complete nonsense. The Wikipedia article faults Mintpress because it “opposes the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and reports geopolitical events from an anti-Western perspective.” That should tell you all you need to know.
Why do you think it is “faulting” Mint Press for those things? It sounds like it is just reporting them.
The issue is more this:
MintPress News has reposted content from Russian state media outlets RT and Sputnik,[26][27] and is listed as a “partner” of PeaceData, a Russian fake news site run by the Internet Research Agency.[28][29][30] A report from New Knowledge includes MintPress News as part of the “Russian web of disinformation,”[31][32] and the site has published fake authors attributed to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency.[33] MintPress News defended Russia’s invasion of Crimea, claiming Ukraine’s post-revolution government was “illegitimate”.[34]
Reposting content from RT and Sputnik is not sufficient evidence that some outlet is a Russian disinfo op. That would be like declaring that someone is a British propagandist after they repost the BBC. Neither is a vague connection to PeaceData.
You present “New Knowledge” as if they are some kind of credible authority on disinformation, but they themselves spread the completely discredited conspiracy theory that Russian interference led to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Their director of research Renée DiResta is a CIA fellow. They are funded by Reid Hoffman, who is a big contributor to the DNC. So they are clearly not an objective, neutral judge of credibility. They are connected to the DNC and the US regime and have proven the willingness to lie to further those interests.
Regarding Crimea - look, anti-NATO publications are going to defend Russia. NATO is aligned with Israel, which is conducting a live-streamed genocide. Russia supports Iran and the Shia branch of the resistance (and so did Assad). This resistance is completely justified, given the genocide. Opposition to NATO is thus not confined to Russian disinfo operations.
Even the meme of “Russian disformation” is one that is spread almost exclusively by agents of the US/NATO deep state at this point. It itself is disinformation. Please stop spreading disinformation on this instance.
Reposting content from RT and Sputnik is not sufficient evidence that some outlet is a Russian disinfo op
You keep telling me things that aren’t my complete argument, and saying “That alone doesn’t prove anything!”
the completely discredited conspiracy theory that Russian interference led to the 2016 election of Donald Trump
keke
So they are clearly not an objective, neutral judge of credibility.
Hey Bob, did this guy just say, “So these people posted RT and Sputnik, that doesn’t mean anything, obviously” and “These people posted this discredited thing, and so therefore I’ve discredited them, obviously” in the same message?
That he did, Bob. That he did. Also the thing he said was discredited, was not.
Regarding Crimea - look, anti-NATO publications are going to defend Russia.
In your world where someone has to ally with one and exactly one horrifying global state-sponsored-terrorism-source. In my world, it is easily possible to oppose all sponsors of death and destruction the world over, without picking one that I have to be “on the team of.” I would say that my stance is actually the more human and sensible one, but you do you! If you want to pick a favorite, and deep-throat their boot and their boot alone, you are welcome to, although I will probably make fun of you for it.
Even the meme of “Russian disformation” is one that is spread almost exclusively by agents of the US/NATO deep state at this point.
Obviously.
Please stop spreading disinformation on this instance.
I’m trying bro! But you aren’t on board with my stopping of disinformation on this instance. I wonder why.
complete nonsense. The Wikipedia article faults Mintpress because it “opposes the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and reports geopolitical events from an anti-Western perspective.” That should tell you all you need to know.
Why do you think it is “faulting” Mint Press for those things? It sounds like it is just reporting them.
The issue is more this:
Reposting content from RT and Sputnik is not sufficient evidence that some outlet is a Russian disinfo op. That would be like declaring that someone is a British propagandist after they repost the BBC. Neither is a vague connection to PeaceData.
You present “New Knowledge” as if they are some kind of credible authority on disinformation, but they themselves spread the completely discredited conspiracy theory that Russian interference led to the 2016 election of Donald Trump. Their director of research Renée DiResta is a CIA fellow. They are funded by Reid Hoffman, who is a big contributor to the DNC. So they are clearly not an objective, neutral judge of credibility. They are connected to the DNC and the US regime and have proven the willingness to lie to further those interests.
Regarding Crimea - look, anti-NATO publications are going to defend Russia. NATO is aligned with Israel, which is conducting a live-streamed genocide. Russia supports Iran and the Shia branch of the resistance (and so did Assad). This resistance is completely justified, given the genocide. Opposition to NATO is thus not confined to Russian disinfo operations.
Even the meme of “Russian disformation” is one that is spread almost exclusively by agents of the US/NATO deep state at this point. It itself is disinformation. Please stop spreading disinformation on this instance.
You keep telling me things that aren’t my complete argument, and saying “That alone doesn’t prove anything!”
keke
Hey Bob, did this guy just say, “So these people posted RT and Sputnik, that doesn’t mean anything, obviously” and “These people posted this discredited thing, and so therefore I’ve discredited them, obviously” in the same message?
That he did, Bob. That he did. Also the thing he said was discredited, was not.
In your world where someone has to ally with one and exactly one horrifying global state-sponsored-terrorism-source. In my world, it is easily possible to oppose all sponsors of death and destruction the world over, without picking one that I have to be “on the team of.” I would say that my stance is actually the more human and sensible one, but you do you! If you want to pick a favorite, and deep-throat their boot and their boot alone, you are welcome to, although I will probably make fun of you for it.
Obviously.
I’m trying bro! But you aren’t on board with my stopping of disinformation on this instance. I wonder why.
‘keke’ is not an argument.