It's not, as long as you're not doing it to specifically target one company or be a dick about it. Is he going to label his own companies with the same thing?
>According to a Los Angeles Times investigation, Musk's companies had received an estimated $4.9 billion in government support by 2015, and they've gotten more since.[1]
Tesla, a government-funded company, has the ability to remotely disable your car. Surely they'd be happy to do this at the government's request, no? Locking your car mid-drive and rerouting you using FSD because you said something the government didn't like?
SpaceX, a government-funded company, has the ability to put all kinds of invasive, espionage-focused payloads into space.
The point is, if we're going to insinuate that NPR is doing the bidding of the US government simply because a portion (however large or small) of the money they receive comes from the government, then we can insinuate the same kind of sentiment towards Musk's companies.
If you think it's important to know that a media company takes government money, why wouldn't it be important to know if other companies in other industries are similarly connected?
Please act in good faith. You know why Twitter did what it did, and you know why it was wrong. We know you know that. NPR is not state affiliated, or even government funded. Fox news airs ads from the US Military - is it state affiliated?
Your logical fallacy is incredulity. What Twitter did was absolutely ethical, and since it applies to all government funded media, it is not political in nature. Yes anyone accepting government ad money should be labelled as well.
I'm not sure what ethical means in this context, or what it has to do with them being wrong. What responsibility does Twitter have to anyone? They are a privately held corporation. Where they were 'wrong' is in not being consistent in their labeling, and the subtext surrounding that - of which we are all aware but some of us (like you) are unwilling to acknowledge in order to advance an argument or to just Troll. But go on...
Because the "government funded media" was a last minute save, the original "state affiliated media" is a false claim. Surely you grasp the difference between the two labels? The latter has corporate and editorial control in case you were unaware.
Anyone providing money to a media org has some amount of editorial control. The newer version is more specific but it doesn’t mean state affiliated is inaccurate.
It does mean it's inaccurate because state affiliated is already a specific term to describe editorial control. I don't know how else to put it to you, maybe an example.
You can publish a podcast or article or whatever on NPR right now about how much you hate the current administration and want them replaced. You cannot do that with state affiliated media, if CGTN tomorrow did the same, the state has the direct ability to take action against that by firing people, changing management, altering funding, etc. That's if they even get past initial filters!
To argue that "state affiliation" is meaningless by handwaving it as "anyone providing money to a media org has some amount of editorial control" is bad faith.
Aren’t you assuming bad faith by claiming that Twitter is somehow conspiring against NPR by labelling the state sponsored media as being state sponsored?
It isn't. What's bad is that by singling NPR out for receiving less than 1% of their revenue from the government implies that's something unusual. It isn't. Almost every business receives money from the government.
Because "state-affiliated" specifically means the state has editorial control - which is certainly not the case here - not merely that they provide some funding.
