Re:Australia proposes ban on social media for those under 16
by EraYaN on Thursday November 07, 2024 @10:50AM
(#42077696)
They are not propaganda in the classic sense since that requires intent and a goal.
Re:Australia proposes ban on social media for those under 16
by PittleyDunkin on Thursday November 07, 2024 @11:31AM
(#42078126)
Sorry, why do you believe these entities have no intent nor goals? That's a very odd assumption to make.
As always, I highly recommend Manufacturing Consent, which well illustrates how to examine financial interests to determine the above. Propaganda does not require conspiracy nor explicit instructions on what messages to convey; it only requires a class of people produced from the same environment, aiming to reproduce that same environment.
Re:Australia proposes ban on social media for those under 16
by blitzar on Friday November 08, 2024 @07:19AM
(#42086285)
> illustrates how to examine financial interests to determine the above
On this basis we have to exclude all "citizen jounalists" as unreliable click bait at best or just plain manufactured news.
Yes, it is hard, but there's no such thing as easy trust, and you should always be questioning whether such trust is actually earned or just comforting.
I don't think the "bbc" or "the guardian" are very trustworthy, either (at least by themselves)—both have obvious polemics and blind spots. They also only cover a very narrow, western-centric view of the world, leaving you with piss-poor understanding of world politics. I'm not saying you should ignore them but they're still propaganda.
Substack is invaluable; blogs are invaluable; twitter, as miserable as it is, is invaluable (for direct access to reporters sans newsrooms, if nothing else).