The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
News & Current Events

Social Media Has Become the Old Media—And That Means the Usual Bias

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Sandrocksonic On October 16, 2020




Randallstown, Maryland
#1New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 02:53:16
A sizable majority of American adults say—when polled—that social media organizations “censor” political viewpoints:

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in June finds that roughly three-quarters of U.S. adults say it is very (37%) or somewhat (36%) likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. Just 25% believe this is not likely the case.

At this point, of course, it’s hard to see how this is even debatable. While “censor” is perhaps not the most accurate term to use here—given the word’s connotations of state intervention—it is apparent that social media firms, at the very least, limit discussion and the reach of certain political viewpoints by banning certain users. These firms also openly admit to biasing readers against certain content through the use of “fact checkers.” Anecdotal evidence also strongly suggests that these social media firms also engage in tactics like “shadow banning,” which hides certain posts and content from certain users.

This is no haphazard or “neutral” bias, either. It is clear that the user bans and “fact checking” warnings against certain posts are designed to fall most often on groups that could be described as “conservative,” or “libertarian,” or which advocate in favor of Donald Trump and his allies.

As far as media companies go, this is just par for the course. What is perhaps so unusual in this case is that so many self-identified conservatives and libertarians seem surprised that things turned out this way.

This may be due to the fact that many continue to believe the false notion that social media companies are a sort of “public utility.” The social media companies themselves promote this myth and like to give the impression that they are open forums facilitating open communication. In reality, the firms are essentially just media companies like CNN, NBC, or the New York Times. Like ordinary media companies they modify and promote content to reflect the firm’s preferences. This is clear every time a social media company intervenes to modify “trending topics” lists, or remove content altogether. Consequently, the only meaningful difference between standard media companies and social media companies is that social media firms don’t produce their own content like ABC News or the Washington Post do. Rather, social media companies have convinced their users to produce all the content. The social media companies then reap the rewards in terms of selling personal information to advertisers and curating user-produced content to suit the companies’ own vision and needs.

Ultimately, the lesson to be learned here is that anyone who holds opinions outside a center-left or far left narrative should expect about as much “fairness” from social media firms as one might expect from CNN or NBC News. In other words, we should expect social media firms to ignore and marginalize the very same opinions and groups that have been ignored and marginalized by established media companies for decades.

This also means that organizations, writers, and publishers of these verboten opinions must do what they’ve always done: create their own publications and find effective methods of disseminating their content outside the control of establishment gatekeepers.

Read More Here
chaski On October 29, 2020
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#2New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 04:12:06
dookie On about 4 hours ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 09:19:22
Safely (well, as safe as can be these days, as my local lockdown level switches from Tier 1 to Tier 2) sitting in Costa's I can give vent to yet another load of drivel as I sip my extra-hot cappuccino. (I must say, standards are slipping even here. Often I would get a nice heart shaped dose of chocolate sprinkles, or maybe - my favorite - a frog. Now its just a blob, possible some sort of Rorschach test, who knows?) Anyway, where was I?

Good luck with sorting out our Social Media, deciding exactly where the bias is to be found and who is initiating it. It seems that early on certain groups sought to use its potential for spreading their own various versions of "truth". Then the Social Media giants sought to counter the misuse. Now they, in seeking to do this, are themselves accused of their very own bias. So it goes on. As I see it, our own bias will determine much of how we decipher the current situation.

We are all complicit in the various modes of distortion of the world around us. First as innocents, new born, then taking our very own modes of conditioning, unquestioned, draping them on the world around us - with the cry of "it stands to reason", "it's simple common sense", or "it speaks for itself". Well, it doesn't actually but no worries.

Here is where I seek to add gravitas to this waffle by a bit of name dropping. Immanuel Kant made the observation that humans are beings who ask themselves questions that they are ultimately unable to answer. Heidegger that "we are the beings who interpret"......this in the sense of who we ARE not simply as what we do on occasion.

The world is not a given that "stands to reason". Facts are there to be interpreted. There are no guarantees. Another philosopher, Wittgenstein, asserted that "meaning" as such was not so much "found", more we have to show it, this by our lives, our actions, our words.

It is a tough task. Instead of basking in our very own indubitable "truth" that "stands to reason" and is "self evident", we must risk error, be vulnerable, and more, listen to the voice of the "other" who have their own truth.

Easy perhaps to cop out. To look to a "world to come" where The Truth will be awarded to the "chosen ones", this world, here, now, discarded. But if we choose to value this world, and if we choose to insist that all are chosen, then our life can take on infinite meaning, infinite potential.

Well, that is how I see it. Maybe it is the coffee talking.
Jennifer1984 On about 3 hours ago
Returner and proud





Penzance, United Kingdom
#4New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 18:34:35
Censorship is a strong word to use. And a nasty one at that. Nobody wants to be censored but is "censorship" what is really happening..?

I've read a lot of objectionable views on social media and I disagree with a great deal of it. I usually respond to this by challenging it in reply in the hope that those reading the original post, and then my reply, will make their own minds up. It is to be hoped that most people are reasonable, responsible and generally possess enough good nature to reject attempts at the promotion of extreme views.

It would be good to think that extremist views are self defeating.

The monkey in the works here though is the law.

We have very good laws in this country that have criminalised hate messages such as those of a racist or homophobic nature. We have laws that make it illegal to promote terrorism or other forms of violent crime. We have good laws that make it illegal to promote discrimination or oppression on a variety of grounds.

These things are against the law and when a message that contravenes these laws is circulated, it is entirely appropriate to take it down, not as a matter of censorship, but in order to comply with the law of the land.

Those who commit such crimes will always holler about their "Freedom of speech" being denied but this is the knee-jerk reaction of somebody who is probably lucky that he wasn't traced, arrested and prosecuted for his actions. He should consider that having his post taken down with no further action being taken is a let-off.

The classic example of this is (I hope I'm not tempting fate here by using the name) Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. He broke the law. Pure and simple. He posted an image and the name and home address of a man undergoing a trial. He did this despite there being reporting restrictions imposed by the court, and having done it once and been formally warned that if he did it again, he'd be in contempt of court......... he promptly went and did it again.

This time he was arrested for contempt of court. And he was sent to prison.

On release, he started parading in front of cameras and posting images of himself on social media wearing a tee shirt that bore the words "Arrested for journalism". What a crock of guano.

He isn't a journalist. He has no journalist qualifications or credentials. He is a member of no journalist organisation (they wouldn't have him) and he is not employed as a journalist by any publication.

It's a complete and utter nonsense. A total falsehood. And yet, it's perfectly legal. He might be offending people by wearing the tee shirt and claiming to be something he isn't, but he isn't guilty of any hate or discrimination crime.

The only penalty he suffers is that everybody who sees the image (notwithstanding his adoring followers) sees him for the d***head he is.

That's people making up their own mind. And I don't have a problem with that.
gakINGKONG On about 7 hours ago




, Florida
#5New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 22:40:09
The CEO's from the largest social media platforms will be in Washington DC later this month. My assumption is they'll chime in on the changes they'll be making to prevent newsworthy events from getting zero-platformed (not sure what that's called).

The news about Hunter Biden's email should have been allowed to make the rounds on facebook and Twitter.
gakINGKONG On about 7 hours ago




, Florida
#6New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 22:44:11
The CEO's from the largest social media platforms will be in Washington DC later this month. My assumption is they'll chime in on the changes they'll be making to prevent newsworthy events from getting zero-platformed (not sure what that's called).

The news about Hunter Biden's email should have been allowed to make the rounds on facebook and Twitter.

Funny how big tech loves to stymie a political party they don't agree with.
chaski On October 29, 2020
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#7New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 23:32:22
@gakINGKONG Said

The news about Hunter Biden's email should have been allowed to make the rounds on facebook and Twitter.


Even if the stories making the rounds contained misinformation and lies?
chaski On October 29, 2020
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#8New Post! Oct 16, 2020 @ 23:34:32
@Sandrocksonic Said

A sizable majority of American adults say—when polled—that social media organizations “censor” political viewpoints:.... (etc)




Should InfoWars be forced to present pro Socialist and/or pro Communist and/or pro Liberal and/or pro ANTIFA and/or pro Democrat information, stories, commercials?

If your answer is "no", then you are a hypocrite.
crusty_fart On October 17, 2020




Somewhere, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Oct 17, 2020 @ 05:31:21
OK that OP made my head hurt.

But this is simple. First lets start with this:

"If you do not pay for a product, you ARE the product".

Let that sink in. Do you pay for social media. Does Zuckermong really care about you? Does the creator of Twitter care about you? Does the creator of [insert social media] here, care about you?

The answer is probably no. However they get their money from investors. To get companies to invest, they need users. YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.

So in order for people to invest, they need the platform to be approved by investors. Would [insert investor name here] invest in Info Wars, probably some would, but a lot would not. Hence FB (just for example) don't want their platform to become infowars v2.0. Hence they "censor". They are not doing this to control you, or brainwash you into leftwing beliefs. Its just that more investors will invest. You are nothing but a product. Facebook is not a product, its userbase is. So the userbase needs to behave in a way that will make people invest.

Further to @Chaski regarding infowars. We do not live (well some do I imagine) in a communist state. So there is a free market. So if you don't like the "censorship" of [insert social media here], you can create your own. But good luck finding the same amount of investors as the more left wing social media sites.

YOU ARE THE PRODUCT.
dookie On about 4 hours ago
Foolish Bombu





, United Kingdom
#10New Post! Oct 17, 2020 @ 09:06:43
Once more settling down in Costa's, feeling quite fit for a 71year old (if I could just throw off this persistent cough and temperature I would be A1.........joke)

I was reading above about needing to know that we are the product. I thought and wondered about WHEN we become the product. Which as I see it involves considerations of causes as opposed to symtoms. We seem more often than not to spend all our time messing around with the symptoms. Which brings me back to WHEN and HOW we become merely a PRODUCT.

I will take a rest now and resort to the words of Layman Hsiang, who also seemed to ponder such things.....



Shadows arise from forms, echoes come from sounds. If we fiddle with shadows and ignore the forms, we do not recognize that the forms are the roots of the shadows. If we raise our voices to stop echoes, we are not cognizant of the fact that sounds are the roots of the echoes. To try to head for nirvana by getting rid of afflictions is like removing forms to look for shadows. To seek Buddhahood apart from living beings is like seeking echoes by silencing sounds. So we know that illusion and enlightenment are one road. Ignorance and knowledge are not separate. We make names for what has no name. Because we go by the names, judgments of right and wrong arise. We make rationalizations for what has no reason. Because we rely on the rationalizations, argument and discussion arise. Illusion is not real: who is right, who is wrong? The unreal is not actual: what is empty, what exists? Thus I realize that attainment gains nothing, and loss loses nothing.


Shinran of the Pure Land path agreed that we cannot get rid of afflictions, in fact do not, need not, to reach the Pure Land, speaking though of a "sideways leap". Maybe such leap is much the same as reaching for the blanket, but I doubt it. Maybe it is seeing with new eyes.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Be Respectful of Others

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Fri Dec 16, 2016 @ 18:03
2 202
New posts   Politics
Mon Dec 12, 2016 @ 05:28
5 723
New posts   News & Current Events
Tue Sep 01, 2015 @ 08:15
64 2990
New posts   Society & Lifestyles
Sat Sep 05, 2015 @ 01:45
20 1639
New posts   News & Current Events
Sat May 05, 2012 @ 00:48
19 2376