CNN lost me during the 2000 election coverage when they displayed such mad hubris I couldn’t handle it anymore.
Sadly, I believe this User Agreement verbiage and posture will be the new normal for large media companies.
It says to me: We’re awesome, you’re not. We’re big, you’re little. We’re smart, you’re dumb. What we say goes, and what you say doesn’t matter. Deal with it. (sponsored by Pfizer).
I do like "checkf*ckers". I read fast too, and I don't remember seeing that they could edit the user content - just delete I thought. Will need to reread. Yes, there it was. That is bad. Delete is better/reasonable compared to editing something. Why would anyone want to allow CNN to change what they had written?
I see. The Communist News Network is now trying to make a place for itself by doing what seems to me this: replacing Twitter’s old role of desperately censoring the truth.
Unistalled cnn app yesterday. Only had to read the first couple paragraphs. I can still peak over the fense and see what cnn mr wilson is up to on other open sources. Dr Jack if you have time could you please provide your analysis of Igor's and Bad Cat's assessment of the Rintrah Radagast post they discussed yesterday 12-26-'22 (IgG3 and IgG4 hypothesis stuff)? Thanks in advance if you do so, if not no prob. Joel just reposted this link to it today.
Reverse transcriptase... brings me back... Question: How likely is it that one could innocently toss, into our cells (there’s a hurdle or 2), some RNA without expecting it to end up becoming DNA?
I ask because its one thing to pretend to use MRNA to elicit immunity, yet another to Illegally cause a change in that which defines an individual.
There are transhumans, as one reader said, choosing nonGMO foods at market. Weird.
Stopped watching CNN so long ago. Then had to stop watching FOX in 2016. Dropped cable altogether. To our delight, we found in depth coverage of news all over the place!
AI is being integrated on some platforms to suggest to users how they should rephrase their communications. This is to assist people in self - censorship. It is another easy step to move from assisting people in self censorship to just doing it helpfully for them. Because of the greater good, this censorship has already been established as being in the interest of everyone. Since no one would want harmful speech, someone must decide what is harmful, and that someone will be an impartial over structure.
I remember when wokeism became a thing, in my circles. A very warm and friendly Chilean friend began to call out people for racism, etc. I found it daunting to relate to her, not knowing if she would find some subtle thing which she would need to call out and label with such social impunity. I can see how many sincere people might enjoy having themselves be corrected by an impartial AI structure so that they need not navigate the newly dangerous social landscape, a landscape impossible to master, meant to always keep people in fear of an unwitting wrong step.
A woke influenced young latino man recently was discussing with me racial epithets. I wondered about derogatory racial terms for white people. He opined that, because of the privilege that whites experience, it is OK to refer to the entire race in a derogatory way. It is hard for me to imagine that this could actually be a widely shared view, and yet, I look to this young man as one of my personal bellwethers to better understand how people are thinking and what ideology is being pushed.
The CNN terms allowing editing, especially, are not acceptable to me, but I am opening the question of just how acceptable, possibly even desirable, they might ideologically be to some demographics.
I am wondering, what scenarios are the kind of language requiring a sort of secret arbitration and prohibiting legal action attached to? Someone upset to find their own words suddenly changed and rewritten? Is it more global, would it include contributed articles that CNN might publish and edit as they please? I may be completely missing the scope of how those agreements could be applied.
considering how pervasive and accepted the F bomb is anymore, why the F not, lol.
(I recently saw a children's book entitled "Go the F*** To Sleep". I am serious. it was not a bad joke for adults - it was a children's book for preschool age.)
Wait...aren’t we already experiencing this with social media?? I agree that by putting it on paper they are telling those who actually GO to their website (who does btw?) that “me not thee” is real and the serfs will “do as I say not as I do”. Why don’t they just call themselves what they really are, a propagandist gossip rag?? Tells you everything you need to know in just three little words...
Continues the lack of accountability we see in industry and government, heck, in our society. Everyone wants to indemnify themselves while also blaming others all the while censoring free speech. We let these zealots create their own rules that they themselves break daily. "Rules for thee, but not me.
Thank you
"checkf*ckers" is brilliant!
CNN lost me during the 2000 election coverage when they displayed such mad hubris I couldn’t handle it anymore.
Sadly, I believe this User Agreement verbiage and posture will be the new normal for large media companies.
It says to me: We’re awesome, you’re not. We’re big, you’re little. We’re smart, you’re dumb. What we say goes, and what you say doesn’t matter. Deal with it. (sponsored by Pfizer).
Long live the new nomenclature: Checkf*ckers!
I laughed when I read your post and then scrolled through their terms.
My first thoughts were, "Why allow comments? Why not just report the news? If they (CNN) feels the.need to monitor and edit comments, why allow them?"
I do like "checkf*ckers". I read fast too, and I don't remember seeing that they could edit the user content - just delete I thought. Will need to reread. Yes, there it was. That is bad. Delete is better/reasonable compared to editing something. Why would anyone want to allow CNN to change what they had written?
The problem isn't that so much of this is 'unenforceable' ... the problem is that it might enforced be even though it ought not to.
Unenforceable means it can be easily challenged in court.. unless you sign agree to their new terms!
I am worried about this 'easily challenged in court'. Can we trust the courts to do the right thing?
That depends on which district, unfortunately.
I see. The Communist News Network is now trying to make a place for itself by doing what seems to me this: replacing Twitter’s old role of desperately censoring the truth.
Good luck with that.
It’s only a matter of time before CNN highers a conservative disinformation spreader as a news reporter
Like Chris Wallace maybe - already there.
Unistalled cnn app yesterday. Only had to read the first couple paragraphs. I can still peak over the fense and see what cnn mr wilson is up to on other open sources. Dr Jack if you have time could you please provide your analysis of Igor's and Bad Cat's assessment of the Rintrah Radagast post they discussed yesterday 12-26-'22 (IgG3 and IgG4 hypothesis stuff)? Thanks in advance if you do so, if not no prob. Joel just reposted this link to it today.
https://open.substack.com/pub/metatron/p/the-dam-is-breaking?utm_source=direct&r=14opcj&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Yes, surely. I have an article in the works on immune cytopenia recapping science that showed I was correct in April, 2020.
Thank you. I read and saved what you said in April 2020. I was researching mRNA reverse transcription at that time.
Reverse transcriptase... brings me back... Question: How likely is it that one could innocently toss, into our cells (there’s a hurdle or 2), some RNA without expecting it to end up becoming DNA?
I ask because its one thing to pretend to use MRNA to elicit immunity, yet another to Illegally cause a change in that which defines an individual.
There are transhumans, as one reader said, choosing nonGMO foods at market. Weird.
Stopped watching CNN so long ago. Then had to stop watching FOX in 2016. Dropped cable altogether. To our delight, we found in depth coverage of news all over the place!
Congratulations! Yes, the New Media is unstoppable.
Substacks have our backs - for now anyway.
AI is being integrated on some platforms to suggest to users how they should rephrase their communications. This is to assist people in self - censorship. It is another easy step to move from assisting people in self censorship to just doing it helpfully for them. Because of the greater good, this censorship has already been established as being in the interest of everyone. Since no one would want harmful speech, someone must decide what is harmful, and that someone will be an impartial over structure.
I remember when wokeism became a thing, in my circles. A very warm and friendly Chilean friend began to call out people for racism, etc. I found it daunting to relate to her, not knowing if she would find some subtle thing which she would need to call out and label with such social impunity. I can see how many sincere people might enjoy having themselves be corrected by an impartial AI structure so that they need not navigate the newly dangerous social landscape, a landscape impossible to master, meant to always keep people in fear of an unwitting wrong step.
A woke influenced young latino man recently was discussing with me racial epithets. I wondered about derogatory racial terms for white people. He opined that, because of the privilege that whites experience, it is OK to refer to the entire race in a derogatory way. It is hard for me to imagine that this could actually be a widely shared view, and yet, I look to this young man as one of my personal bellwethers to better understand how people are thinking and what ideology is being pushed.
The CNN terms allowing editing, especially, are not acceptable to me, but I am opening the question of just how acceptable, possibly even desirable, they might ideologically be to some demographics.
I am wondering, what scenarios are the kind of language requiring a sort of secret arbitration and prohibiting legal action attached to? Someone upset to find their own words suddenly changed and rewritten? Is it more global, would it include contributed articles that CNN might publish and edit as they please? I may be completely missing the scope of how those agreements could be applied.
Re: "checkf*ckers,"
While the obscenity is directly applicable (and suitable,) I've been calling them "fact fakers" for a while and feel that is usually accurate
It's art, SomeDude. Not obscenity. Some find it beautiful :)
considering how pervasive and accepted the F bomb is anymore, why the F not, lol.
(I recently saw a children's book entitled "Go the F*** To Sleep". I am serious. it was not a bad joke for adults - it was a children's book for preschool age.)
Wait...aren’t we already experiencing this with social media?? I agree that by putting it on paper they are telling those who actually GO to their website (who does btw?) that “me not thee” is real and the serfs will “do as I say not as I do”. Why don’t they just call themselves what they really are, a propagandist gossip rag?? Tells you everything you need to know in just three little words...
False "law" at war with Truth.
(Hint: Truth wins; John 14:6.)
Continues the lack of accountability we see in industry and government, heck, in our society. Everyone wants to indemnify themselves while also blaming others all the while censoring free speech. We let these zealots create their own rules that they themselves break daily. "Rules for thee, but not me.