136
Recently Reuters released one of those dubious "investigative reports" of theirs where they claim Odysee and Bitchute are basically platforms that are nothing more than safe havens to racists, paranoid sociopaths and violent criminals after they have been banned on Youtube or Facebook. Pay attention to the patterns because it doesn't matter if it's a video platform, social media site, media outlet or just a lone journalist, their procedure is always the same: First they discredit you, then they pretend the masses are calling for action against you, then they ban or imprison you and eventually get away with killing just a little bit more of everyone's rights and free speech while being aided and abetted by their own propaganda machine who'll then write how it was all for everyone's own protection. It has nothing to do with "disinformation", most of the time it's just about inconvenient truths and platforms that allow those truths which debase the lies their own platforms are build upon.
Do we really need to sum up all the ways how pathetically transparent this propaganda masqueraded as "research report" really is? Gawd I'm too mentally exhausted to think back and look up every small example, but because it's Reuters I'll make an exception and do it anyway. Why you ask, well, so it begins: It's undeniably clear now that as early as the 70s Reuters literally took money to write pro-Western propaganda aimed at discrediting and antagonizing people against the Soviet Union while justifying and propping up Nato."The CIA also isn’t the only intelligence agency using the media for its own propaganda purposes. Leaked documents reveal Reuters and BBC News have been involved in a covert program by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to weaken Russia’s influence on its neighbors...This isn’t the first time Reuters and the BBC have been implicated in a Mockingbird-type media influencing operation. Documents declassified in January 2020 showed the British government funded Reuters throughout the 1960s and 1970s to assist an anti-Soviet propaganda organization run by the MI6 intelligence agency.” Totally credible and neutral of them huh? So you have to forgive me when I laugh at any of their "investigative reports", especially those that write stuff like “Platforms such as BitChute and Odysee have had a seismic impact on the disinformation landscape.” Seriously what is this? Seismic? I guess writing in your "investigate report" that the videos on a website hit meteoric might just seem you're trying too hard and be a tad too ridiculous. But to make my main point as to why this "duuuuh disinfo must block duuuuuh" justification is zombie-level brain dead????
Wow, election meddling by Twitter by hindering the spread of actual, factual news. This is a meteoric impact on press freedom and the election results.??
Their report then goes on to claim "All social media platforms publish standards saying they don’t accept extreme or hateful content", oohhhhh do they now:
OK let's end this argument once and for all, the seeds this report is trying to plant in people's mind is that there's a need for moderation and that that's why it's alright for Youtube, Twitter, Facebook (or whatever) to ban certain accounts and people because these are racist, spread disinfo and are calling for violence. RT had to be banned because they didn't oppose or even condoned the Ukraine war. Uhhh OK so, why haven't CNN, BBC, NYTimes, CNBC, FOX News, The Sun (etc) all been banned for justifying numerous illegal wars their country was apart of? PressTV had to be banned because they spread disinfo. OK let's say they did, but then why ban Julian Assange for spreading absolute facts, imprison him and then ban even his mother who was campaigning for his release? Call me crazy but this doesn't sound like the actions of those "concerned about disinfo" to me. To me, it sounds like a particular side is desperately trying to cling to power and is being exposed that all those "free speech, democracy, press freedom, human rights" talk they bombarded us with the past half century, was just empty talk. At least I'm not alone on this as majority of the people know something doesn't add up with this Reuters report:
I left the least for last, by that I mean this cheap shot Reuters took by highlighting some example that apparently shocked them:
As stupefyingly racist as it is, I highly doubt Reuters had to go browse around all the way on a platform they are not even active on to find such hateful comments, I mean:
Reuters could even have just gone down the street and ask one of their press freedom colleagues if they could quote them:
Alright that's enough internet for one day, see you next time?????
