Can I have link to the ministry of truth website, Google doesn’t seem to return it. Google search is very bad these days.

It’s probably the one that said not to use ivermectin and now say that what they said is that they didn’t recommend it meanwhile all news orgs and social media suppressed any mention of ivermectin and when they did it was to confound it with veterinary medicine.

Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations that turned out to be best to their knowledge and not absolute truth?

No government officials promoted certain narratives which have been proven false and they walk things back and the news doesn’t push back on that.

Moreover the government had embeds and was in communication with social media and traditional coordinating what to disseminate and what to suppress.

The. You have more dignitaries at the WEF and UN COP saying how wonderful it was that Covid prepared people and provided for better government control…

So there's no ministry of truth and the US Govt was wrong on some aspects and some of the news organisations didn't pushed back?

Oh ok. Obviously Russia and China are not fascist because they have never said they are fascist. Got it; thanks!

I just don't see how a government body responsible for the public health having an advice for health which is pushed by some of the media counts as ministry of truth.

It's already been pointed out to you that when people say "Ministry of Truth", they're referring to the defunct "Disinformation Governance Board" created within the DHS. You chose to ignore that.

Obviously that's not what mc32 had in his mind

Interesting you didn't engage with those other replies then. Why is that?

When I don't have anything to add, ask or object, I don't engage.

> Right, so there’s no ministry of truth but choices of some media companies to promote government recommendations

If you think the government phone-calling people at social media companies flagging specific instances and people for "misinformation" is not a form of intimidation, then you need to familiarize yourself with the legal precedent here.

The now defunt 'Disinformation Governance Board' obviously.

They "shut it down" when it became public due to the backlash[0]. But not really, they just started working in secret. Now we have a secret ministry of truth[1] like some nations have secret police.

[0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation_Governance_Bo...

[1]https://libertyjusticecenter.org/media/social-media-censorsh...

Yes, the disinformation board was actually an attempt to formalize and create some oversight over the ad hoc, unaccountable process that the government has to go through today to pressure media companies to manipulate and censor the public.

I prefer it this way. It's better for people to feel like criminals who whiteboard in backrooms how to manipulate public opinion by laundering prior restraint through putting pressure on the incomes of billionaires. Formalization of this process would just be permanent institutionalization, and the US government has shown throughout the 20c to now that a public board won't prevent abuses, abuses will just be routed around the board.

Forgive the presentation but here is a vlogger [1] discussing the articles behind the MoT.

In summary, there is no link so to speak. There are leaked DM's.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdjQWuJeVqE [video]

Probably Putin - you know, the guy that pays him to not leak Russian documents.