| > a reputable, privacy-first organization... Are you a shill for them? "Reputable" as mainstream media? "Reputable" as in the fake news is reputable? Whenever someone claims "I am reputable" you should run away as fast as you can. This "I am reputable" is purely subjective based on your own biases and incentives. No one can be reputable in the news space and people must understand this as soon as possible: everyone lies, even natural science which is supposed to be the gold standard gets so many studies wrong. The only way news organizations stay alive is either by:
a) clickbait articles which eventualy devolves into lying or exaggeration at best.
b) News orgs that are financed by private people/corporations who have their own agendas. There is no such thing as a "reputable" news source. Perhaps one in ten thousand jounralist is still legit, so that he is an actual investigative journalists. But 99.999 of "journalists" are actually just script readers and clickbait writers. Do you not see where "I am reputable" leads to? Soon the "I am reputable" organization will get political power and then they will make laws based around "my reputable reporting" and this will lead to censortship. "I am reputable" always leads to censorship down the line since it implies that "my opponent is not reputable and is lying and MUST BE SHUT DOWN IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY". |
This is why the unreliability of news organizations is such a serious problem.