Not particularly liking the DM as they have their fair share of shady dealings, but I support anyone going after Google and other big companies abusing their position.
I don’t like Google either, but the mail is an absolutely drain on society, and in my opinion has done much, much worse than Google ever has
Yeah google suppresses competition, and shamelessly sells your data, but they aren’t deliberately and carefully peddling hate and dog-whistle racism. Their business model isn’t literally to corrupt people’s minds, addict them to controversy and clastic words and profit from that. They don’t directly benefit from a less-educated society
Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis
""At this next vital election Britain's survival as a Great Power will depend on the existence of a well-organised Party of the Right, ready to take over responsibility for national affairs with the same directness of purpose and energy of method as Mussolini and Hitler have displayed.... That is why I say Hurrah for the Blackshirts! ... Hundreds of thousands of young British men and women would like to see their own country develop that spirit of patriotic pride and service which has transformed Germany and Italy. They cannot do better than seek out the nearest branch of the Blackshirts and make themselves acquainted with their aims and plans."
1st Lord Rothermere, The Daily Mail (15th January, 1934)
You can find numerous quotes by British and American politicians of the time approving Hitler or Stalin. E.g. Churchill praises Hitler in his 1935 book (after the purge of up to 1000 people in 1934). Roosevelt and his wife's enchantment with Stalin is another example.
yet any attempt to counteract that (natural human) perversion of the platform they provide, and an angry mob forms and yells "censorship" and "anti trust"
What about organizations like CNN, that spend months and sometimes years on conspiracy theories, only to move on to the next one when the previous turns out to be false?
Here's for reference an example:
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-a...
It’s been getting harder to find references like these online.
Stories I’ve read about can not be found anymore.
It’s like someone is messing with the search results to only give one political viewpoint.
On the plus side it’s fun learning about what your not supposed to know by seeing the fact checkers disprove a story I hadn’t yet heard about.
So convenient that the refutation ranks higher.
The article you refer to exaggerates its first claim so disingenuously that I won’t bother to read the rest. It claims:
> The New York Times on January 8 published an emotionally gut-wrenching but complete fiction that never had any evidence — that Officer Sicknick's skull was savagely bashed in with a fire extinguisher by a pro-Trump mob until he died
While the referenced (archived) NYT article says:
> At some point in the chaos [...] he was struck with a fire extinguisher
and
> He returned to his division office and collapsed,
There is no cause of death claimed by the NYT. No “bashing until he died” claimed.
For background, that at least one rioter (Sanford) threw a fire extinguisher and hit three cops in the head (two wearing helmets) is alleged by the FBI based video evidence[1].
They started this rumor, the rumor went around all the television stations on repeat for weeks, and then when it turned out this was based on nothing, that it was some kind of fabrication, the NYT doesn't do a front page retraction with a humble apology for stirring up the country.
Was the NYT article edited after the fact? That happens fairly often. I remember having to calm my gf down after she was so upset by the news that someone had their head bashed in with a fire extinguisher. It was definitely reported, and definitely false.
Here's the quote I see from articles alleging the NY Times reported and spread a false story: "Mr. Sicknick, 42, an officer for the Capitol Police, died on Thursday from brain injuries he sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials."
As best as I can tell the fire extinguisher was a different event in which officers were struck by a thrown extinguisher. Sicknick did suffer brain injuries (a stroke). The medical examiner hasn't attributed fault to possible exposure to bear spray that some protestors might have used, so his stroke is determined to be from natural causes. I think we have to wait for the accused protestor's trials to determine finally whether they assaulted Sicknick.
> Google was around in the 1930s, I find it hard to believe they would have come out in full support of the Nazis
Google supports China though, and that's not too far removed. You know people back then didn't believe that Germans ran camps despite all the evidence. It seems like the same thing is happening now - there is evidence of camps in China, but people happily buy products because it is cheap and companies wipe their faces and continue to do business there.
You know in the 30s IBM has provided the infrastructure to run those camps.
So you are making a bold claim here.
