I think the more important thing to talk about is that everyone calls Telegram "secure", but by default it's not E2EE. Which in the best case is PR and the worst case a honeypot.
Anyone speaking, let alone behaving, like Telegram is "secure", ipso facto has won a Darwin Award. We won't see the results in the short-term, but yeah they have won it alright.
This is an uncharitable take. It’s reasonable to want to know who owns the news you read so you can take that into account while assessing their claims. That will affect who they hire just as it would for state media, and it’s often harder to find details than it would be with public ownership.
Well, in the Russian context "independent media" usually means "non-state-aligned", that's why I asked. As for ownership I already provided link to Wikipedia which says "IStories is a non-profit organisation. It is operated by a board of directors. The organisation modelled on ProPublica, a non-profit investigative journalism organisation." and I don't know anything further than that.
>Well, in the Russian context "independent media" usually means "non-state-aligned"
Is it?
"Nevertheless, the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. In an unclassified strategy document last year, top Pentagon generals wrote that the U.S. military could undermine adversaries such as China and Russia using “disinformation spread across social media, false narratives disguised as news, and similar subversive activities [to] weaken societal trust by undermining the foundations of government.”" [0]
My point was simply that it seemed like a hostile response to a reasonable question. It’s healthy to ask how an unfamiliar site is funded since that’s going to influence the topics they cover and how they approach them.
Sure, but if you think someone is acting in bad faith you should answer the question in a way designed to help readers who lack that context. For example, knowing that the Russian government has taken legal action against them would be helpful when judging whether they are likely to be skewed in ways favorable to the Russian government.
17 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 54.0 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41350530
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41359502
Using reader mode enables me to read it.
Is it?
"Nevertheless, the Pentagon’s clandestine propaganda efforts are set to continue. In an unclassified strategy document last year, top Pentagon generals wrote that the U.S. military could undermine adversaries such as China and Russia using “disinformation spread across social media, false narratives disguised as news, and similar subversive activities [to] weaken societal trust by undermining the foundations of government.”" [0]
[0] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-covi...