The FUD here is the overhyped risk of TikTok. Facebook didn't flip the election in 2016, and TikTok can't brainwash you in 2023. TikTok didn't read your mail, steal your bank account, listen to your calls. If it did, let's get Tim Cook to testify about exactly how it happened (it didn't happen).

Media can brain wash you…

Everyone who thinks maybe it doesn't have real effects on society has missed to the last 10 or so years.

Even if you aren't, you're some superhuman apparently, you live in a society with millions of people who will very much fall over and will very much end up opposing the future of your country.

Look at healthy misinformation machines managed to turn the republicans from incredibly anti-Russia literally saying they are the biggest threat in the world a couple of election cycles ago, to the party with people calling for us to just hand Ukraine to them

China was implicated not too long ago with meddling in Canada's elections. They are absolutely going to use this advantage on us.

Describing IA as a "pirated books scheme" and the ACLU's case selection guidelines as "retreating from the first amendment" is some pretty heavily weighted language that... I dare say sort of feels like misinformation or misinterpretation. I'm personally not even a big fan of the ACLU but you're really taking an inch and turning it into a mile here which feels kind of unnecessary.

Neither of these are just my personal hot takes. EFF and IA are far and away on the wrong side of the law here regardless of jurisdiction or interpretation. You can't say that is just my personal "misinformation" when they were just ruled against by a US district judge on the merits of the case:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-rules-internet-archiv...

Former board member of ACLU on the current ACLU:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-aclu-retreats-from-free-exp...

Regarding EEF and IA you seem to be conflating law and morality.

The law is informed by human morality, they both retreated from upholding the law and in my opinion they lose the moral high ground simultaneously. That isn’t conflating, that’s stating what they did legally and then also stating my moral opinion on the matter

They're not describing IA itself as a "pirated books scheme", they are describing IA's online book lending program for books they didn't have as a "pirated books scheme".

And the ACLU has recently voted to stop protecting the 1st Ammendment rights of those expressing certain hostile opinions relatively recently, so I think that description is quite apt as well.

Not to speak of the mountain of good from both organizations. I dont think the EFF has ever said something I disagree with.