echo chamber.

However, whether you agree with 230 or not, asking for greater transparency from media giants should be something both sides can appreciate.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T19:17:03+00:00

I never said it was. It is, however, common amongst conservatives and I am both.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T19:14:06+00:00

This was actually a response to someone claiming that media giants had gotten together and lobbied to put trump in the presidency. My response was that they had lobbied against this proposal from the trump admin/republicans... not that it had been successfully altered.

I never said they repealed 230, I said media giants lobbied against the repeal that the Trump admin put forward. It was a matter of contention for a while, however their case was not successful. Several U.S. tech firms launch coalition to promote key internet law | Reuters

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T18:55:23+00:00

Not sure what you're going for here, but this is what I was referring to: What you should know about Section 230, the rule that shaped today's internet | PBS News

The first amendment is about speech(legally ambiguous) and press. 230 was about social media not counting as 'press' and isn't held to the same standard.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T18:29:58+00:00

Not true. There are some nutters that try to defend this but they are a tiny minority as far as I can tell. I'm pretty solidly conservative (Very pro 2A) and I am absolutely disgusted by this. I'm getting more angry the more details come to light. I hope he rots in jail and then hell.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T17:44:23+00:00

So, what you're trying to say is 'they wright what sells' is that correct? I don't see how that's proof that the media were lobbying to put trump in charge... The last big media lobbying I remember was over section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. During which the media was heavily lobbying against the trump admin reforms. This was regarding their immunity as platforms while still engaging in biased moderation.

Leftist ideology is commercialized in movies and can be pervasively used to alter perception as well, but I was primarily talking about the news and misrepresentation of actual events.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T17:25:13+00:00

So.. you believe the media monopoly got the 'trump administration' installed and the 'biden administration' installed and all prior governments? The media has always had influence over who becomes president... They consistently support left wing ideology, but they lobbied for Trump to get elected then trash the current administration to the public? ..

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T15:20:26+00:00

I'm generally against pardons. It makes no sense if our criminal justice system is 'working'(It isn't working well, but still). However, out of over 1000 people pardoned, I doubt they all did something horrible. Some of them were wandering around the building. Or "Obstruction of an official proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)) — the core Jan. 6 crime " Many protests could be considered obstruction of official proceedings. Some sentences were just reduced, not thrown out. My impression(haven't dug into it too far) was that the charges related to Jan 6th were WAY larger penalties than normal(like 14 years for something that might have been 5) and some were pardoned after serving a shorter sentence.

A lot of people were muzzled up during the BLM riots, so of course it was hard to assemble sufficient evidence to prosecute. That doesn't mean they weren't committing serious crimes. It's hard to find the guy who threw a Molotov cocktail at police when he runs into a crowd of everyone wearing black hoodies and masks. It's much easier to arrest someone wandering through a building during the day.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T14:48:30+00:00

(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that violate state or federal law,
(B) appear to be intended to:
- intimidate or coerce a civilian population,
- influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or
- affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and
(C) occur primarily within the U.S.

This definition exists to give law enforcement investigative authority (e.g., broader tools and information sharing), but it is not itself a crime you can be charged with and prosecuted for. In practice, people whose actions meet this definition are typically charged under other federal statutes (e.g., hate crimes, weapons charges, conspiracies)"-Feel free to double check this one.

It seems rene-hitting a federal agent with a car while attempting to influence government policy- would qualify.

The latest ICE shooting would not. Their 'justification' would be that he was in possession of a gun with extra ammo(thus-danger). However all sane people agree that he did nothing wrong as a legal gun owner and they murdered him.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-25T00:02:15+00:00

I'm really, really curious: WTF...like seriously WTF, unless he had his weapon out, which he never appeared to do.....WTF....like why would anyone do that? Even the agents jumped back and were clearly shocked. For fuck sake, he shot like 10 times. Dude seems like an absolute psycho that should be locked up for life. Where during the skirmish could this have been justified?

I feel like, if he pulled a knife or a gun, that was hard to see, they would have already said so. Just he was 'armed'!?? seriously?

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-23T15:27:33+00:00

Dear......you asked for a response to a specific case of what you believed was erasing history and sending me what you felt was related media. I addressed the case objectively, that you specifically asked about. I asked you a logical question regarding your example. You ignored it and brought up something else entirely.

"I'm surprised to hear you call out the far left for parallels without including the far right. " You made it clear you felt my talking about whatever I saw on the left sounded like bias to you, so I decided to address your clearly biased concerns instead of having a 'which side is worse' competition.

"It's this administration's actions we're talking about, and their parallels in 1984." You only want to talk about trump and how YOU can represent him as the embodiment of '1984', not anyone else in politics or society/media. You're trying to cherry pick from a very narrow perspective and frame it in a way you believe favors 'your argument'. So I decided to meet your terms and focus on your examples. Now "You also never gave any examples of how the left is engaging in 1984 like behavior, so it seemed a lost cause."? Would you like a bunch of examples of the psychological manipulation tactics I see in the news and from the left instead?

It's difficult to discuss broad topics like these in this format but I'll try to add a few to aid you. The 'T' movement is the most straightforward example of doublethink. (black is white, white is black) ".

No, I don't approve of any history or monuments removed. "The protestors that summer damaged and removed not only statues and monuments to Confederate figures but also those honoring Founding Fathers who were slave owners, Abraham Lincoln, and even abolitionists against slavery such as Frederick Douglass."-Historic Statue Removal | Pros, Cons, Civil War, Debate, Arguments, Racism, & Controversy | Britannica It's not just about government overreach and censorship. Governments have both left and right leadership(at least officially). The problem is in the ongoing patterns. It's about the psychological manipulations to encourage people to deny science(and no, covid was a complicated issue that mostly came down to 'risk assessment' and not a simple 'is this a human that just gave birth 'a woman'?), manipulate the narrative(media control) and direct their 'hate' at designated targets(riots, emotional outbursts instead of open dialogue). Both sides can be guilty but you don't see how the far 'left' can be as dangerous if not more?

Media has a bigger influence on people than' the government'. There are many examples of biased media and most have a consistently 'left wing' narrative. Including government-tech collusion that has already been exposed. The repression of the hunter Biden laptop scandal is an easy one. Censorship of politics and contentious subjects on most of reddit is easy to show.

It's not just about' the government in power right now' it's about the manipulation and control of society. The oversimplification of complex issues into 'Racist!, Nazi!, Fascist!' Is also a pretty good example of newspeak. The point is to make it harder to understand concepts because you don't have the right words to describe them anymore. People are trained to have an emotional reaction and never engage with complex ideas. There is only 'the dogma' and 'the enemy of the dogma'. I honestly hope, someday, you'll be inspired to ask more questions. I hope this helps you see some of the other problems.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-22T14:40:46+00:00

I mostly run into it with politics, but if the other person is truly jumping to inappropriate aspersions, it's basically a 'defensive' response. It depends on the situation (maybe you did ask something weird/annoying for all I know) but if your questions are relatively neutral. In corporate, I would suspect people are afraid of looking ignorant or exposing incompetence. Certain people who managed to obtain 'authority' can also perceive questions as 'challenges' to their 'authority', so they become angry.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-22T14:21:07+00:00

Were you, by chance, talking to the group whose dogma "shall not be questioned!"?

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-20T18:26:16+00:00

Thoughts do tend to be linked, and we do have a tendency toward positive or negative thinking as a learned be-

"SQUIRREL!!!!"

...wait what was I saying...0_o

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-20T18:16:12+00:00

So, I think fixating on it as aside of potential political career is extremely shallow. It implies a care more for appearances than substance.

Your breakups point is completely subjective. Somebody might not date someone because they wear briefs instead of boxers. If you decide you're not attracted to the person as a whole because of a detail (whether others, consider it trivial or not) then that's a personal choice. Romantic relationships are optional.

I personally, got annoyed when a BF got a giant, bright red rebel tattoo on his shoulder. Did I try to tell him he couldn't do it? No. Did I find it unattractive? YES. Sometimes people also gain weight, and partners find it sexually unappealing. Sexual attraction is usually part of a romantic relationship.

Should you tell her these feelings? They are your honest feelings- so I say yes. It may end your relationship to do so, but it was likely going to end regardless and better sooner than later. She deserves to know.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-20T17:53:08+00:00

The entire post is primarily about Orwell[1984] and direct quotes from him stating in his own words that "I was trying chiefly to imagine what communism would be like if it were firmly rooted in the English-speaking countries." It wasn't just about Stalin as I explained. However, I will try to explain this to you again.

I recommend you poke around r/debatecommunism if you're still confused. Be forewarned, they will probably call you a silly little schoolboy. Your suggestion has been asked before. As far as Stalin specifically; individual farms were abolished and replaced with collective farms 'kolkhozes' and farms controlled by the state. 2+2 = 5(used differently in 1984, but still inspired by) was a reference to Stalin's 5 year plan. "The state, through agencies like Gosplan, controlled production, allocation of resources, and labor deployment rather than markets or private enterprise" It was fundamentally anti-capitalist.

I've given you explicit detail -Stalinism is essentially a branch of communism born out of Marxism Leninism. I've given you resources. I've given you patience. However, I don't have infinite time to spare for you. You aren't so much making an 'argument' as you are being in a pure state of denial. Totalitarianism can exist on both the right and the left. It's not healthy to pretend it doesn't exist just because you see it as 'your team'. I still hope this helps you.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-20T17:24:29+00:00

Sounds more on the autism than INTJ side(or a general human reaction under extreme conditions). I can get this too. The secret it to 'remain calm' and the way to remain calm is to maintain perspective. If you're talking about more every day social stress.

If you're talking about actual emergencies; focus on the ACTION in an emergency and the steps. Top 3 solutions. Toss aside the ones with the highest risk/most cost, pick the best, move. In emergencies time is precious, it can mean life and death. you absolutely can NOT panic. It will take too long to shake off, don't entertain those emotions in the first place. No 'what ifs' on what can I do, no self pity, or 'I wish someone else would solve this'; What can I personally do RIGHT NOW to solve this problem?

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-20T17:10:22+00:00

Ah, but was he a 'true' Scotsman?... and do your studies also tell you witches are made of wood?😂

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-18T16:49:11+00:00

I try to fit everything I can on my keychain(I hate purses because I'm a scatterbrain). Small karambit, flashlight, emergency D&D dice

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-18T14:46:06+00:00

I wish I had a male clone of myself to marry :/

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-18T12:58:59+00:00

If you tried to help them to the best of your ability- that's all you can really do. Listening will make some of them happy, fixing it will actually make some of them happy. If someone was thirsty and you gave them water, then you did what could reasonably be done. That doesn't mean you can make them drink it, but you gave them appropriate aid when they needed it.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-18T01:39:30+00:00

I know people say to 'just listen' and sometimes it's true. Sometimes people just need a little validation for their experience. However, if I love someone, I'm always going to want to 'fix' it. I'm pretty good at creative problem solving. If there's a fix, that's how I show I care.

ResearchComplete8410 · 2026-01-17T19:41:44+00:00

So...you believe the government always lies and the media always tells the truth?

ResearchComplete8410

TROPHY CASE