• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you care if a social media companies' employees lean almost entirely to one side politically?

Do you care if a social media companies' employees lean almost entirely to one side politically?

  • Yes, I care

  • No, I don't care

  • Something else

Results are only viewable after voting.
NolanVoyd said:
Are you suggesting social media companies should employ affirmative action for conservatives?

I thought you guys hated affirmative action?
Click to expand...

You might want to look to see how I answered the poll question there. :)
 
Josie said:
Same. I'm fine with it as long as they are fair in their moderation.
Click to expand...
This is why I voted "something else." Lots of people are not moderate, so if one side had the capacity to control the media, it might use that.

The people in charge have to have a certain political leaning to be moderate - they have to care about expression of free speech. To me, that's a Democratic value, not a Republican one, because Republicans have a long history of trying to interfere with free speech.

In the Joseph McCarthy era, these people wanted to ban certain books from public libraries. In Texas more recently, they didn't want to teach biological evolution in a science class. They wanted to teach creationism, but that is is not considered a scientific theory by anyone except a very tiny extreme minority who do not address solid scientific criticism.

Recently, some of those people actually wanted to teach both the bad and good!! of slavery!! in school. Unacceptable. If people don't even know that slavery is just bad, they aren't acceptable in a country that banned it for its badness, case closed.
 
Something else. Let’s just say for shitz and giggles that one real real,big social media company had a majority of its employees are liberals. These liberals didn’t like a very powerful man, who shall remain nameless, but was from a Conservative party. Let’s call him orangeman. The libs at the company were mad cause orangeman was a big old meany so they banned him. But they let blm, antifa, CCP, leaders of taliban and other middle eastern countrys post freely while knowing they treat women like shit and ccp members violate Yugars and others rights and freedoms.
so as long as they don’t do that I’m good. But if you block the Orangeman, certain R senators, certain conservative reporters…….then Hell no
 
I don’t care as long as opposing views are not banned.
 
Honestly, if most of the employees are of one political side, like Parler was...then most likely they will moderate in the direction of the employees...like Parler did.

And as a gentle reminder....if you get banned, a post deleted or put into time out by a social media platform not owned and/or run by the government...your freedom of speech has not been infringed upon and the platform has the right to do that.
 
Josie said:
Do you care if a social media company had employees that were almost entirely on the right or left politically? Please vote and discuss!
Click to expand...
I don't do social media, but it seems to me that the problem with ideology is only a problem when the "moderation" becomes biased based on politics. Which is what Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have become.

It cracks me up when I hear liberals insist that they need to protect the public from "dangerous information", when all people need to do is ignore it.

So yeah, I guess liberals ruin everything eventually. They are an infantile breed.
 
The flaming lib said:
Something else. Let’s just say for shitz and giggles that one real real,big social media company had a majority of its employees are liberals. These liberals didn’t like a very powerful man, who shall remain nameless, but was from a Conservative party. Let’s call him orangeman. The libs at the company were mad cause orangeman was a big old meany so they banned him. But they let blm, antifa, CCP, leaders of taliban and other middle eastern countrys post freely while knowing they treat women like shit and ccp members violate Yugars and others rights and freedoms.
so as long as they don’t do that I’m good. But if you block the Orangeman, certain R senators, certain conservative reporters…….then Hell no
Click to expand...
Actual scenario: aka the real world.

The man you are referring to was utterly incapable of following the terms of service that everyone else has to follow, and violated them repeatedly,, just like he couldn't follow the debate rules he himself agreed to.

And now he and his fan boys (and girls) are whining endlessly about how unfair it is that he got banned for not following the rules, and how unfair debate moderators were for trying to get him to follow the rules he agreed to.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Yes, and it doesn't matter which "side" the lean is, I would avoid it.

1. In the first case I don't need "ideological reinforcement," which is all that happens when you live in a echo chamber of agreement.

2. In the second case, I prefer to hear all sides of an issue to have an informed foundation so as to engage/improve my own response skills at research and critical thinking.
Click to expand...
Which you can always do. The internet has everything. I don't expect to get "all sides of an issue" from any one place.
 
molten_dragon said:
I don't care if it doesn't impact how they run their platform. And I don't care if their platform is small. When their platform becomes large enough that it becomes a critical part of how people communicate and their political bias affects how they run the platform, then I care.
Click to expand...
Most people don't communicate via Twitter.
 
ApersonLIKEallOFyou said:
No, as long as their potential bias doesn’t impact how they maintain their platform.

So, “no, I don’t care” but with that caveat.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do care.
If you have a bunch of Left-leaning employee snowflakes who can censor a Conservatives comments because they don't care for something they call misinformation, then what is the point of having that social media site?
Would such a site simply become an echo chamber like the Daily Kos is for those Left-leaning posters?

Who wants that?
 
Josie said:
Do you care if a social media company had employees that were almost entirely on the right or left politically? Please vote and discuss!
Click to expand...
Not that much. It probably has been somewhat bad for society that Twitter, the social media platform that influences current events more than any other, leans very far to the left. I would argue that it's bad for both liberals (who engage in stupid clout-chasing and adopt more extreme positions than they should) and conservatives (who seem increasingly inclined to distrust and opt out of all civil institutions entirely).

But on the day-to-day moderation policies, I don't think it's a big deal. If Twitter wants to ban the Babylon Bee and make it against their rules to "misgender" people, I think that's ridiculous, but it doesn't really matter that much in the grand scheme of things. And for non-Twitter social media platforms, it matters even less.
 
Depends on their influence and how consistently and fairly they wield it.
 
antiquity said:
You mean like the Hunter Biden laptop, Alternatives Covid cures, spying on the Trump WH or the Border conspiracies that social media has censured for political purposes?
Click to expand...
I’m outraged those things were censored so thank god I was able to easily read so much about them! And pizzagate, and Obama is Muslim, sharia law is coming to America, palling around with terrorists, Hillary is dying, Ted Cruz’s dad shot jfk, I watched an entire sermon from Obama’s local preacher (?) and I saw pictures of the wmds found in Iraq. I wrote an opinion letter and somebody sent me doctored photographs of a senate nominee, aol had chain mail groups about the Clinton crime family, and a book about John Kerry was written that turned out to be entirely fictional but fox aired an hour long special just before the election. Fahrenheit 9/11 was in theaters and seemed pretty made up, and I believe the 9/11 “documentary” claiming there WERE NO PLANES is the most watched documentary on YouTube ever to this day.

And because of that you are more free than if somebody had said “you can’t lie this blatantly.”
 
Josie said:
Do you care if a social media company had employees that were almost entirely on the right or left politically? Please vote and discuss!
Click to expand...

Nope. Don't use big social media platforms and wouldn't advise anyone else to either.
Social media consists of semi-random flavor of the week information that comes at the target from multiple angles and sources, and tends to leverage emotion rather than higher reasoning. That is incidentally a method that duplicates how animals (humans included) use instinctive reasoning to evaluate something and discard their scepticism of it.

That is also how far-right and far-left sites work, except their narratives are far more focused.
The more information you get confirming your views, the less likely you are to be sceptic of your views, and the more fanatic you become in your views. It's called indoctrination and has existed since the dawn of time.
Most dangerous thing is when people get so set in their views that they no longer want to bother arguing them or listen to dissenting views. There is a fair amount of that on DP, but at least we have the dissenting views available, giving us the option to make the effort if so inclined.


P.S. Can you spot the narrative inserted in this post and targeted at you?
 
reflechissez said:
Most people don't communicate via Twitter.
Click to expand...

There are 1.3 billion twitter users. That's a hell of a lot of people that do communicate, to some extent, via twitter. That's larger than any telecom company in the world.
 
Perhaps "care" is not the right word from my perspective. But I am very wary when any social media's or media's staff are dominated by one or a few closely aligned political positions. That makes suspect everything I read or hear/view on the platform. Critical thinking and fact-checking then kick in at higher levels of intensity.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
nota bene said:
Point taken, but although I don't use FB (full disclosure: I have access to my kid's old account, I have never posted) or Twitter, the suppression of free speech should be of grave concern for all Americans.
Click to expand...
Can you explain examples of speech suppression @ Twitter?

Approx. 258 million adults in the US
Approx. 70 million Twitter users in the US


less than 1/3 of US people use Twitter, what are the powers keeping away from from the 70 million?
 
Josie said:
Do you care if a social media company had employees that were almost entirely on the right or left politically? Please vote and discuss!
Click to expand...
Whether they were almost entirely left or right I would think that they are biased, and social media platforms typically are billed as platforms, not advocates. It's okay if they're advocate groups - but I won't participate in that. I don't support echo chambers of any kind.
 
Rexedgar said:
Can you explain examples of speech suppression @ Twitter?

Approx. 258 million adults in the US
Approx. 70 million Twitter users in the US


less than 1/3 of US people use Twitter, what are the powers keeping away from from the 70 million?
Click to expand...
The Hunter Biden laptop story was suppressed and falsely dubbed Russian disinformation by Twitter and much of the mainstream media which convinced huge numbers of people to simply ignore it. It's not that they were unable to read the NY Post story anywhere in the world. It's that the narrative was controlled in the media, and when media companies are deleting references and "warning" that it contains "Russian disinformation," large numbers of people who might be swayed by a story will not be, because they think it's false, when it isnt.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Actual scenario: aka the real world.

The man you are referring to was utterly incapable of following the terms of service that everyone else has to follow, and violated them repeatedly,, just like he couldn't follow the debate rules he himself agreed to.

And now he and his fan boys (and girls) are whining endlessly about how unfair it is that he got banned for not following the rules, and how unfair debate moderators were for trying to get him to follow the rules he agreed to.
Click to expand...
But its all good now. Shoes on the other foot. Let’s watch and see how the other side likes it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom