Vice President JD Vance has announced that the Trump administration would “temporarily halt” some Medicaid funding to the state of Minnesota over fraud concerns, as part of what he described as an aggressive crackdown on misuse of public funds.
It’s fair enough to believe that it’s likely, I guess.
I do think that with things like this, regardless of who’s in power, it’s far less likely that the administration tells or even asks people to push certain messages, than that people who are already aligned with the administration decide to push messaging that coincides with the interests of the administrations.
I think Nick Shirley’s investigations have been helpful in shining a light on real issues, but it’s pretty clear with where he decides to investigate that he has an agenda.
I consider it a certainty that Musk, as the owner of Twitter, manipulates what people see and artificially pushes content that is to his liking. There is more than enough evidence of this.
Regarding Shirley’s video, I can only say that none of what he claims to have uncovered is true—none of his assertions stand up to scrutiny, and it is simply wrong to believe that this real problem was not known and addressed long before his video. This has nothing to do with journalism.
What these people are doing is stirring up fears and exaggerating half-truths in order to deliberately give them a completely disproportionate significance that fits their extremist worldview and advances their political agenda - to this end, they also deliberately spread misinformation. In doing so, they are doing society absolutely no favors; on the contrary, they are damaging discourse based on rational arguments, which is essential for any democracy.
Regarding Musk, absolutely. Every CEO that Twitter/X has had manipulated the algorithm to push agendas and lied about it. Musk isn’t exceptionally bad in that department, only disappointingly so.
Insofar as your take on Nick Shirley’s videos, I’ll agree to disagree on that.
It’s fair enough to believe that it’s likely, I guess.
I do think that with things like this, regardless of who’s in power, it’s far less likely that the administration tells or even asks people to push certain messages, than that people who are already aligned with the administration decide to push messaging that coincides with the interests of the administrations.
I think Nick Shirley’s investigations have been helpful in shining a light on real issues, but it’s pretty clear with where he decides to investigate that he has an agenda.
I consider it a certainty that Musk, as the owner of Twitter, manipulates what people see and artificially pushes content that is to his liking. There is more than enough evidence of this.
Regarding Shirley’s video, I can only say that none of what he claims to have uncovered is true—none of his assertions stand up to scrutiny, and it is simply wrong to believe that this real problem was not known and addressed long before his video. This has nothing to do with journalism.
What these people are doing is stirring up fears and exaggerating half-truths in order to deliberately give them a completely disproportionate significance that fits their extremist worldview and advances their political agenda - to this end, they also deliberately spread misinformation. In doing so, they are doing society absolutely no favors; on the contrary, they are damaging discourse based on rational arguments, which is essential for any democracy.
Regarding Musk, absolutely. Every CEO that Twitter/X has had manipulated the algorithm to push agendas and lied about it. Musk isn’t exceptionally bad in that department, only disappointingly so.
Insofar as your take on Nick Shirley’s videos, I’ll agree to disagree on that.