this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
497 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19305 readers
3313 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”

(page 2) 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

AFSC is the American Friends Service Committee.

So, a little to unpack here. "Quaker" is the common name for what is more formally known as The Religious Society of Friends. Thus American Friends Service Committee.

Yes, the same Quakers from our history books. Actually to this day genuinely quality people and one of the few Christian groups I tend to have a decent amount of respect for.

I don't know if I got memory holed or what, but I have a distinct memory during the Iraq War of a group of Quakers in kayaks blockading some US warships from leaving port to go to war and that was the pretense that Bush wanted to use to charge these non-violent Quaker anti-war protestors with terrorism charges. It's been a while and I've not been able to dig up a link but I swear it happened, I can find ACLU documents mentioning the Bush admin targeting Quakers, but that's about it. Interestingly enough, it included surveillance of this exact organization.

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-report-shows-widespread-pentagon-surveillance-peace-activists (January 2007)

In response to the ACLU’s FOIA requests filed on February 1, 2006, the Defense Department has released dozens of TALON reports that were compiled on Americans. Many of the reports focus on anti-military recruitment events and protests, including activities organized by the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee, United for Peace and Justice, Veterans for Peace, and Catholic Worker.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

American Friends Service Committee

"The One Where Ross Drops White Phosphorus on Civilians"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 1 day ago (7 children)

Far right fascist propaganda rag doesn't want to publish the truth about a genocide it's covered up and excused?

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Ha. I would not have seen the add or messaging from the AFSC.

By rejecting it NYT Streisanded the message they sought to silence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitjunkie 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

This is a new kind of war. This is an eradication.

e: It's from a Lamb of God song about Bush, seemed apropos. Get salty about it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The only things new about this war are the weapons being used to fight it. Humans have been wiping each other out since we've been around.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Doesn't this make then legally liable for content in their ads?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's an editorial decision like any other, it's nothing new in legal terms

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

So section 230 doesn't apply then.

[–] grue 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It never did. The NY Times is a newspaper, not a social media network.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The comments section though

[–] grue 1 points 19 hours ago

Okay, yes, Section 230 would apply to the comments section and only the comments section.

(Is that weirdly inconsistent, since exerting editorial control to reject ads isn't that different from moderators removing objectionable comments? Yes, yes it is. But that's just because the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a fucked-up law that shouldn't exist in the form it does.)

[–] jaggedrobotpubes 2 points 1 day ago

No truth in this paper of lies!

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›