say anything even vaguely related to China without also saying how much you hate China and everything about it = tankie
Then inevitably one person will come along and say “haha tankie, opinion rejected” and another will try to change the topic entirely to why “China is bad” for some very loosely related reason.
(Edit: typo)
Nobody cares bro. My farts smell better than yours
Bruh when did I say “we need to be like the Chinese party-state because they have freedom of expression and information”?
I’m trying to say that this Article 19 group has no real principles beyond: “UK government protecting our ‘information integrity’=good. Chinese censorship and ‘misinformation’=bad.” Also it’s not even “Chinese media ownership”, it’s a US firm with a chairman who has ties to China.
But if you can’t follow this beyond “this guy clearly loves China and hates Britain, I need to explain why China is worse”, then go off I guess.
This article is so strange to me. Do these guys want “media plurality” and “freedom of expression and information” or to stop people with links to China from owning UK news outlets? On the one hand they’re talking about this ideal of freedom of press and on another it’s about how we need to restrict who can control the press. “Information integrity” sounds like justification for censorship to me.
It’s so full of vague, conflicting ideals.
The idea of laws about transparency of ownership and funding seems reasonable I suppose. It’s good media literacy to find out what you can about who owns and funds a news outlet. That’s why I looked into who’s behind this “Article 19” organisation.
https://www.article19.org/financials/
Ah… The UK and US governments, along with the infamous “National Endowment for Democracy”. Seems it’s bad when China tries to control the narrative, but not the UK or US.
As for whether I personally think this US firm that has some links to China should be allowed to buy the Telegraph, I don’t care much either way, as long as I can access the media I want to and look up who owns it. It does seem like they’re trying to set a precedent for blocking foreign outlets they don’t like though.
I don’t think many people are gonna have “hot takes” based on a vaguely titled article behind a paywall.
Also “scandals” to do with the Chinese military have little to do with someone saying that Taiwanese military badges don’t prove anything about the situation in China.
What do you even mean here?
Any decision about censorship is a compromise of some kind between open communication/access to information and the prevention of the spread of content that could be deemed harmful in some way or another.
Maybe I’m just being thick right now but I’m really not sure who are supposed to be the “children”. It seems it could just as easily be the CPC for being uncompromising in their censorship of the internet, fascist trolls who say they should have a right to use slurs and disinformation to incite violence, or liberals who are unwilling to accept that a hardline stance needs to be taken to censor the fascists.
I’m unsure if this is an enlightened centrist take, you saying the CPC (and similar) do what needs to be done or that we need our freedom and the commenter above is the child. Whatever you mean, your comment (at least to me) comes across a bit rude and unconstructive.
Ok your comment successfully ragebaited me so tbh I’m probably the child.
Edit: changed CCP to CPC because that is the technically correct term, even though for some reason most English language outlets use “CCP”
Delta accomplishes this pricing through a partnership with Fetcherr, a six-year-old Israeli company that also counts Azul, WestJet, Virgin Atlantic, and VivaAerobus as clients. And it has its sights set beyond flying. “Once we will be established in the airline industry, we will move to hospitality, car rentals, cruises, whatever,” cofounder Robby Nissan said at a travel conference in 2022.
So soon even more AI will decide you have to pay more, and that extra money will be going to Israel, no doubt helping to fund their genocide
Just because it’s low compared to other CEOs doesn’t make it reasonable and justified. Also, Wikipedia isn’t a “high-profile firm”. It’s (at least supposed to be) a non-profit that takes donations to keep the site running and free.
It’s always just