Respectfully, I disagree.
The topic is pandering versus unbiased reporting.
I removed the laughing emoji from my post because while my intent was to be light-hearted about the topic drift, I can see how it might be construed as making light of your remarks. Which is absolutely not what I wanted to convey.
But I do disagree with your assessment.
We started with “On Anti-Social Media”.
We then migrated to news media via your analysis, which I thought was quite informative and I enjoyed reading it.
I also thought it was relevant because online news stories and headlines are optimized to get you to click, and many of the online techniques used by YouTube to feed you more and more conspiracy videos can be used by news agencies.
So on the one hand, I can see an extension to other sources of manipulation. Which could include religion.
On the other hand, it felt like the conversation was going in a direction completely different than the Medium article. Or completely different than what someone clicking on the conversation would expect to read based on the title and topics selected.
I know you are quite knowledgeable on scripture and religion, based on reading other conversations you’ve started here.
Would someone who followed one of these religions, which you’ve identified as pandering “to the cravings of humans and to preach man-made constructs falsely labeled ‘God’”, be offended to read what you said about their religion?
If yes, then it feels like your comment should be moved to a religion topic conversation with a headline that makes clear it’s a criticism of religion.
If not, then I was wrong to call “off-topic”.