![Avatar](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsuppo.fi%2Fpictrs%2Fimage%2F4eb636b4-7277-414a-83b2-2696a7d15775.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
![Avatar](/_next/image?url=%2Flemmy-icon-96x96.webp&w=3840&q=75)
bartolomeo
It promotes the existing power structure, which some people think is no bueno.
For example, if you post this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/01/30/ret.axis.facts/
the bot will say it is a highly accurate source with highly factual reporting so people will tend to believe with certainty that the U.S. should invade Iraq.
Help! I don’t know what to think of this without the mediabiasfactcheck.com bot!
Good, one should always refer to the Ministry of Truth before deciding what is true or false for The Party.
Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel.
Very strange to have government contractors and managers of public funds swearing an oath to protect a different country. Similar situation in the UK. Interestingly enough, this is another case of “birds of a feather flock together”:
On May 17, 2019, right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany sponsored a bill “Condemn the BDS movement – protect the existence of the State of Israel” (19/9757) to ban the BDS movement nationally.