Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta

I like to think we are in a better place than russia for instance with all its propaganda and jailed journalists, but then i see these kind of article come over and over....

Most of the people in the 'free world' goes on mainstream media, like facebook to get their news. These companies are enticed to 'suck up' to the government because at the end they are business, they need to be in good term with ruling class.

you end up with most media complying with the official story pushed by government and friends, and most people believing that because no one has the time to fact check everything.

One could argue that the difference with russia is that someone can actually look for real information, but even in russia people have access to vpn to bypass the censorship.

Another difference would be that you are allowed to express your opinion, whereas in russia you would be put to jail, that's true but only in a very limited way. Since everyone goes on mainstream media and they enforce the government narrative, you can't speak there. you are merely allowed to speak out in your little corner out of reach to anyone, and even then since most people believe the government propaganda, your arguments won't be heard at all.

The more i think about it, the less difference i see.

You’re not arrested for posting this, so that is a pretty big difference to Russia (and other authoritarian nations like China and Turkey), no?

https://rsf.org/en/country/russia

> You’re not arrested for posting this

Your funds might be cut off though: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/trump-...

Or your president might declare a wartime law to deport all the immigrants: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp34ylep987o

Or you, a honors student (but not a citizen) might find yourself in an unmarked van if you dared to question the powers that be. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrn57340xlo

Sure it happens to immigrants only for now, brings memory to this poem:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It's not unreasonable to see the situation as "Then they came for the Jews, and the administration finally deported the people who were coming for the Jews".

The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.

I'm not a big fan of either side's rhetoric, but clearly the horseshoe has become a ring.

> I'm not a big fan of either side's rhetoric, but clearly the horseshoe has become a ring.

Either side? Tell me which "side" does that sound like?

- hostility towards non traditional sexuality

- immigration being used as the scapegoat for economic problems

- strong feeling of national exceptionalism

- assault on women's productivity rights

- politicizing of science

- deportation for political reasons

- "Roman" salutes

It brings parallels with some things happening in Europe some time ago.

> activist groups are coming for all of American life.

I wonder who's actually going for all of American life though. Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

And guess who goes against this American way of life value? An orange grandpa married to an immigrant. You really can't make this up.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir...

> Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?

Birthright citizenship was to ensure freed slaves could not be denied citizenship.

It's served its purpose and we can repeal it and join the vast majority of nations that don't have this pathway.

If you want to repeal it, then convince your fellow citizens to do that. The president can't do it.

Someone mentioned the 2nd Amendment in this thread.

If a president stretched the limits of executive power to go after guns, half of the country would cheer for it.

The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.