Is anyone surprised considering the amount of saudi money flooding around traditional and social media?
Now lets look into israel and their spying/influence in traditional and social media.
It was amazing the amount of "news" and social media spam we got about russia ( We were always at war with eurasia ). It's amazing the amount of "news" and social media spam we are getting about china ( We were always at war with eastasia ).
But one hardly ever hears a peep about israel or saudi arabia. Considering what is happening to the palestinians, yemenis, etc, you would think you'd hear a lot more "news" about them. Especially about saudi arabia from the feminist/lgbt traditional media considering the saudis probably treat women and the lgbt as badly as any nation on earth.
How come the "news" industry isn't going apeshit over more than half of the state and the US house of senate pushing unconstitutional anti-BDS laws?
I can't stand these kind of takes that are based purely in anecdote. On what basis are you claiming we "hardly ever hear a peep about israel or saudi arabia"? How do you even measure that?
All this sort of stuff is claimed under Manufacturing Consent. Chomsky's point is often why don't we hear about these other incidents .. because the news isn't balanced and the government is trying to fashion a narrative and they use the media to do this by selectivly choosing what we hear and see.
One of the points of Manufacturing Consent is that it's not necessarily the government directly choosing a narrative (that sometimes does happen, especially through selective leaks) but that the news media itself and the people who end up doing editorial policy are largely aligned with the government to begin with.
It's not that they are aligned with the government, necessarily. Rather, they are aligned with large advertisers, and those tend to be powerful companies and conglomerates with global interests.
Essentially, if you're a media outlet, you'll try hard to not piss off the hand that is feeding you, and Chomsky's assertion is that this is how the media manufactures consent (for all the horrible things the government does to defend the interests of those advertisers abroad).
That is one aspect, but there is even more: in general, people who rise in positions of power, such as editorial positions on major media outlets, or political power, or capital, tend to have similar beliefs and interests. This is because of things like common education institution and social bonds.
Essentially, if your opinions are significantly different from those of most politicians (on the important topics), you're unlikely to rise up through the ranks in most major institutions.
For starters: "NSO (Israel) hacked Jamal Kashoggi's contact via WhatsApp & passed whereabouts of Kashoggi to Saudi Arabia which eventually led to his death." I've never heard of this news until I read this thread today, even though it was covered by NYT to some extent.
Not only negative news about some countries don't emerge in the Western society, but also positive news debunking the falsehoods and stereotypes about the "blamed" countries don't show up neither:
https://theintercept.com/2019/08/14/trump-iran-worst-lies
A major problem of our global society is that public perception is biased towards the "winners" and we learn the truth, if we are lucky, about their negative impact long after the damage was done. Example: the US invasion on Iraq was based on the false narrative about the weapons of mass destruction. Again, there were some news outlets that were telling the truth, but it was ignored.
You're proabaly up to date with the war in Syria but why not Yemen? Why is Syria vastly more newsworthy than Yemen? Because this is what the column inches suggest.
The Yemeni Civil War makes it appear as if there is very little involvement from the three global superpowers, while the Syrian standoff was worryingly similar to a cold war era proxy war. Also quite close to Europe, thus more important for our media and upcoming elections.
Though with the Syrian conflict dying down, I'd expect others like Yemen to get more attention by filling the "war" slot in media.
Not that I totally disagree with the gist of your comments, but the Syria situation seems much more relevant internationally, with Syria involving direct military actions in of two world powers and a NATO member. Not to say that any of the attrocities are to be ignored...
Just as a non-anecdotal proof [0] that just because it's counter-intuitive doesn't mean it's not correct. Sometimes it's the most obvious absence of evidence that shouts the loudest. Looking at those planes there was absolutely no proof that some parts ever get hit and it would be crazy to even suggest that they do. Based on what evidence?
The US tends to come out with almost no bullet holes from SA and Israel but when one is found it's a howitzer. Every time something related to them really blows up you get to how deep they went and it becomes almost unbelievable to assume there were no signs whatsoever to the US and no reporting could have been done by the media.
WaPo has a vested interest in covering SA especially after Khashoggi and the Bezos blackmail incident. But the US and rest of the media are not as vocal as say when talking about anything related to China or Iran, where every piece of gossip is news, where every allegation becomes a sanction. The point to take from here is that "punishment fitting the crime" seems to be a very fluid concept also at country level and the questions to worry about are "Why are some getting a free pass? What are the strings?".
Where is Israel coming here into your argument? Just because you don't like Israel and what they are doing doesn't mean you should treat them the same as Saudi Arabia and create a narrative around them together.
They're both prominent US allies; they're states with some religious identity fundamental to their existence; they're integrated into American civic society - Saudi money in the US economy, academic partnerships between US and Israeli universities; they disenfranchise their own citizens to varying degrees; they buy American weapons and count on American military support to maintain geopolitical relations.
Oh, and they both use the strength of their relationship with the US to make certain parts of the world unlivable for people they don't like.
Israel is pretty much the only Democratic, liberal country in the middle East, with Western level women's rights/empowerment, LGBTQ protections, legal protection for minorites, etc. And a land of massive innovation. US universities aren't partnering with Israel because it's politically convenient, but because Israeli universities breed world leading research in many areas. Which is why most high tech companies have an Israeli division, and which is also why Israel has one of the world's highest per capita entrepreneurship, patents and peer reviewed scientific publications.
Contrast that to Autocratic Saudi Arabia where women weren't allowed to drive, or move about in public without approved male company until a year or two, where the LGBTQ are punished by death, where every non Muslim is systemically discriminated with a religions tax [1], where critical Tweets about the establishment routinely land people in jail, where the actual law of the land [2] is a throwback to the middle ages, with almost no scientific or cultural output of significance!
yes, that behavior is expected of a shit-tier country like saudi arabia. Is that how Israel wants to be regarded?
first-world countries should be held to higher standards of jurisprudence (among all things) than rando third-world nations. if you can't deliver justice, then really are you first-world at all?
do you really think Israel delivers appropriate due process to its occupied territories? Let alone actual representation?
iirc Israel just rolled over and occupied Jerusalem within the last couple years. The US rubber-stamped it, not sure that changes anything.
I think you're the one doing the false equivalency.
I'm not defending Saudi Arabia, which is indeed as backward as it gets, but in the case of Israel, if you want to talk about discrimination and human rights abuse, you cannot ignore (like you did) the way the indigenous population is treated, in what is effectively an apartheid state.
The real equivalency is that Saudi Arabia, Israel, the US, Russia, China, and - increasingly - the UK and other satellite states are now essentially extreme nationalist regimes with a far-right political slant and a fondness for various forms of violence.
The differences are more about superficial local colour than political dynamics, which are becoming depressingly consistent across the board.
It's becoming less and less surprising that there are high-level links between all of them which converge through the use of social media and other tools of influence.
Claiming Israel has a far right political stance is disingenuous. In terms of what? Geopolitical strategy? Economically they're definitely not on the right by any US standards.
He wrote "extreme nationalist regimes". I really hope that the Palestinian minority, which isn't really small and keeps growing, gets a say in Israeli politics after all these years of being totally sidelined by the majority. I don't see any other path to peace in that region.
I take serious issue with this. I completely agree that Saudi Arabia and Israel are significant national security and geopolitical issues that aren't being dealt with appropriately. The Israelis are spying on US politicians and others inside the US. It's crazy. And pointing out that the Israelis are doing so, and most likely also directly influencing politicians to treat Israel more favourably, is regarded solely as racism and "anti-Israeli" - as if Israel doesn't and isn't doing despicable things as well. They aren't above reproach, but they absolutely treated like they are. Saudi Arabia is far worse, and they're treated the same way in US politics.
But this doesn't mean Russia and China aren't doing bad things. This doesn't mean that they aren't bad actors that don't need to be dealt with. This is whataboutism, and it detracts from issues instead of productively extending the conversation. If one problem is mentioned, people like you jump out of the woodworks exclaiming, "NO, that's PROPAGANDA! listen to my favourite problem to talk about instead!".
All of these countires. USA. Israel. Saudi Arabia. China. Russia. They're all bad in their own ways, doing bad shit for shitty reasons and they all need to be talked about. But just because one of them does something bad doesn't mean you can't talk about the other ones as well. It doesn't excuse any of them. That's just moral relativism and it's destroying public discourse.
>This is whataboutism, and it detracts from issues instead of productively extending the conversation
This is a self contradictory statement. Calling someone's argument "whataboutism" is itself a logical fallacy designed to prevent extension of the conversation into a larger context
It's been surprising to me to behold the hawkish rhetoric we get in the press re: Turkey and Iran lately. I don't believe it's coming from people who are genuinely concerned about the fate of the PKK
If it isn't used to defend the action (spying), establish it as justified and therefore clear the offender from guilt, the fallacy doesn't really apply.
Are you implying that the BDS movement is anti-semitic? That would be an extreme claim, which would require some kind of evidence. Being against Israel's actions towards Palestine, which is far and away the most important topic covered by the BDS movement, is in no way an anti-semitic sentiment.
Two state solutions have been offered multiple times. What you're really claiming is that Jews should evacuate the land that they're living on after fleeing consistent mass murders and persecutions throughout history. What you're really claiming is that Jews should either exit to countries that have empirically turned hostile to them over time or be unprosperous.
Two state solutions have been offered, agreed upon, and blocked by the US and Israel every time.
I am not in any way for citizens of Israel (Jewish or Arab or Christian or whatever else) evacuating the state. However, illegal Israeli colonies on what is universally agreed as Palestinian land are not acceptable. Opening fire on crowds throwing rubber wheels at a wall is not acceptable. Bombing civilian buildings in retaliation for terrorist activities is not acceptable. Blockading humanitarian efforts to deliver food, water, and building materials is not acceptable.
Every gram of Palestinian resistance is met with a kiloton of Israeli aggression, almost as official doctrine. This is not acceptable.
And all this from the only state in the world which illegally holds nuclear weapons without being a signatory of the non-proliferation agreement, but constantly threatens going to war against a different state for building civilian nuclear infrastructure (which is all the international inspectors have found in Iran for years).
We don't need to look into Israeli or Saudi Arabian money in US politics. It's there and we like it there. Those two countries are the most stable in the region by a mile and are willing to compromise with US interests to maintain the (fragile) stability.
Like it or not, US interests are inextricably tied to those of the region. Don't believe me? Most scholars attribute Trump's election, at least in moderate part, to the massive influx of Syrian refugees to the many countries they went to. If we had done a better job stabilizing the region, perhaps Trump would have never even sniffed power.
These are the most stable countries in the region because they are the only countries in the region allowed to be stable. Iran is by almost any measure a better country to live in than Saudi Arabia, except that it does not do the bidding of the US, so it is getting illegal sanctions imposed upon it, almost officially recognized industrial sabotage, it is cut off from world banking etc.
Note: I'm not claiming Iran is some tortured paradise. It is still a brutal regime, with horrible regressive views and which is acting tyranically towards its own population. It is much worse than Israel in that regard (though at least Iran is not waging a war of aggression on a neighbor sattelite state, and defying UN resolutions and international law in doing so). But it is still significantly better than Saudi Arabia in almost everything to do with human rights.
Its the way of the world. The Palestinians were weak so they got bullied around and Israel was born. They remained weak and Israel continues. This is the way of the world. Strong eat the weak. Whether its monopolizing tech companies or nation states. They can abuse their power. Once established, they can then rewrite history. Look how now Microsoft has become such a champion for open-source. Tomorrow the champion of privacy will be Facebook. Tomorrow the champion for human rights will be the Saudis and the Israelis.
This is how garbage spreads, without wisdom and foresight.
Israel could've been a much better product of creative thinking. Now it's an apartheid state with the indigenous kept in an open air prison that is regularly used for international weapons testing.... The unwise think in very short terms...and it comes back to bite them shortly after.
I am serious but obviously sarcastic. Most the world is oblivious to the savagery of the Saudi war against Yemen. One day the Saudis will champion some liberal cause and hire some PR campaign to make sure its in headline news and placed smack middle of some Netflix movie. Poof!
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. Yes, there are valid technical reasons to use telemetry, but the tricks Microsoft is playing to get these data against the wishes of their users can't be considered fair.
Am I out of the loop, what have Microsoft done to support open-source? Made linux containers easy to use on Azure? Wrote a code editor so that they extend and extinguish developer mindshare and get them onto Azure? Im being serious, what have MS actually done to claim they have supported open-source (and of course, open-source != free software)
They are one of the largest contributors to linux, donate $500k annually to Linux foundation (since 2016. Google joined in 2018), VS code, .net is open source to large degree, typescript is open source.
The Linux kernel contributions link doesen't have a year, so I don't know if something changed. But the last time I checked this, they were "top" contributor for one quarter/some time because they basicly dumped all of their HyperV support into the kernel and after that they disappeared from the kernel contributors lists almost compleately.
A quick google shows the latest Linux Kernel report by Linux Foundation from 2017[1] with the numbers, and they are not even there. It could be that some Microsoft employees are doing work on the kernel without attribution back to Microsoft, but generally speaking I think it's safe to say that the only contribution to the Linux Kernel from Microsoft was HyperV support quite some time ago.
Not saying that they didn't change their ways, but they are a long way from proving that this is not another EEE cycle. Not to even mention "breaking even" on the damage they did directly (and deliberately) to open source effort.
You ignored the 500k per year contribution to linux, VS code, the ongoing effort to fully open source dot net, them dumping Edge for chromium, their contributions to chromium especially on efficiency for battery is non trivial.
Microsoft could open source Windows and people will still mention EEE. Impossible right? But, open sourcing dot net was inconceivable just a few years ago.
You're talking about EEE. In fact, the organization that's actively performing the EEE strategy is Google. It's quite easy to spot if one isn't blinded by fandom.
E.g. webkit -> blink, rss, bundling of apps on android prevent manufacturers from using forked android, chrome OS has only one browser - MS didn't even do this to get in trouble, AMP project, and then experimenting with removing urls from the search page.
Now lets look into israel and their spying/influence in traditional and social media.
It was amazing the amount of "news" and social media spam we got about russia ( We were always at war with eurasia ). It's amazing the amount of "news" and social media spam we are getting about china ( We were always at war with eastasia ).
But one hardly ever hears a peep about israel or saudi arabia. Considering what is happening to the palestinians, yemenis, etc, you would think you'd hear a lot more "news" about them. Especially about saudi arabia from the feminist/lgbt traditional media considering the saudis probably treat women and the lgbt as badly as any nation on earth.
How come the "news" industry isn't going apeshit over more than half of the state and the US house of senate pushing unconstitutional anti-BDS laws?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/new-...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-house-overwhelmingly-passes...
A country founded on boycotts banning its corporations from boycotting a foreign country?