I mean, if you're gonna engage in disinformation then at least read the wikipedia page on whatever topic you are targetting so you can come up with something that's more believable. Disinfo is most effective when it is based on some true information taken out of context.
Not sure anyone has ever presented solid evidence that Kamala would have won if not for the Gaza issue. Most agree it was a contributing factor, but not a determening one. Which is scary when you think about it - the real reasons she lost appear to be more nuanced and more deeply related to general cynicism, ignorance and apathy.
Not to worry, you're simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don't want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.
There's a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.
Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.
If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don't want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.
Holding those in power accountable is a continuous process. It doesn't just happen on a specific day or another. Politically active and concious people protest and raise awareness in an ongoing manner regardless of who is in power. The world didn't end on 5 Nov 2024 or 20 Jan 2025 - fighting for democracy will never stop.
You would know this if you actually put your money where your mouth is, as it were.
I'm just making fun of the biased dynamics and what often seems like a black-and-white perspective. By no means do I think that one is "good" and the other is "bad", but I do think there is a lot of misrepresentation going around because of the latest developments around TikTok. We should also keep in kind that the executive decision was put in place over a year ago but ofcourse nobody discussed it back then because policy only becomes relevant once it factors into personal interpretations and ideology.
That's not how I remember it. The average persin in Eastern Europe couldn't afford to buy a car and cars were in short supply, resulting in significant waiting periods (we're talking years). The average citizens in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact had much less purchaisng power compared to their counterparts in the West. Soviet-made cars were much more expensice relative to Western-made ones, and of considerably lower quality, generally speaking.
I guess I must be "retarded" as well - I don't get what's so funny about someone being impressed or otherwise stricken with the landscape of a place they've never been to.
Thank god for bold platforms like TikTok that refuse to push US propaganda. Really smart of them to not censor valuable information as a way of fooling the US government into exposing its evil censorship ways. TikTok's fate in the US was never a topic before the current wave of pro-Palestinian activism started. It certainly wasn't one of Trump's main talking points ten years ago. Good thing he changed his mind after getting his hands on some Chinese money lucrative investmenet from Chinese citizens that are not at all connected to Tencent.
None of this discourse on combatting foreign information manipulation started over a decade ago, its all about censoring pro-Palestine voices here and now. TikTok and China in general are known for their calm, collected attitudes toward Muslims. They certainly would never weaponize a contentious topic every which way imaginable in pursuit of financial and geopolitical goals. We need more of these open and bold platforms.
I mean, if you're gonna engage in disinformation then at least read the wikipedia page on whatever topic you are targetting so you can come up with something that's more believable. Disinfo is most effective when it is based on some true information taken out of context.