I don't understand how a news agency is allowed to blatantly lie and mislead the public to that degree. That's an abuse of free speech, not a proper use of it. It goes way beyond providing a conservative (if you even call it that) perspective. It's straight up propaganda.
> I don't understand how a news agency is allowed to blatantly lie and mislead the public to that degree. That's an abuse of free speech, not a proper use of it. It goes way beyond providing a conservative (if you even call it that) perspective. It's straight up propaganda.
Did you see Robert J. O’Neill the guy who claims he shot Osama bin laden play various roles as a masked guest interviewee on Fox news? He wears a face mask and pretends to be ex-Antifa, in another interview pretends to be Mafia Mundo an a mexican cartel member, another he plays a Gaza warlard, and a bunch of other anonymous extremist people? Now they won't even have to use this guy acting as random fake people, they can just whip of an AI interviewee to say whatever narrative they want to lie about.
it is, yes. however, it's considered an acceptable bullet to bite in the United States's set of values, considering the alternative is the government gets to decide what speech to allow, or decide what a "lie" is.
I would have agreed before, but seeing the fruition from decades of propaganda, I no longer think it's an acceptable bullet. Not when it leads to undermining democracy and the erosion of free speech.
the way to combat this is to legislate against media conglomeration in the hands of a small set of billionaires. We have anti-trust laws that can be pulled out of deep storage to be used for this purpose. while we're at it, deflating the wealth of actual billionaires back to nine or fewer digits would be pretty helpful too.
