| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Not at all. In an ideal world, people would get there information from a variety of sources, and then come to their own conclusions. However the fact is most people get their information from a single source, usually the TV or MSM. And it is obvious what the Daily Mail/Wikipedia thing is all about - the suppression of opposing views.Originally Posted by lardy
If it is about the suppression of opposing views, why don't they ban more 'news' outlets with the same view as the Mail?
They probably will, lots of pro Trump stuff is being flagged as fake news on facebook, you can even get yourself a Trump filter if you are that pathetic and you can't handle seeing stories about him.(not you, anyone)
http://trumpfilter.com/
Shouldn't we wait until they actually do before concluding that the Mail is banned for having an opposing view (whatever that is).They probably will, lots of pro Trump stuff is being flagged as fake news on facebook, you can even get yourself a Trump filter if you are that pathetic and you can't handle seeing stories about him.
http://trumpfilter.com/
Not sure what facebook is to do with wikipedia, mind.
Liberals, Soros, EU, Facebook, Twitter, Google, MSM, Blairites, Wikipedia, multinationals, socialists, communists, and a multitude of other secret groups are all on the same side, as are you
The Mail is on the same side as the EU.Liberals, Soros, EU, Facebook, Twitter, Google, MSM, Blairites, Wikipedia, multinationals, socialists, communists, and a multitude of other secret groups are all on the same side, as are you
Okey dokey.
The mail are on the side of those who are trying to save humanity
Politics or geopolitics is about overlapping factions, each with their own ideologies and interests, all of which are continually shifting and changing, and all of which are constituted of individual people with their own needs, desires, perversions, secrets and personal relationships.
I'm lucky enough to have worked in Plaid Cymru HQ -Ty Gwynfor - for the final year of Plaid's coalition government with Labour so I've seen first hand how quickly factions can form and dissolve.
The owners (and editor) of the Daily Mail have overlapping interests with members of various factions - for example certain wealthy UK people, prominent members of the Conservatives and UKIP, media like Breitbart.
Wikipedia, on the other hand, has overlapping interests with people like the Clintons and organisations like Facebook.
Understanding this is not very complicated but the relationships are infinitely complex.
You are dealing with lardy here though
I agree that the relationships are very complex. This is why 'so-and-so and some others are all together on one side' is too simplistic and not accurate. Just to pick newspapers as an example, we've seen some suddenly jump ship many times.
Most groups and indiduals have now stepped out from the shadows, so it's fairly trivial to see who is who. A few double agents are still in place acting as agent provocateurs, but what we are now witnessing is a full-on information war, and the stakes are very high indeed. I also think it's fair to say that so far we have only witnessed the opening skirmishes, with both sides keeping their heavy artillery in reserve.
Last edited by Wales-Bales; 15-02-17 at 15:11.
If you hadn't noticed most of the MSM are on the same team, just follow the fake news allegations
Help me out. Which team are most of the MSM on? Is the Mail on this team or opposite?If you hadn't noticed most of the MSM are on the same team, just follow the fake news allegations
Just think Brexit (anti-globalist, Trump) and Remain (globalist, Soros), those are the dividing lines.
And please stop playing dumb, it's starting to get a bit tedious
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote