From the Guardian

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Hi Apple News reader, I’m the editor of Guardian US, and I hope you appreciated this article. We’re proud to provide all our journalism free to readers on Apple News — because we believe free access to trustworthy, fact-based journalism is crucial for democracy. Before you move on, I wanted to ask if you would consider supporting the Guardian’s journalism during one of the most consequential news cycles of our lifetimes.

We have never been more passionate about exposing the multiplying threats to our democracy and holding power to account in America. In the heat of a tumultuous presidential race, with the threat of a more extreme second Trump presidency looming, there is an urgent need for free, trustworthy journalism that foregrounds the stakes of November’s election for our country and planet.

Yet, from Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.

And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media: the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We always strive to be fair. But sometimes that means calling out the lies of powerful people and institutions – and making clear how misinformation and demagoguery can damage democracy.

From threats to election integrity, to the spiralling climate crisis, to complex foreign conflicts, our journalists contextualise, investigate and illuminate the critical stories of our time. As a global news organisation with a robust US reporting staff, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective – one so often missing in the American media bubble.

The Editor of ‘The Guardian’ news source.

[mccoy]

Yet, from Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world.

Actually, as the recent facts about Zuckenberg's meta and the white house suggestions have demonstrated, it appears to be the opposite. The American government is trying to enforce a cancel culture, a suppression of free speech.

Those not bending their knee to the invested authorities must be punished.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

Yet, from Elon Musk to the Murdochs, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world.

Actually, as the recent facts about Zuckenberg's meta and the white house suggestions have demonstrated, it appears to be the opposite. The American government is trying to enforce a cancel culture, a suppression of free speech.

Those not bending their knee to the invested authorities must be punished.

Please elaborate

This may interest some of you…. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/zuckerberg-says-white-house-pressured-facebook-covid-19-content-pandem-rcna168377

No one was punished. That is all hype. Zuckerberg may have a different approach today. He never struck me as a man of tremendous courage or character. That is his prerogative. He wants to remain neutral, that is his karma. Not ours.

[mccoy]

Mark Zuckerberg says White House ‘pressured’ Facebook to censor Covid-19 content
Meta boss regrets bowing to government power and says he would not make the same choices today

This shows that the white house under Biden's administration has asked social media to influence people with the government's narrative, and social media have bent their knees. It has happened. It is happening. This is a demonic administration.

[Jitendra Hydonus]

You are welcome to your opinion friend. But no one forced anyone to do anything, they attempted to communicate their views, for right or for wrong. I’m not here to dispute who was right or wrong 😑 on Covid 19 it was a complicated epidemic and they (the government) were looking for a fast way to eliminate it. Everything at the time was experimental and I just felt people should have had the choice to make their own decisions. The same way i feel about many ethical issues.

I’m not supportive of all programs of any President. I suppose we have to make a decision in voting-each on our own-what we consider the least offensive and most beneficial for our country.