Comment by dataviz1000

But since that's all been defunded by DOGE then by your own argument, it doesn't count any more. Ignoring history is a good way to repeat it, just because it didn't happen this year.

Do you remember the last Vietnam War? Oh no, not the one you're thinking of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War

Several hundred thousand Chinese troops invaded Vietnam with 500 tanks in 1979.

[dead]

No, it is not normal, but conflating the detention and forced sterilization of millions for over a decade to the current administration's violently unconstitutional over reach is still a bit much.

Though, neither are really served by TikTok.

the Han? are you sure you didn't mean a different group?

> The great leap forward

You need far better propaganda materials for your "great leap forward" blames in 2026. There were bad policies, but the intention good, it was all about moving the country forward. It failed horribly with huge consequences, that is just the reminder that a full scale industrialisation for over 1 billion people is not something that can be earned easily.

Like it or not, the "Exceeding the UK, catching the USA" (超英赶美) goal of the great leap forward has been overfulfilled under the leadership of the CCP with the help of brutal state capitalism. Everything else is just cheap talk.

Having a full scale industrialization larger than the G7 combined is not something handed to China on a silver platter - those very sad deaths caused by the failed attempts during the great leap forward was a part of the costs.

> and the cultural revolution have not comparison.

The cultural revolution is brutal, nothing should be used to defend it. It is just so wrong. That being said, the west is going through the exact same cultural revolution -

* extremely polarised society with everything is politicalised * populism taking control * suicidal policies destroying the civilizational foundations

the difference is 99% Han Chinese consider the cultural revolution as extremely bad, while the west is enjoying having its own ongoing cultural revolution.

if you add the recent woke cancer, the western version of the ongoing cultural revolution is far more brutal.

In Serbian too: EPP - Ekonomske Propagandne Poruke | Economic Propaganda Messages

PR departments used to be called propaganda departments

Sometimes what you choose to show, even if true, can impact how people see a situation or fact. That is what the OP is referring to. Your quote even mentions that propaganda can be made of "facts" and "half-truths" (a half-truth is usually a fact with a portion omitted to change the interpretation of the fact).

A large percentage of Americans are convinced that police will just shoot them if they happen to feel like it.

Even including ICE in this statistic, you will never even meet someone who knows someone who was murdered by a cop. Police encounters that turn deadly, not even blatant murder, are on the order of 1 in 50,000.

However, that stream of police murder videos are definitely real.

Propaganda is often stoking tiny sparks into large raging forest fires.

I am not being sarcastic at all. It is a common misconception that propaganda means lies. Propaganda is information designed to get you to believe a certain thing or feel a certain way. The best propaganda uses entirely truthful statements to manipulate your beliefs and emotions.

Propaganda is information which supports a specific cause, whether true or false.

If you think "propaganda" is defined as something being lies, then you have misunderstood the word.

Product advertising is the most widespread form of propaganda. And in some non-english countries it is called "propaganda" and not "marketing".

>including facts

So literally what he just said. Propaganda can be factual.

Are you trying to say that excuses the human rights violations happening there?

Besides, you're comparing it with the US which is also known for its human rights violations ever since the continent was discovered.

I didn't twist anything. If anything, I would argue YOU are twisting words of the original comment to which I responded:

>> the United States government rolling through protesters in armored vehicles

> I'm sorry, did I miss something? Is this something that's happened (ever)?

show me any photo or video showing the tank man of Tiananmen actually got run over by the tank.

you got brainwashed.

The US could? The US has used soft/hard influence for a long time. We've crop dusted Colombian fields attempting to eradicate cocaine. We've eliminated leaders in Central and South America. We've influenced elections trying to get specific leaders elected. We've sanctioned the shit out of one little island, we blockaded the island when it was allowing itself to be used/influenced by another government we didn't like. We've allowed US corps to invest and build infrastructure within these countries. We've given them millions/billions in various ways including straight cash injections.

I don't know how much more would need to be done for you to think things are being done.

Tribalism is part of the brainrot. Divide and conquer. To paraphrase Carlin, wealth and power are are big club and we ain't in it.

> The painful to answer question is whether the intention is to block the spreading of lies or the spreading of truth?

What it should be about is preventing someone else from blocking the spreading of truth.

"Block the spreading of lies" is something authoritarians say when they want to declare any criticism of themselves to be a lie and censor it. You can't block the spreading of "lies" without ordaining someone as the decider of truth and there is nobody you can trust to have that power.

But if we were actually doing what we should then what we would be doing is developing censorship-resistant uncentralized systems rather than fighting over the keys to the censorship apparatus.

When you have a personality disorder like NPD, you'll believe to your core that every criticism of you is a lie.

When you're in an abusive relationship they say intentions don't matter, only impact does. Because victims often focus on the intentions of their abuser and stay in the cycle of abuse.

Let me repeat it, intentions don't matter, only impact does.

The intention is to block the spreading of anything that doesn't conform to dear leader's narrative. Accuracy has nothing to do with it.

Both. It’s controlling the narrative. Project 2025.

"Their own platforms" is the flaw. Countries and companies shouldn't "own" the means of mass communication to begin with.

How the feed is filtered should be a fungible commodity that anyone can swap out for themselves or offer to others without sacrificing the network effect, because the network itself shouldn't be owned.

Notice that the US doesn't censor bbc.co.uk, because the web is a decentralized system. But then ordinary people end up on Facebook or TikTok, which isn't.

I mean, you're not wrong, but there isn't very much nuance here.

I think there are a number of things occurring all at once and it's going to lead to the destabilization of most democracies (which China is a big winner if this occurs).

Democracy has never really been as free as the people living in democracies believe. The rich and large media entities have always controlled the vote with much more impact than the actual issues individual voters had.

If you believe this previous statement to be true this leads to a number of issues in the modern world.

One is that previous to now most countries demanded some kind of local media ownership, so the message would be more aligned with someone living in the country rather than some other entity (not perfect, but still better than nothing).

Another is media groups tended to be smaller and more fractured. They may hold conflicting opinions on things.

Which bring us to now, with huge foreign media organizations holding massive sway over gigantic audiences. This isn't just about China over the US, it's just as much about the US over many EU entities. These are potential powers that can change course of the world and they have governments behind them directing them where to go.

Also don't forget the US absolutely loves to control what gets in the media. The right in the US didn't just start brining up socialism and communism yesterday, it's been a control mechanism on what can be published and what you can see for over 100 years.