walrus66

>> Their purpose is to pretend to be serious news outlets to amplify various social media phenomena by selectively reporting about them and repeating this over and over again, with the purpose of legitimizing the phenomenae.

In comparison to major US outlets? I get what you're saying, and agree that they place a halo on Russia, but, I would argue instead that you can get a much more holistic view of what is actually happening in the West from RT than what's being sold you to us on a TV screen in the US. From what I've seen, it doesn't look like RT is sparking anything that isn't already brewing and should not be covered.

There are very serious issues and changes brewing in France and all over Europe that OUR media is obscuring and even dismissing.

For one example (of many), regarding the Yellow Vest situation, Paris is on the verge of open revolution, but, up until about a week ago, most of the US outlets, especially the liberal ones (sorry, but it's true), portrayed peace and harmony in France and would mention Macron as some kind of noble visionary in contrast to Trump - not once did I see a mention of how his polling numbers were precipitously dropping to the lowest in modern history, among a myriad of other indicators. That, to me, is propaganda.

The word "division" is thrown a lot now, but conflict is inevitable, and I think the greater sin in our media has been obscuring issues behind a TV screen until things reach a climax.

... I wouldn't really call RT a foreign propaganda site. Frankly, and perhaps I'm myself biased, they provide less propagandic of an assessment of Western events than nearly every one of our mainstream media outlets that I can think of.

Regarding what the article is referring to, things like the Washington Post allowing China to buy ads or China funding lobbyists who speak to congressman who likely have no idea, I can't see anybody justifying that, unless they hate the US, which okay, that's your prerogative.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the average person is at least two orders of magnitude less endowed with information than the people you might speak with on HN, whether or not any of our opinions are correct, so even a tiny bit of propaganda reaching enough people can change minds against the interest of the country.

I think this should've been illegal 50 years ago, and I think the people abetting this should be tried for treason, almost by the very definition.

I understand there are a lot of “nuanced” rationalizations against Tumblr’s decision-and of course it’s great that they’re discussed and cases are made, so that fair minded people rightfully reject them. We live in a free society- Tumblr is not a monopoly- and now a competitor can freely scoop up the obvious niche community that Tumblr is choosing not to support anymore.

There are a growing number of censorship and free speech issues facing the internet- this is not one of them. This society is heading to the toilet if a mainstream website used by children cannot decide that they don’t want to host porn on their product. Why is this even controversial?

A power asserting its dominance has been the norm for thousands of years; you have just been brainwashed into hating your country. As for neocons being responsible for everything- just wow- that’s two steps past ignorant. The last president and Secretary of State are directly responsible for open slave markets in libya. Predatory foreign policy has been the only bipartisan issue in our history.

Let's not engineer bigger spiders, please

Certain actors have been getting away with murder for over a decade now. We have a few lucky first movers that have become alpha predators and are now stifling innovation. I can't really see any rational argument for this type of behavior benefiting our society or market at all - beyond religious adherence to the free market or if Google is working exclusively with your political party (wink wink). Hopefully regulators wake up in the near future - societies that don't protect entrepreneurs won't have any.

Ignoring the obvious controlling interest issues which others have mentioned, which is the largest issue...

That's a funny contradiction of a sort - then the index fund becomes the agent it's supposed to be observing.

For one, Blackrock is not Berkshire Hathaway - and in reality, obviously Blackrock can't wake up tomorrow and decide to be. They're not built for that.

Another scary thing is that the market is being increasingly turned into a derivative, and the underlying asset becomes more volatile (certainly for many different reasons) as it becomes proportionally smaller .

To expound what you're suggesting, which is completely ridiculous, is that if someone buys 5.1% of actively traded float, the price will exponentially surge such that it would be equivalently priced to purchasing 51% of float in a market without a 90% passive stake.