... with social media as an innocent bystander just concidentally being there ...
Social media - and Tiktok is no exemption, of course - is not an "innocent bystander". Their algorithms deliberately surveill and manipulate users, and pursue a commercial and/or political agenda. In case of Tiktok, this agenda serves the goal of the regime in China (and their allies).
There is ample evidence for Tiktok and (almost) all other social media platforms pursuing a purpose. For the Romanian election case, there is an analysis by the European Media Observatory on the Romanian election -- (Archived link).
On 'TikTok's role in Romanian politics' and the 'Candidate Performance Metrics', it says, among others:
- Călin Georgescu: Notably surged in popularity, garnering 120 million views, particularly in the final two months. This increase was attributed to coordinated campaigns that used both direct promotion and indirect influence via unpaid influencers, often lacking appropriate labeling. A salient example is the #echilibrușiverticalitate campaign, which reached 2.4 million views through these tactics.
The analysis also says:
The lack of effective moderation allowed for widespread dissemination of unverified information, particularly affecting extreme-right candidates.
Concerns around unlabelled or undeclared political content in the 2024 Romanian presidential elections, particularly on TikTok are significant. They emphasize a lack of transparency in political campaigns, notably involving candidates like Călin Georgescu, who used the platform without disclosing the funding and motivations behind their promotion. The employment of influencers without adequate disclosure raises ethical issues complicates voters’ understanding of the content.
[...]
The notable gap between projected poll figures (around 10%) and actual results (over 22%) raises concerns about potential external influences, including foreign interference.
Emphasis mine.
[Edit typo.]
An Orban-linked group acquired Euronews back in the spring, reportedly by using public funds provided by the Hungarian state. I was surprised that until now, there appeared to be no visible changes in the editorial policy (the outlet has been very critical of Russia, China, Hungary, etc.). But now things appear to change.
I am not a fan of Ms. Merkel -and, even less so, of Ms. Thatcher who "topped a poll of Britain’s best post-war leaders"-, but this article is just an empty rant without any substance. Except from the defense spending, there is not a single number, no source cited that would foster the authors' argument.
Just a few points: There is a lot of reason why you could criticize the former German chancellor, but Ms. Merke's "call to turn off Germany’s remaining nuclear power plants" isn't likely one of them (the mistake here wasn't the end of nuclear power but the failure of establishing a German renewable energy industry that was thriving in the 2000s).
And Ms. Merkel was not "inviting" over a million Syrians and others to Germany in 2015. The support Germany and some other states gave to refugees then fleeing a war was the right thing at the time. I can't say whether this sign of humanity has "helped fuel the rise of the hard right in Germany and elsewhere," but I am firmly convinced that if Ms. Merkel's successors in politics -in Germany and elsewhere- would show a more human stance towards our current democracies and human rights and against autocracies, voters would likely have a real alternative to "the hard right in Germany and elsewhere". (But, in the same article, the Economist criticizes Germany for "China [having] soaked up its exports, glad to face few questions over human rights, while Germany failed to worry about getting hooked on another autocratic regime". What, I wonder, do they say about the current transparency discussions, forced labour and other issues in Chinese supply chains?)
So I conclude that you could write a whole book on Ms. Merkel's economic policies, and not much of it may be positive. There is a lot to criticize. But this Economist article is another topic misconduct. To me reading this was a reminder why I unsubscribed to this magazine long time ago after having been a reader for many years.
I apologize for the long post.
Interesting BBC article. At the end, it says:
A BBC producer [at a polling station] heard a woman who had just dropped her ballot in the transparent box ask an election monitor where she would get paid.
Outside, we asked directly whether she had been offered cash to vote and she admitted it without qualms. She was angry that a man who had sent her to the polling station was no longer answering her calls. “He tricked me!” she said.
She would not reply when asked who she had voted for.
Addition: BBC finds evidence of vote-buying in Moldova [video, 1 min.]
Here are some charts on Germany's energy mix and long-term development (April 2024), it supports @superkret@feddit.org's statement:
They have already done that, just read their Project 2025.
ICC's Karim Khan announces arrest warrant application for Israeli and Hamas leaders
[Regarding Israel, the arrest warrants so far go against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.]
That's a shame for Sweden. Unfortunately, we see similar things in many other countries, and not only regarding bears.
Weird how nobody says that about the IMF
This is outright false. The IMF/World Bank system has been heavily criticized by an armada of experts (including many from the West, I would even say the majority of critics come from the Western hemisphere).
Meanwhile China has refinanced or forgiven debt when countries were unable to pay.
Again, this is outright false. It's just a lie, simple as that.
China hasn't 'forgiven' something, it has exchanged some -not all- outstanding debt for political influence in some -not all- indebted countries, and -in addition to political influence- they have offered new loans at conditions that are much -much- worse than those offered by the IMF. Just last year, for example, a joint investigation by several research organizations -such as AidData and the Kiel Institute for the World Economy- found that China charges swap rates of 5% where the IMF charges only 2% in comparable situations.
The latest examples of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the economic and social disasters it entails for the countries and its people are likely Laos and Kenya. Former examples include Sri Lanka, Pakistan. You'll find a lot more.
What you are doing is just throwing around the next piece of whataboutism by (intentionally?) ignoring the facts.
Every Time Russia Violated NATO Borders and Got Away With It
Since the beginning of the Russian full-scale war against Ukraine, there has been a concerning pattern of Russia violating NATO countries’ borders. From airspace incursions to suspected electronic warfare, these actions are seen as signs of a deliberate escalation by Moscow.
They must earn their 50 cents ...
0x815
0 post score0 comment score