I’m not saying you claimed anything. I’m asking what relevance there is as to whether the women made their claims on social media or not. I’m genuinely confused by the first comment of yours I replied to.
If anyone can pretty much publicize whatever they want online, then are billionaire media owners gagging their freedom of speech?
I’m genuinely confused at your confusion.
The view that major, billionaire-owned journalism companies can gag anyone from exercising their freedom of speech like they’re the only game in town seems outmoded when independent online media & journalism (where practically anyone can call themselves journalist) has disrupted that order since a while ago, and anyone can publish their words online in social media.
That claim that may have made sense decades ago doesn’t fit online media today.
And how did it get to the press?
Because the reporters did their job? You know these reports started before social media was mainstream, right?
So what is the point of questioning whether these women made their claims on social media or not?
You can read up, can’t you? I didn’t claim
So, I’m asking how that (apparent counterfactual) works. Does it withstand scrutiny?
I’m not saying you claimed anything. I’m asking what relevance there is as to whether the women made their claims on social media or not. I’m genuinely confused by the first comment of yours I replied to.
If anyone can pretty much publicize whatever they want online, then are billionaire media owners gagging their freedom of speech? I’m genuinely confused at your confusion.
The view that major, billionaire-owned journalism companies can gag anyone from exercising their freedom of speech like they’re the only game in town seems outmoded when independent online media & journalism (where practically anyone can call themselves journalist) has disrupted that order since a while ago, and anyone can publish their words online in social media. That claim that may have made sense decades ago doesn’t fit online media today.