-
emilybell ReninaWrites Yeah, but what if Facebook disagrees, so it censors it as untruth. So few see it.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -1 🙁
-
emilybell ReninaWrites What we consider 'truthful' and 'factually supported' isn't always seen the same way in the light of history...Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
emilybell ReninaWrites ...But it changes because our conduits of communication are neutral....Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood 0
-
emilybell ReninaWrites ...Encouraging a global communication network to censor makes challenging untruths harder not easier...On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood 0
-
emilybell ReninaWrites ... think of all the "factually supported truths" of history that would have been harder to change w/o clear commsPermalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
Mood +3 🙂
-
emilybell ReninaWrites Eugenics, racism, sexism, all and more were at one time considered to be 'factually supported truth'...Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 1 Retweets
Mood -1 🙁
-
emilybell ReninaWrites ... much of people's news runs through Facebook. What would have happened in a history where that was true...Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +2 🙂
-
emilybell ReninaWrites ... and Facebook censored transmitting stuff that opposed those 'truths' to millions of people as untrue?Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -4 🙁
-
emilybell ReninaWrites Homosexuality was once considered a disease by scientists. We couldn't have challenged or changed it w/o 'untruth'Permalink On twitter.com
Mood -1 🙁
-
emilybell ReninaWrites Asking a private company to arbitrate and censor truth or untruth with so much power over transmission is dangerousPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 1 Favorite
Mood -4 🙁
-
emilybell ReninaWrites Because history shows us the truth isn't always 'the truth'. How can we trust one private company to arbitrate?Permalink On twitter.com
Mood +1 🙂