The Intercept - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Intercept:
> Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.
> Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.
—
> MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
—
Well, be that as it may, you only have 3 options in front of you; you can complain about it, shut up, or post what your problem is and why the others are wrong.
Right now, you haven’t even said what your problem with it is.
What part is misinformation even would be a good place to start.
There’s a pinned post right now where you can vote to kill the bot. I ultimately blocked it because it was at best useless - the sources I didn’t recognize it didn’t either, and I saw it endorsing British tabloids which is outright harmful. Maybe I would have liked the Wikipedia addition, because the spoiler tag works on my Lemmy client, but people already do this in comments in a more relevant way on an article to article basis.
That poll seems quite flawed. They’re not counting the people that hate it so much that they’ve blocked it, and interestingly, the stupid fucking thing commented on the poll, and got a big pile of downvotes - yet somehow, there are more votes to keep the damn thing. It doesn’t add up.
It can, though. There’s absolutely a group of people who found it annoying or problematic enough to block, but not enough to vote to remove it for everyone including the people who do like it. I did vote to get rid of it, but I’m not going to be upset if it stays because I don’t totally disagree with that view.
Also, give it a couple of days and spread the word that the poll exists so it can be the most representative sample possible, I don’t think it’s been up for 24 hours yet. Also, the same poll is up in other communities which also use the bot, vote where you’re subbed.
I need to spend less time on Israeli news sites and Reddit, but the whole point of visiting those is to see what the others think, but if you put yourself in an echo chamber you only hear the same things and I’m trying to avoid that.
I’ve just seen too many opinions exactly like that lately
Remember… There is not a single corporation that gives a shit about you beyond your LTV (lifetime value) as a paying customer. “Pride week” and “Palestinian stories” type things are just mechanisms to get your money.
If they are told they make more money harming you, CEOs literally have a legal responsibility to choose that option. And right after they do, they will have an amazing dinner while laughing at how stupid you are and then sleep more peacefully than you have on the single best day of your entire life.
Something similar has happened. Look up Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a ceo must operate in the interest of the shareholders not in the interests of the business and it’s employees.
And let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.
I mean… if something is illegal but the penalties are low or enforcement nonexistent then it’s more like a recommendation. Fines become a “cost of doing business”.
If they thought they would profit from a direct murder, they would. It’s not like they ever see any significant penalties for murder.
Usually it is an indirect murder, though. Like we are reading about chicken processing plants deciding it is more profitable to maim or kill children rather than pay adults.
Yes they actually do. Look up Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. A business must be run in the interests of the shareholders, not the public, not the employees, not even the business itself.
Is it morally right? Fuck no. Is it the law? Unfortunately yes.
Plenty are greedy psychopaths, I’m not saying the above as a forgiveness, I’m stating it as a fact. A CEO is a legal “corporate officer” of a company. Seems you need to learn a bit more about fiduciary responsibilities for a CEO. It is a legal obligation.
Maybe you’ll do some reading, probably not though, huh? The people in your life must be just fucking exhausted by that energy of yours.
Has anyone ever been under the illusion orherwise? I’ve never seen anyone who thought corporations cared about them. And people don’t care about corporations either. They care about getting the shit they want at the price they want and will sleep very soundly if some corporation goes out of business.
a lot of people have a hard time to believe that facebook, google, microsoft, etc cannot be trusted, or even that they don’t have good intentions (anymore?)
It’s nice to think that there is some form of cosmic justice present, and that wealthy people have some sort of unique-to-their-situation guilt that balances out how easy their lives are. But that’s all it is. Nice to think about.
I mean, you have to be a psychopath to amass this kind of wealth.
And being a psychopath is (usually) a defense mechanism against a trauma severe enough that being a psychopath is necessary to not go mad.
So no, psychopaths don’t feel good most of the time, they’re severely broken to the point that they’re not a fully developed personality (being a psychopath is officially called a personality disorder).
Note that a personality disorder isn’t a yes/no checkbox, but more of a spectrum. For example, being slightly histrionic is very common among actors, but it doesn’t mean they’d murder you for fun.
I gave Netflix a chance because of all the Palestinian content (I’m not even shitting) after being unsubbed for over a year since their underhanded tactics on family sharing, but I guess it’s time to cancel again.
The films removed from Netflix include “3 Logical Exits”; “3000 Nights”; “A Drowning Man”; “A Man Returned”; “A World Not Ours”; “Ave Maria”; “Bonboné”; “Children of Shatila”; “Chronicle of a Disappearance”; “Condom Lead”; “Divine Intervention”; “Frontiers of Dreams and Fears”; “Ghost Hunting”; “Giraffada”; “Habibi”; “In Vitro”; “Like Twenty Impossibles”; “Maradona’s Legs”; “Mars at Sunrise”; “Omar”; “Salt of this Sea”; “Samouni Road”; “The Crossing”; and “Xenos”
I can’t call that surprising. This is the same Netflix that almost immediately took down the episode of Hasan Minaj’s show criticizing Saudi Arabia because the Saudis told them to.
I couldn’t figure it out from the bit of the article i could see before the pay wall, but is it stated who they license the content from?
Many times these things are licensed in bundles (especially likely if they all showed up on the service at the same time) and they may not have been able to repurchase the license. It wouldn’t surprise me if alot of that content is in flux with all the creators/businesses being killed/destroyed.
Is it possible they just decided to nix all that content during the moment in history it’s most likely to be viewed outside of its previously very small audience? Sure. It just feels like there’s probably something else going on here.
threaded - newest
The Intercept - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Intercept:
> Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.
> Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Intercept is generally reliable for news. Almost all editors consider The Intercept a biased source, so uses may need to be attributed. For science, editors prefer peer-reviewed journals over news sources like The Intercept.
— > MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
—
Search topics on Ground.News
https://theintercept.com/2024/10/25/netflix-palestinian-stories-israel-movies/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
How the fuck y’all managing to make this garbage bot even worse? Just stop.
Block it and move on with your life?
I will not turn a blind eye to harmful misinformation.
Then post a correction
It should not be my responsibility to go around posting corrections to misinformation. It should just not be posted in the first place.
Well, be that as it may, you only have 3 options in front of you; you can complain about it, shut up, or post what your problem is and why the others are wrong.
Right now, you haven’t even said what your problem with it is.
What part is misinformation even would be a good place to start.
What do you disagree with here?
Why don’t you just block everybody who doesn’t like it? Then it can just be you and the bot alone on all the threads.
There’s a pinned post right now where you can vote to kill the bot. I ultimately blocked it because it was at best useless - the sources I didn’t recognize it didn’t either, and I saw it endorsing British tabloids which is outright harmful. Maybe I would have liked the Wikipedia addition, because the spoiler tag works on my Lemmy client, but people already do this in comments in a more relevant way on an article to article basis.
That poll seems quite flawed. They’re not counting the people that hate it so much that they’ve blocked it, and interestingly, the stupid fucking thing commented on the poll, and got a big pile of downvotes - yet somehow, there are more votes to keep the damn thing. It doesn’t add up.
It can, though. There’s absolutely a group of people who found it annoying or problematic enough to block, but not enough to vote to remove it for everyone including the people who do like it. I did vote to get rid of it, but I’m not going to be upset if it stays because I don’t totally disagree with that view.
Also, give it a couple of days and spread the word that the poll exists so it can be the most representative sample possible, I don’t think it’s been up for 24 hours yet. Also, the same poll is up in other communities which also use the bot, vote where you’re subbed.
CANCEL CULTURE
But have you considered that it’s working for them, now?
There is no israel lobby within US companies.
This is just normal moderation to protect the vulnerable
How so?
That was sarcasm
See, that’s what I thought.
I need to spend less time on Israeli news sites and Reddit, but the whole point of visiting those is to see what the others think, but if you put yourself in an echo chamber you only hear the same things and I’m trying to avoid that.
I’ve just seen too many opinions exactly like that lately
Musk is in regular contact with Putin, who makes suggestions about where Star link be turned off, or denied access to.
Bezos prevented the Washington Post from endorsing Kamala Harris.
Netflix is helping Israel dehumanize and erase Palestine and Palestinians.
A normal day in the US of A.
That’s freedom fellow Americans
Remember… There is not a single corporation that gives a shit about you beyond your LTV (lifetime value) as a paying customer. “Pride week” and “Palestinian stories” type things are just mechanisms to get your money.
If they are told they make more money harming you, CEOs literally have a legal responsibility to choose that option. And right after they do, they will have an amazing dinner while laughing at how stupid you are and then sleep more peacefully than you have on the single best day of your entire life.
No they fucking don’t.
They choose to do so out of greediness the vast majority of the time, but it isn’t a legal obligation.
You are actually not wrong but if they dont obey BoD, it is the shed.
Bigger question here if this "simplification" is a valid tactic to communicate the message.
Theoretically BoD could sue the CEO, but i dont think that ever happened in this context... Only in cases of fraud, ie stealing company assets
Something similar has happened. Look up Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co where the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that a ceo must operate in the interest of the shareholders not in the interests of the business and it’s employees.
And let’s not forget that most significant forms of “harm” are illegal in the first place. The comment above you makes it sound like any minute now, Nabisco might decide it’s more profitable for them to roll out to your house and kill you.
I mean… if something is illegal but the penalties are low or enforcement nonexistent then it’s more like a recommendation. Fines become a “cost of doing business”.
If they thought they would profit from a direct murder, they would. It’s not like they ever see any significant penalties for murder.
Usually it is an indirect murder, though. Like we are reading about chicken processing plants deciding it is more profitable to maim or kill children rather than pay adults.
Yes they actually do. Look up Dodge v. Ford Motor Company. A business must be run in the interests of the shareholders, not the public, not the employees, not even the business itself.
Is it morally right? Fuck no. Is it the law? Unfortunately yes.
Grobow v. Perot, 539 A.2d 180 (Del. 1988).
Directors in a business should:
Fair point, I was unaware of this case.
Plenty are greedy psychopaths, I’m not saying the above as a forgiveness, I’m stating it as a fact. A CEO is a legal “corporate officer” of a company. Seems you need to learn a bit more about fiduciary responsibilities for a CEO. It is a legal obligation.
Maybe you’ll do some reading, probably not though, huh? The people in your life must be just fucking exhausted by that energy of yours.
Nope. There are these obligations but it is not illegal for a CEO to perform sub optimally, or even make multi year losses.
👑
Has anyone ever been under the illusion orherwise? I’ve never seen anyone who thought corporations cared about them. And people don’t care about corporations either. They care about getting the shit they want at the price they want and will sleep very soundly if some corporation goes out of business.
a lot of people have a hard time to believe that facebook, google, microsoft, etc cannot be trusted, or even that they don’t have good intentions (anymore?)
Unfortunately I’ve seen quite a few people argue that companies are kept honest by the market and as such they’re trustworthy.
Quite a few? Wow! I would say that’s very naive but it would have to have an ounce of logic to even be evaluated on that scale.
Libertarians writing Invisible Hand fan fiction.
Seems you live in a bubble friend.
One of the most popular kids toys are miniature brand name products that the parents buy for them…
people by M&M’s branded leather jackets for $300 and walk around as human billboards willingly…
people cover their cars with bumper stickers and get tattoos with logos showing their preferences between competing local coffee shops…
Goop, celebrity-fronted baby brands, etc are “lifestyle brands” where people purchase an identity and defend it against others…
Sports teams are corporations that people literally have bloody fist fights over…
Target is selling a Halloween costume and kids sized shopping carts and checkout stands and their parents are buying them… For money
What in the sweet sticky god damn FUCK are you talking about “was anyone under that illusion”?
Dude, Donald trump is a fucking corporation that elderly people eating cat food donate their pension checks to…
You seem to be delusional if you see NONE of that.
None of that is people thinking corporations care about them. You’re high. Get some sleep.
Let me introduce you to gamers and valve.
Seriously doubt that. Those kinds of people don’t sleep well.
It’s nice to think that there is some form of cosmic justice present, and that wealthy people have some sort of unique-to-their-situation guilt that balances out how easy their lives are. But that’s all it is. Nice to think about.
I mean, you have to be a psychopath to amass this kind of wealth.
And being a psychopath is (usually) a defense mechanism against a trauma severe enough that being a psychopath is necessary to not go mad.
So no, psychopaths don’t feel good most of the time, they’re severely broken to the point that they’re not a fully developed personality (being a psychopath is officially called a personality disorder).
Note that a personality disorder isn’t a yes/no checkbox, but more of a spectrum. For example, being slightly histrionic is very common among actors, but it doesn’t mean they’d murder you for fun.
Welcome to the digital age.
I gave Netflix a chance because of all the Palestinian content (I’m not even shitting) after being unsubbed for over a year since their underhanded tactics on family sharing, but I guess it’s time to cancel again.
I had never even heard of them having this content.
From the article:
The films removed from Netflix include “3 Logical Exits”; “3000 Nights”; “A Drowning Man”; “A Man Returned”; “A World Not Ours”; “Ave Maria”; “Bonboné”; “Children of Shatila”; “Chronicle of a Disappearance”; “Condom Lead”; “Divine Intervention”; “Frontiers of Dreams and Fears”; “Ghost Hunting”; “Giraffada”; “Habibi”; “In Vitro”; “Like Twenty Impossibles”; “Maradona’s Legs”; “Mars at Sunrise”; “Omar”; “Salt of this Sea”; “Samouni Road”; “The Crossing”; and “Xenos”
Here is a lovely Federated [PeerTube] collection of films and documentaries about Palestine: tube.todon.eu/c/palestine.documentaries/videos?s=…
Thank ^_^
Woah some of those documentaries make my blood boil
As they should.
I can’t call that surprising. This is the same Netflix that almost immediately took down the episode of Hasan Minaj’s show criticizing Saudi Arabia because the Saudis told them to.
I couldn’t figure it out from the bit of the article i could see before the pay wall, but is it stated who they license the content from?
Many times these things are licensed in bundles (especially likely if they all showed up on the service at the same time) and they may not have been able to repurchase the license. It wouldn’t surprise me if alot of that content is in flux with all the creators/businesses being killed/destroyed.
Is it possible they just decided to nix all that content during the moment in history it’s most likely to be viewed outside of its previously very small audience? Sure. It just feels like there’s probably something else going on here.
Common netflix L, sail the high seas.
You’re fools if you Americans don’t think they do the same in the u.s, because Americans call to bitch about seeing foreigners on their Netflix