this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2025
752 points (95.6% liked)
Political Humor
1636 readers
443 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is by design. The current political direction is beneficial to the ones who own and control the mainstream media. Presenting them as small and not giving them a fair share of coverage is a way to frame them as irrelevant and overblown.
It hurts the morale of the people involved in the movement while simultaneously emboldening the far-right with "proof" that the protests are a supposed vocal minority of political extremists.
Yes, that is absolutely correct. On this point, namely the alignment of all important media outlets, the situation in the US has long been very problematic. Due to the centralization that comes with mainstream social media platforms, this effect has, in my opinion, unfortunately intensified significantly over the last twenty years (the reason why musk bought Twitter for example).
The Nazis in Germany had already exploited the power that comes with controlling the media on a massive scale, and Goebbels and his cohorts used tactics similar to those still used by totalitarian states today.
My point is this: the US has effectively been a plutocracy for a long time, and now I fear that the elites are preparing to get rid of even the semblance of democracy. Why? Because they can, and I think they are unscrupulous enough to do so.
So I think it's important to prevent this while it's still possible, but unfortunately I don't think that will happen. Hence my pessimistic outlook for the future - I would be very happy to be proven wrong.
Personally, I think he stumbled into this one. I think he bought Twitter because
I influence over elections came well after he owned it, and wasn't his idea. I think that part was fed to him. He did have a bit of a warped idea of what "free speech" was, but someone helped him either warp it more or ignore it to fit the election narratives needed.
Maybe, but in any case, he now has the ultimate tool for shitposting with Grok.