by SailorMuck | 2025-07-29 01:51:39+00:00
> “The conversation” is well understood to mean “the things being talked about in the mainstream”. 80% in favour of a law is so overwhelmingly positive that it is rarely seen. My initial comment, a lifetime ago, was in the context of someone asking why the U.K. is unique when it comes to these laws. I said the U.K. is not and that most people support them.

No it is not. I've asked other politicos I know and they didn't know what you were talking about. I ended up asking the perplexity. Which disagrees with your definition and says that social media and in person is also important.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/the-conversation-when-refer...

You cannot judge public sentiment accurately from mainstream media or polling. Mainstream media typically act as stenographers for either the state, their corporate masters or both. Polling has a multitude of issues that are well known.

> I’ve showed surveying that backs that up. The absence of any mainstream articles about this should be evidence enough it isn’t part of the conversation. Maybe that’ll change in future, but at least for now, nobody cares. Maybe you’re right and there’s a conspiracy amongst the mainstream to suppress the real views of the people, we will see.

I've told you why I don't believe them to be convincing. "The conversation" isn't happening on mainstream media. It is happening on social media, in person, on YouTube etc.

You re-iterating the same tired old talking points and showing me a YouGov poll (which are known to be BS) and saying you are right isn't evidence.

BTW. A lot of these polls aren't there to find out what the public actually thinks. They are there to manufacturer consent by making it look like it is supported by the majority.

> I don’t want to talk to you like a child, but a little lesson: mainstream news is mostly a cynical cash grab by harnessing outrage. Mainstream news loves things that outrage people.

You are literally still talking down to me in a condescending manner. Do you think I don't know that msm doesn't engage outrage?

BTW, you are presenting this like this is a revelation. When in fact it is a trite observation about how the media operates.

There are actually much more interesting ones if you look at how sometimes the exact same headlines are pushed by newspapers that are supposed to be opposing one another.

Earlier on in my career, I used to integrate news feeds for news sites (sports news, but still news). Most of the news you see is literally bought from several source providers and copy-righter/editors (or AI now) literally rewrite the article in the style of the site. That is why many news sites literally just repeat the same thing and then put their own spin on it based on their audience.

God forbid we start talking about subjects like how the media manufacturers consent, how the British State (MI6) has engaged in psyops against it own citizens.

I really suggest you spend some time reading some books about these subjects because you are way out of your depth.

> If there was any real outrage about this law, it would be harnessed by the dailymail and the Sun and Reach PLC to make money hand over fist. They would milk it so hard they would have to implement age verification.

Firstly, everyone who has two brain cells to rub together know that these are rags.

Secondly. Your argument is that if there was real outrage about this law it would be covered by outrage mongers. Why would they need to create outrage if there was already real outrage? Doesn't make any sense.

Thirdly. There has been coverage by MSM. I was visiting my parents house at the weekend, and as I walked into the living room, ITV news had two so-called experts talking about the issue. So somehow I stumbled on the mainstream coverage by accident (I don't ever watch TV these days), but you can't find it! Strange that.