its not censorship that searching said assassination attempt of Tr- in search suggestions did not yield the most relevant and recent news even after Google themselves admitted to election interference?
Seems to me you are just denying all these things because you don't like the political party or its candidate and going off tangent about democracy.
My original comment was flagged and now it is unflagged because it didn't violate any rules which you pointed out and its important because its relevant to the topic of censorship on platforms which we are discussing here contrary to your claims that its "boring" (your own subjective biases being projected here again I should add).
As you can see all I did was simply observe one political campaign utilizing a non-American platform which isn't even worthy of censorship or rule breaking:
It's interesting that Kamala's campaign is making heavy use of TikTok to promote itself to younger audience on a platform that is obviously affiliated with CCP
> its not censorship that searching said assassination attempt of Tr- in search suggestions did not yield the most relevant and recent news even after Google themselves admitted to election interference?
Straw man. I said “it’s nonsense to position it as subversion of democracy.”
It is censorship, or more accurately, editorial discretion. One can similarly complain about why X’s technical difficulties during Trump’s interview not being highlighted on the Wall Street Journal or Fox. (Or vice versa, his unsubstantiated claims about being DDOS’d being front page.) But that’s private actors taking decisions around assembly and speech. There is a concentration in media and tech problem that exacerbates this, but it doesn't rise to the level of subversion.
For this to be subversion we would have to be talking about otherwise-Trump voters who won’t vote for Trump simply because autocomplete wasn’t perfectly accurate about an ongoing assassination attempt four months before the election. (And who never again bothered to educate themselves on the topic or hit enter without waiting for autocomplete.) Like, that is the voter you’re hanging your definition of the legitimacy of a democracy on?
Where the current landscape is novel is when the misinformation prompts action before the truth can be sussed out. The riots in the U.K. are one example. People posting fake news about violence at polling sites or misinformation on where they are on and around polling day another (hypothetical).
> original comment was flagged and now it is unflagged because it didn't violate any rules
It did as does this one. You’re commenting on voting, whether inviting downvotes or complaining about them.
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/there-was-no-real-assa...
its not censorship that searching said assassination attempt of Tr- in search suggestions did not yield the most relevant and recent news even after Google themselves admitted to election interference?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/google-admits-to-omittin...
Seems to me you are just denying all these things because you don't like the political party or its candidate and going off tangent about democracy.
My original comment was flagged and now it is unflagged because it didn't violate any rules which you pointed out and its important because its relevant to the topic of censorship on platforms which we are discussing here contrary to your claims that its "boring" (your own subjective biases being projected here again I should add).
As you can see all I did was simply observe one political campaign utilizing a non-American platform which isn't even worthy of censorship or rule breaking: