....Liberals must have a sense that they are very close to winning.
Once upon a time there was enough of a counter to the lies of the Left that a sense, perhaps of shame, prevented their admission that they aimed for the same sort of governance that their cousins, the Bolsheviks did.
No longer.
Control of the media and the schools has made them so bold that they can openly demand an end to free speech and pass off silencing any opposing voices as an enviable position.
An editorial in yesterday's Washington Post.....whose motto must be "It looks like a newspaper, but it isn't'....authorized censorship.
"Social media platforms must step up their oversight against deceptive election ads.
"... a slew of deceptive ads on Facebook... to lure voters into believing, falsely, that ballots sent in from afar this November would lead to large-scale disenfranchisement and fraud.
“IT’S HAPPENING & THE ISSUES ARE REAL,” blares the site, before listing issues with mail-in voting that are not real but that are sure to confuse citizens into sacrificing the opportunity to send in their ballots from home in the middle of a pandemic.
Initially, the only recourse for the manipulated public was a disclaimer appended to elections related posts with a link to Facebook’s Voter Information Center. But the platform said on Aug. 22 that it had removed the content upon review, having rolled out a harsher set of policies barring from the platform certain types of content that could subvert democracy: sharing the wrong date for an election, for instance, or insinuating that participation could result in arrest. These rules apply to paid ads as well as to organically posted content. The platform determined that a significant number of the ads violated these strictures — and that the page behind them had broken rules in other ways warranting its removal.
This response isn’t too little, but it is too late. What would have happened if The Post hadn’t uncovered the campaign? And what is happening already with ads that haven’t been uncovered? A Propublica investigation in July revealed that these attempts to undermine the integrity of mail-in balloting are rampant in unpaid posts, but ads are even more concerning....
.... fact-check ads from candidates as President Trump’s reelection campaign ran ads attacking Joe Biden. They worried that baseless allegations could be microtargeted to narrow segments of the population deemed especially susceptible, or especially essential to victory. This, it seems, is precisely what’s happening today with ads that are supposedly subject to fact-checking and removal but are slipping through. It is also what’s happening with the Trump campaign’s misleading ads that are allowed to run freely.
The New York Times writes that Facebook is readying itself to throw a “kill switch” on ads after the election, in case the incumbent insists after a loss that he has won after all. Such a claim would be the endgame of a ploy that has already begun, and of which ads such as those removed recently are a crucial component. Platforms must work harder to ensure they don’t get played at any stage along the way."
Is it possible to miss the implication? Does everyone recognize what 'fact-check' means?
A 'newspaper' demanding censorship of opposing views.
And openly so.
Once upon a time there was enough of a counter to the lies of the Left that a sense, perhaps of shame, prevented their admission that they aimed for the same sort of governance that their cousins, the Bolsheviks did.
No longer.
Control of the media and the schools has made them so bold that they can openly demand an end to free speech and pass off silencing any opposing voices as an enviable position.
An editorial in yesterday's Washington Post.....whose motto must be "It looks like a newspaper, but it isn't'....authorized censorship.
"Social media platforms must step up their oversight against deceptive election ads.
"... a slew of deceptive ads on Facebook... to lure voters into believing, falsely, that ballots sent in from afar this November would lead to large-scale disenfranchisement and fraud.
“IT’S HAPPENING & THE ISSUES ARE REAL,” blares the site, before listing issues with mail-in voting that are not real but that are sure to confuse citizens into sacrificing the opportunity to send in their ballots from home in the middle of a pandemic.
Initially, the only recourse for the manipulated public was a disclaimer appended to elections related posts with a link to Facebook’s Voter Information Center. But the platform said on Aug. 22 that it had removed the content upon review, having rolled out a harsher set of policies barring from the platform certain types of content that could subvert democracy: sharing the wrong date for an election, for instance, or insinuating that participation could result in arrest. These rules apply to paid ads as well as to organically posted content. The platform determined that a significant number of the ads violated these strictures — and that the page behind them had broken rules in other ways warranting its removal.
This response isn’t too little, but it is too late. What would have happened if The Post hadn’t uncovered the campaign? And what is happening already with ads that haven’t been uncovered? A Propublica investigation in July revealed that these attempts to undermine the integrity of mail-in balloting are rampant in unpaid posts, but ads are even more concerning....
.... fact-check ads from candidates as President Trump’s reelection campaign ran ads attacking Joe Biden. They worried that baseless allegations could be microtargeted to narrow segments of the population deemed especially susceptible, or especially essential to victory. This, it seems, is precisely what’s happening today with ads that are supposedly subject to fact-checking and removal but are slipping through. It is also what’s happening with the Trump campaign’s misleading ads that are allowed to run freely.
The New York Times writes that Facebook is readying itself to throw a “kill switch” on ads after the election, in case the incumbent insists after a loss that he has won after all. Such a claim would be the endgame of a ploy that has already begun, and of which ads such as those removed recently are a crucial component. Platforms must work harder to ensure they don’t get played at any stage along the way."
Is it possible to miss the implication? Does everyone recognize what 'fact-check' means?
A 'newspaper' demanding censorship of opposing views.
And openly so.
