Telegram is banned in Brazil because it didn't check its email

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,655   +2,871
TechSpot Elite
More of the moose droppings.
There's that ego again.
Interesting points. I would ask you to show me evidence of your thoughts, but I know how much you hate that. And can never do it.
I too have sadly watched Techspot decline but all sources of "news" are suffering the same demise.
It's kind of sad that the 5 W's of journalism are considered a negative and causes such butt hurt.

So much complaining, yet they still keep reading. And there is a good reason for that.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,802   +7,729
Congratulations. You two just proved my point with definitive eloquence.
Likewise. (y) (Y) Now can we discuss how being able to string two words longer than four letters together, gives you the moral "high ground", or the hubris to claim "victory"? To the untrained eye it would seem like a massively inflated ego is at work. I know that's not true, because you said so. And because "you said so", is a perfectly solid reason for it to be, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god", which explains why you never need, or are willing provide, any documentation in support of your "opinion". (Which is automatically assumed to be "fact", because, after all, "you said so" (vociferously)).
There's that ego again. I'm not at all "pissed". I don't care. What happens in Brazil is for the people of Brazil to worry about. Their politics do not concern me.
Were you aware that a complete lack of empathy, is symptomatic of sociopathy?
That is one school of thought. On a platform where the sole form of expression is written and such expression must be defined by a certain perspective, the claim of something being "ad hominem" is just a poorman's excuse for someone to use censorship to silence a person they don't agree with.
No, you just can't indulge in summary "name calling" at will. Try and "wrap your head around that", as the children say. Then afterwards, you still have to hubris to portray yourself as, " the victim of persecution and censorship". You've gained my "sympathies" for your "plight". <(Take particular note of the "shock quotes". They indicate sarcasm, or a direct opposite meaning of the word used).
The only difference between the veiled insults the you two offer and what I offer is that I do not hide my intentions. I call it directly what it is. You two think your nonsense is clever. It is not. The conversational vomit the two of you spill all over the place impresses
Direct insults ARE "ad hominem". "Veiled insults", are more along the lines of "diplomacy". 🤣 ;):p:innocent:
 

PEnnn

Posts: 806   +945
Well, I'm somewhat reluctant to mention this but, you don't really have the privilege of summarily declaring someone's opinions, "irrelevant".
I've considered your deeply held belief that, "the election was stolen", and that tRump offered, "irrefutable evidence of election fraud", (which BTW, was thrown out be over 60 courts), to be naive at best, and completely absurd.at worst.

But it's obviously a viewpoint you cherish. To many of the rest of us, it's a form of delusionality.

But yet, we still welcome your "insight", however misguided it may seem to us.


This person is super (in)famous for their flippant, Fox-news type remarks.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 18,802   +7,729
Gone are the days when the news was a service rather than a revenue source. Some day it may return but it will take a few very brave, well financed, companies that care more about truth than the all mighty dollar ..... probably not in my lifetime.
Well, I hate to break this to you, but there never really were, "unbiased" news sources. While it is true they were much less polarized, adamantine, aggressive, interspersed with propaganda, and overt lying, they most certainly did have their "leanings".

I found this out early in life. My dear father was a Republican, and as one might expect, he subscribed to "Time" magazine. Which he left in the bathroom. So I figured, "what the hell, I might as well read it while I'm in there too".

As it turns out, I was somehow exposed to a copy of, "Newsweek", the same week of which I had read a copy of Time. Wow, two entirely different accounts of the same week of history, would be hard to find, much less divine which one was "the truth". And so it goes (on and on).

Probably the most influential purveyor of propaganda in the world today, is the US advertising industry. I could do pages commenting on the bullsh!t they shovel out . Mercifully, I won't.

@mailpup I think this is on topic as it pertains to, "bias in the media". Which seems to be the stumbling block that led this thread so far astray.

Most notably by this particular quote from the original article:
Telegram, which is popular with far-right groups in multiple countries
 

Plutoisaplanet

Posts: 735   +1,162
Blocking is for pu**ies.
Amen. Blocking is truly for the clan who have no tolerance for the truth or the stomach for honest, fact based discussion.

Facts are the kryptonite of the Trumpist right.
I agree, but different people have different levels of comfort. It happens in every part of the political spectrum and has more to do with personality instead. As someone who is conservative, about nothing bothers me. Opinions are just others viewpoints and not what define facts. They’re helpful to hear to understand why someone thinks the way they do. Also what he blocked over certainly falls into the “opinion” category unless it can be backed up that…
There are after all hardly any communication channels left where you won't regularly find [right wing stooges] complaining about things like facts and reason. It kinda goes without saying.
It also sounds like the same sort of intolerance of “facts” happens to be part of this person’s personality because just finding people with differing viewpoints is enough to dismiss them a “right wing stooge” and label the platform as “popular with far-right groups in multiple countries.” Or at least that’s the part of the article he appears to be responding to. He didn’t quote anyone.
 

erickmendes

Posts: 667   +298
Well, I've read the first 5 comments, have you guys ever heard about Brazil's president? He is like Trump crashed into H1tler and fused into something else... That's how brasillian president is bad.

He is taking advantage of Telegram "free speech" approach to keep in touch with his followers, as all the others social networks are banning all of Bolsonaro's content, that mainly consist of fake news about vaccination, the Covid pandemic, or why Brasil's gasoline is so expensive (he keep blaming state governors...) and so on and so on... so, while Trump had some social media tatics, Bolsonaro can be considered master of it, he still really active on social media, even more then when he was running for Brasil's presidency...

The same social media tatics used by Trump when he was running is still in heavy use by Bolsonaro team to keep Brasil in a turmoil state because of it's propaganda... You see Putin show, talking about the war? Now think something like it everyday... That's the level of Bolsonaro's propaganda campaing to keep it from loosing it's support from his brainwashed followers.

Every social device people had to help Brasil have some social balance is being trashed by Bolsonaro government... From labor laws to enviroment laws, from public education to energy generation... Bolsonaro team is looting Brasil, and what it can't loot it's being destroyed.

So you may think it would be too far strechedt for Justice to take an entire social network out... But what if the president of your own country uses it as a propaganda medium for spreading fake news not daily but almost hourly... ? That's how fubar Brasil is right now, and we are talking just about social networks...
 

Fox God Records

Posts: 99   +90
The only question that needs to be answered concerning any perceived political bias is this, "Is it true?"

Because if it is true that Telegram "is popular with far-right groups in multiple countries," then the information is relevant and newsworthy. You may believe the distinction is irrelevant to the story, and that there is no reason for the information to be included. I would argue that including the fact that hard-right elements around the world find the program useful for sharing the same information (or misinformation) that has seen them banned from the likes of facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social media platforms is not merely tangential. It is necessary background information to have in order to form a complete picture of what is happening. If the program was popular with human traffickers, drug dealers, terrorists, white supremacists, radical Socialists, or PeTA, would that bit of knowledge be relevant to the story? Yes, it would be.

The inclusion of the line either leads you to feel like a persecuted societal subclass, or you're experiencing Schadenfreude. But realize that the information is factual and not biased. Your interpretation of the facts is what makes the statement either "a slam" or not.

And it's all because some tech company basically admitted that it didn't check its spam folder.
 

someOtherGuy

Posts: 31   +19
Wow. The subdued nature of the comments above is quite striking. /s

I did not perceive any of the bias claimed.

Alternatives, like Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter, have cooperated closely with Brazilian courts that have tried to limit the spread of misinformation by de-platforming radical right-wing political commentators, but Telegram hasn't.

What's "radical right-wing"? What's "misinformation"? Good de-platforming (new speak for censorship)? This trifecta usually means: do what we tell you or else... which is actually the point of this article.

You might think you're in the clear, because you're in the "right side" this time (which, ironically, is the left side); just wait to be in the receiving end, which you'll end up in, eventually.

The left is radicalized to the point where this is fine; most of the right doesn't want to play this game, but if that changes we'll basically end up with Stalin 2.0 vs Hitler 2.0 and EVERYONE will be forced to pick a side, a scorched earth kind of situation.
 

someOtherGuy

Posts: 31   +19
So much complaining, yet they still keep reading. And there is a good reason for that.

We'll make every "news" source the same and then show the numbers of how we "compete" against others, which are the same thing with a different name, and how the consumers can't stop reading us XD

The point is that there's no money in online news, not the same that used to be in printed news, hence the lower quality of the content. One way to supplement that lack of income is to get in bed with some 3rd party looking for public reach. That's why we now have agenda driven opinion pieces based on news that no one is reporting. And there are, of course, activist "journalist" that push their opinions as "news" for free, because of some higher goal: defeating right wing baddies, global warming (updated to "climate change"), historical injustices... or whatever they feel at that point in time.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 2,655   +2,871
TechSpot Elite
We'll make every "news" source the same and then show the numbers of how we "compete" against others, which are the same thing with a different name, and how the consumers can't stop reading us XD

The point is that there's no money in online news, not the same that used to be in printed news, hence the lower quality of the content. One way to supplement that lack of income is to get in bed with some 3rd party looking for public reach. That's why we now have agenda driven opinion pieces based on news that no one is reporting. And there are, of course, activist "journalist" that push their opinions as "news" for free, because of some higher goal: defeating right wing baddies, global warming (updated to "climate change"), historical injustices... or whatever they feel at that point in time.
Your "right wing baddies" are not just that. They are some of the biggest liars and snake oil salesmen ever seen in humanity. And they don't have to be an "influencer" as evidenced by some posters right here on Techspot.

The very same people I was talking about in this post:

And the only reason global warming had to be changed to climate change is because a shocking number of people on the right didn't understand the basics of global warming. All they could register was "warming" and didn't seem to understand the global part. They posted about how it was warm on their front porch, so global warming was silly. And remember the Senator that brought a snowball into the House to prove the entire planet was not warming?


And then they wonder why America has gone more and more to the left for decades.

The right continues to be the gift that keeps on giving......to the left.
 
Last edited:

ZedRM

Posts: 1,067   +749
Although usually that is a reasonable position, what if something is happening in Brazil that is seriously harmful to a group of Brazilians who have little power to influence the political process there? There happen to be some developments under Jair Bolsonaro that are quite ominous for Brazil's indigenous peoples.
Injustice, wherever it may occur, is everyone's legitimate concern.
While I empathize, what can we outside of Brazil do?
 

yannus

Posts: 73   +62
Hate to break it to you but unbiased news sources do not exist. That is the real world, so stop dreaming.

There's a saying in spanish that says: "a buen entendedor, pocas palabras". "Unbiased" obviously meant trying to put objectivity before any kind of ideology or personal opinion. It used to be called journalism.