In a statement, Access Now says it was “told that diplomats from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were putting pressure on the Government of Zambia because Taiwanese civil society participants were planning to join us in person.”
In a statement, Access Now says it was “told that diplomats from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were putting pressure on the Government of Zambia because Taiwanese civil society participants were planning to join us in person.”
Caring about stuff isn’t a binary, it doesn’t hinge on whatever insane purity test you think it does.
You can care about things. But, honestly, when you read an article do you never ask yourself “why am I reading about this and who wants me to think this important?”
Like, let’s not use China. A lot of people have a hard time with it. Take for example “trans woman in sports”. The conservative brain might be very concerned about this. Why? Do they play sports? Have they even met a trans person? No. But they are told that this is a very important thing. They convince themselves that it’s important to their lives.
Now, you (I hope) and I know these types of stories are just forms of manufacturing outrage to direct blame away from the real problems with American society.
That’s what I’m talking about in my initial comment. It’s just not Trans kids in sports. It’s some thing China is doing related to their relations with Taiwan.
Now, the problem is, you don’t think “why am I reading about this? Who wants me to care about this?”
You start asking yourself those questions when you read any articles about any of the US “enemies” in global politics. You’ll start to see the manufacturing of your concent for more war funding everywhere ; you’ll see it as obviously as the “trans kids in sports” is to you today.
I find this pearl clutching over manufactured consent highly obnoxious and borderline archaic. The days of top-down narratives fueled by restricted access are laughably simple compared to the fractured global media ecosystem of today.
Whatever opinions planted in the mind by manufactured consent are dwarfed a thousand-fold by internet echo chambers that owe no allegiance to the state. To be clear I do not think they cannot align with state interests, only that alignment is selfish, non-ubiquitous across vast swathes of the media landscape, and not the result of a power imbalance in favour of the state.
Unless you want to conflate the two in which case I would ask whether you think the .ml instance “manufactures consent” against support of western interests.
Ironically enough, China is one of the few places where manufactured consent is still able to be effective because of the authoritarian stranglehold they maintain on their media by banning access to outside sources and replacing them with state sanctioned alternatives. Same with Iran, Russia, North Korea, etc. It’s weird ml’s complain about manufactured consent while simping for countries that do it more than anywhere else.