However, the problem whenever one question this publicly, and the consequences/side effects, you get flagged as some sort of conspiracy theorist, which is unfortunate
They can do a lot of harm to favor their national giants over foreign ones, i'm pretty sure that's how Azure was able to penetrate in the EU despite having OVH
Maybe the reason why google favors instagram over tiktok, who knows at this point
Or, to be more precise, it's silly that it is considered "conspiracy theory" in the way most people use the concept, as coterminous with "a false idea."
Get real: It did happen, it is happening, and will keep to happen.
To make text communication very hard for text scanner bots, you can use SMS style chat with high variations, namely based on sounds, must be hell for text parsers, unless they spend tons of time training some ML to decode it.
I mean, at this point even lizard people are on the table.
Surely this is an interesting topic we can have a mature conversation about.
It is better to wait for a trustworthy news source, such as the New York Times [3], to verify this. I'm sure they'll get around to it just as soon as they report on the 3-year-old story of Gordon MacMillan, an active duty officer in the British Army’s online psychological operations unit, that was revealed to be the Twitter executive for the Middle East [4].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MintPress_News
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristie_Canegallo
[3] Why didn’t Snowden go to one of the big names at the Times? Could it be because one of the senior Times editors back then, Dean Baquet — now the chief — reportedly once killed a whistleblower’s story about a surveillance arrangement between AT&T and the NSA? Or because the Times had a history of sitting on damaging intelligence stories, including one about an analyst who doubted the existence of Iraqi WMDs that the paper held until after the 2003 invasion? - https://taibbi.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-substack
[4] https://fair.org/home/media-ignore-unmasking-of-twitter-exec... - Searching "Gordon MacMillan site:url" to this day finds no relevant articles on theguardian.com, bbc.com, bbc.co.uk, nytimes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, latimes.com, theatlantic.com, washingtonpost.com, or foxnews.com
Then link to those sources. Bad sourcing isn't sufficient for refutation. But it's more than enough for the reasonable to ignore it, and for experts to approach it with heightened qualification.
(That said, thank you for flagging the shady sourcing.)
