[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago

McCarthyism hasn't been exlusively about the Kremlin since... well since way before McCarthy even died. And it's a moot task for me to try to convince a paranoiac who eschews facts.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

In the case of AfD and political polarization, that's a problem on all platforms and has more to do with how algorithms and user engagement work.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago

The article is about China and TikTok's behavior, not "the Kremlin", and the behavior described in the article is mundane ad-buying. You can quite literally sift through the TikTok ad library yourself to confirm this. Instead you rely on vagueries and call people secret Kremlin agents who are very invested in changing your perspective, like a schizophrenic.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 7 points 17 hours ago

When it comes to deadly "mistakes" in a military context there should be strong laws preventing "appeal to AI fuckery", so that militaries don't get comfortable making such "mistakes."

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 24 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Anyone who uses Arabic-language social media has encountered this. They used to ban you for just making reference to "Al Aqsa" (Arabic name for Dome of the Rock) because their algorithm deemed it terror-related. They banned the word "shaheed" (martyr) too even though in Arabic it's commonly used to refer to loved ones who died an untimely death, even in accidents. It's also a name, which is hilarious because a member of their oversight board said in an interview that after they banned the word one of her coworkers named Shaheed had to explained that this was nonsense. Researchers did an experiment where they ran pages that used uncontroverdial Arabic keywords that would get censored, then do the same for Hebrew (including #death_to_arabs) which were left up and even gained traction.

You can blame Meta to some degree, but the chief issue are US federal institutions that use notices and scare stories aimed at making risk-averse firms shut down anything deemed anti-American (which essentially means anti-Israel.) Just recently they've been sending FBI agents to knock on journalists' doors if they publish the leaked Vance dossier and give them a "friendly reminder" that it may have been leaked by Iran. Even when the journalists mentioned it in their reports on the dossier.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago

That's always a rational and logical place to take the conversation - viscious McCarthyist paranoia! Who knows, I could even be Xi himself, trying to make you lower your guard so I can feed you an ad for my dastardly electric car companies while you scroll past memes and tits.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

That's fair, I'm also bored with the topic.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
  1. They were also fined 2,500 USD each.

  2. The case against them that most relates to what you're talking about is in Michigan. They're charged in accordance to a Michigan statute that bans deterring voters through "corrupt means or device", referring specifically to disinformation that the two individuals specifically engaged in and their stated goals. That's a world of difference from having a social media platform whose policies cultivate a userbase that seeks to get out the vote for a candidate and whose owner uses as a platform to advocate for that candidate. The case is actually going to the supreme court because the statute may be overly-broad.

  3. You haven't provided any evidence or compelling argument that what they or Musk do falls outside of 1A protection. It seems to me that you're implying that media institutions with a slant towards a political actor or party during an election is violating campaign laws? Please clarify.

  4. Invoking 20511 implies you believe pro-Trump disinfo on X posted by thousands of users constitutes "intimidation" of prospective voters. 30101 makes the "X support for Trump constitutes campaign finance fraud" argument look ridiculous:

(B) The term "expenditure" does **not include-

(i) any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

The articles simply describe Chinese media firms buying ads on Tiktok. You can literally search through the ad library and find media firms from basically every country that can afford it.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago

There is quite literally zero evidence that Tiktok "spreads propaganda" relating to the Russia-Ukraine war of its own volition. There are literally millions of pro-Russia users around the world - i.e India where a huge percent of users come from and where the population is split on which side of the war is to blame - who are responsible.

83
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by BMTea@lemmy.world to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

According to senior defense officials, the Israeli government is not seeking to revive hostage talks and the political leadership is pushing for the gradual annexation of large parts of the Gaza Strip.

In closed-room discussions, these officials say the chances of reaching a hostage deal appear slim right now. One of the reasons cited is that since negotiations were suspended, there has been no discussion among international players involved in the talks.

In addition, they say, Israel's political leaders have not held any discussions with the various security branches about the condition of the hostages. Army commanders in the field who spoke with Haaretz say the recent decision to launch operations in northern Gaza was taken without any in-depth discussion. They said it appeared that the operations were aimed principally at pressuring local residents, who were again told to evacuate the area for the coast as winter is approaching.

It is possible that the operation is laying the groundwork for a decision by the government to put into effect the so-called surrender or starve plan of Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland. That plan calls for all the residents of northern Gaza to be evacuated to humanitarian zones in the south, with those choosing to remain deemed Hamas operatives and legitimate military targets. While Gazans in the south are getting humanitarian assistance, those who remain in the north will face hunger.

Defense officials who were asked to respond to the Eiland plan pointed out that it violated international law and that the chances of the United States and the international community supporting it were virtually zero. They said it would further undermine the legitimacy of Israel's entire Gaza offensive.

The Israel Defense Forces planned a wide-ranging operation in north Gaza after the collapse of the latest round of hostage talks, with the aim of pressuring Hamas to return to the negotiating table. However, Israel's war was soon redirected to the Lebanon front.

The 162nd Division, which had been operating in southern Gaza, was ordered to prepare a major assault on Jabalya refugee camp in the north, even though there was no intelligence to justify the move. The security establishment didn't unanimously back the move, and some in the army and the Shin Bet security service warned that it might endanger the lives of hostages.

Sources told Haaretz that when troops entered Jabalya, they did not directly encounter any terrorists. The person pushing for the operation was the head of the Southern Command, Maj. Gen. Yaron Finkelman, before the first anniversary of the Gaza war.

Especially since six hostages were found shot to death after Israeli forces were approaching the place they were being held, the army has been warning that ground operations are endangering the lives of the 101 hostages remaining in Gaza. More recently, Hamas issued orders to its fighters to thwart Israeli rescue operations at all costs, including executing hostages if troops are approaching.

Intelligence officials estimate that before the war erupted, some 4,000 Gazans were known to be Hamas fighters, with an even greater number in the south. Even though Hamas' Rafah Brigade has been degraded and has ceased operating as an organized army, many of the fighters left the combat zone before the IDF entered, they said. They added that other Hamas fighters are operating from camps in the Central Gaza Strip, where the IDF has not yet been active. Meanwhile, Hamas dominates all civilian activity in the enclave. The defense establishment has urged the government to agree to some form of international governance for Gaza, but so far its appeals have been turned down. Hamas has formed a police unit called Arrow Force that numbers several hundred men. Its main task is to crack down on anyone opposed to Hamas rule. Hamas' greatest concern is that the difficult humanitarian conditions in Gaza will cause the residents to revolt.

Nevertheless, after a year of war, many Gazans believe that, once the fighting is over, the organization will remain in control and therefore fear speaking out against it. Until now, Hamas' efforts to prevent civilians from obeying IDF evacuation orders has not been successful because of the danger of remaining in evacuated areas. However, after being displaced from their homes several times in the past year, more and more residents are seemingly willing to take the risk of staying in combat zones.

The defense establishment sees putting an end to Hamas rule in Gaza as a much more complex challenge than the war itself. Senior officials say that even though it has been hit hard militarily, Hamas is still the only civilian authority in Gaza. If anything, the civilian population has become more dependent on the organization than ever, partly because it distributes humanitarian aid.

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 36 points 2 days ago

China doesn't "write rules" even in its own region. Neither does the US. Newspapers like this one are trapped in a ridiculous false dichotomy. Go look at the regional agreements that govern trade and data which China and the US are both not a part of

[-] BMTea@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Yes, we are all very, very invested in your support and are seeking to trick you into taking sides. You are very intelligent and got one over on us 👌. Please keep contributing inane statements to signal that you're not being fooled.

74
submitted 2 weeks ago by BMTea@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
view more: next ›

BMTea

joined 3 weeks ago