This company rates news sites’ credibility. The right-wing wants it stopped

[j brown's body]

This far too general a question for any sort of 'real' answer.

What sort of 'government intimidation' are you talking about?
This could range anywhere from making PSAs to sending the FBI to harass someone or an organization.

What sort of 'information sources' are you talking about?
This could range anywhere from someone posting on social media or their blog page to a state run propaganda organ with its TV broadcast network.

Or are you thinking of some sort of principals you want to raise for discussion?

So you might support government intimidation of free speech.

 

[eohrnberger]

In this case, it involves government attacks on their work, investigations into their work, threatening them with lawsuits.

Do you support the government doing this?

Who is 'they'?

I refer you to the op.

The OP references to NewsGuard, and you are asserting that NewsGuard is 'government attacks on their work, investigations into their work, threatening them with lawsuits'?

Non-sequitur, your facts are confused, at least from what I can see.
NewsGuard is not under 'government attacks on their work, investigations into their work, threatening them with lawsuits'

 

[ElChupacabra]

This a false narrative, given what we have learned from 'The Twitter Files'.

It is not, and mainly because Twitter and other social media companies were in control of the decisions they made as it relates to moderation.

Agreed.

 

[ElChupacabra]

No, it is apparent in 'The Twitter Files' that multiple federal agencies did 'strong arm' both Twitter and Facebook into censoring users and user's posts which the federal agencies didn't like.

That was not clear at all since there were no direct threats, and even in the case there were, those companies had legal recourse and a very strong case against the government. Zuckerberg himself stated that while the government was persistent, the decision was Facebook's.

The 'rules' were unequally applied and targeted users and voices which didn't align with leftist ideology, this is clear.

Well not leftist "ideology" but what was fact or wasn't, and that's not an ideological issue. The rules were applied to people who were parroting questionable COVID 19 information.

True. What's hilarious is that many from the left can't handle what X's social media environment has become, less anti-conservative, and have fled to BlueSky.

Let's not forget the other reason people are leaving, which is being exposed to all sorts of other offensive content they'd rather not see, along with Musk's promotion of his own feed and his politically aligned content. What makes social media companies what they are are their moderation policies. People are leaving in part, because they're not happy with the moderation or lack thereof.

This whole notion of Twitter and other social media sites being anti conservative is incorrect considering what actually happened was conservatives posting content some of these companies was flagging as problematic for their sites was the one it took action on, rather than conservatives as a whole.

Where the clear propagation of falsehoods go unchallenged, such as in this quote:


I read this thread on Blue Sky.
Not a single post that I could see, after scrolling at least a dozen pages, even touches on the politically inconvenient facts that:

1. The House passed the Gabriella Miller Kids First Pediatric Research back in March
2. The Senate committee reviewed it and passed it forward to Schumer
3. Schumer didn't both to bring this bill to the Senate floor for a vote since then, until he was forced to with the rejection of the omnibus CR spending shit sandwich pork he wanted

Instead, as per the Dem's 'Wrap Up Smear' tactic, it was Republicans which cancelled this funding.

No community notes. No posts about these facts. No challenges of what was posted. Nothing but echoing of agreement. Clearly an leftist Echo Chamber.

They've all fled X in favor of Blue Sky Social, because it feed their need for constant reinforcement of their 1/2 truth and vacuous virtue signaling.

But there are other numbers that are undeniable, as well, courtesy of Bluesky itself.​

"In the past 24 hours, we have received more than 42,000 reports (an all-time high for one day)," the Bluesky Safety team posted to its platform on Nov. 15. "We're receiving about 3,000 reports/hour.​

​

"To put that into context, in all of 2023, we received 360k reports."​

MSN

All is not well in Blue Sky leftist echo chamber; they are reporting on themselves.

Progressives flee X for Bluesky, where they can harass others in peace

In the wake of Donald Trump’s victory last month, much of the Online Left — that is, progressive academics, journalists and influencers — left Elon Musk’s X for the greener pastures of Bluesky.…

nypost.com

Given all this, Blue Sky quotes posted here in these forums have no standing on the basis that Blue Sky is nothing but 1/2 truths from the new liberal / progressive social media echo chamber.
Further, seems that the left can't seem to handle any social media which isn't.

What you seem to be complaining about is a free market social media solution where the varying types of moderation strategies are competing for users. I do find it interesting that in your bullet pointed items you seem to be implying fact checking of content on Bluesky, which is nothing any company was doing across the board when they were taking action on some content. I don't think anyone expects social media companies to fact check every single bit of content posted, that's a massive ask. Expecting them to flag specific content is a whole other proposition.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Part 2

Comparing 4Chan/8Chan with Facebook and Twitter is a false equivalency, just strictly on the basis of user population, 4Chan/8Chan being a tiny faction of the Facebook and Twitter populations.

It isn't in the context moderation policy differences. What we're seeing now with Bluesky growth is a good example of how a much smaller platform can attract other users and grow.

Meh, here we disagree.

Ok, but the facts are there is no evidence of them strong arming social media companies and none of the social media company leaders have stated that was the case.

If social media companies are curating beyond the outlines of the communications decency act, doesn't that make them publishers by definition?

No. The curation is centered around the experience, and that moderates content on based on their policies to create a specific environment. They are not reviewing and editing all content on their platform and modifying content posted on their sites.

 

[ElChupacabra]

"The government which governs the best, governs the least." By this I mean that government should govern the least and the most effectively, i.e. simple rules and regulations which are straight forward, inexpensive and easy to comply with, and are yet highly effective, always with an eye to intercede and interfere the most minimal amount, and the government should stop interceding and interfering in what it's not good at. the government we have in the US isn't even in the same ball park, with the corrupt DC bureaucracy and their unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats always wanting to grow their power, their interference.

The larger and more complex a country, the more complex governance ends up being. Unless, of course, one goes the authoritarian model.

Government involvement doesn't equate magically accurate and efficient results, period. In fact, Government involvement often results in inaccurate and inefficient results, so often, they've established this as the expected results of Government involvement.

It's a mixed bag, much like most human endeavors. You have some governments that can take on large infrastructure projects and keep costs down; we're not that good in that regard. Think of infrastructure projects which often cost significantly less in other nations than they do here.

Seems we have a differing definition of 'worked with'. From my view, after reading The Twitter Files and other sources, that it seems federal agencies are / were strong arming Twitter and Facebook, and the results were the banning, censoring, shadow banning, and demonetizing speech of views and opinions which those federal agencies didn't agree with, which were, more often than not, conservative voices.

That was not definitive in what was released in the Twitter files, since there were not even implied threats on the part of the government, and Twitter and others would have had solid cases should they wanted to fight back legally. Zuckerberg himself testified to Congress the decision Facebook made on content moderation was theirs.

Agreed.

Those 'vetted sources' have all been caught in lies, pushing false narratives, reporting only the 1/2 of the story which they agree with (especially the Dem's MSM propagandists), and this is the source of the distrust in them, i.e. self-inflicted and of their own volition.

Its not just the Dem's MSM propagandists. None of the government's medical bureaucracy can find any justification, nor who started, the recommendation of 6 feet of separation as being an effective measure against COVID spread, for example. Yet it was issued as a recommendation.
How many other recommendations, COVID and non-COVID, were started like this?

Distrust of those 'vetted sources' is well justified given this track record.

Then really the only real choice is to not believe anything or anyone based on this rationale.

 

[eohrnberger]

It is not, and mainly because Twitter and other social media companies were in control of the decisions they made as it relates to moderation.

Sorry, I don't see it that way.
Do you really think that any social media company would resist any federal agency's insistence at censoring, shadow banning or outright banning, or de-platforming anyone which those federal agencies didn't like?

When the wrath of the DOJ and any number of government bureaucrat regulators would, and could, perform a colonoscopy on said social media company?

Hell, we've seen this government response to the likes of SpaceX already.

 

[j brown's body]

So you might support government intimidation of free speech.

*crickets*

 

[eohrnberger]

That was not clear at all since there were no direct threats, and even in the case there were, those companies had legal recourse and a very strong case against the government. Zuckerberg himself stated that while the government was persistent, the decision was Facebook's.

LOL. From the land of rainbows and unicorns, that a social media company would want to engage in courtroom combat with the federal government. Especially so when the financial resources are so greatly mismatched in the government's favor.

Well not leftist "ideology" but what was fact or wasn't, and that's not an ideological issue. The rules were applied to people who were parroting questionable COVID 19 information.

Any COVID information which didn't comply declared as 'questionable'.
Yeah, OK. Sure. </sarcasm>

Let's not forget the other reason people are leaving, which is being exposed to all sorts of other offensive content they'd rather not see, along with Musk's promotion of his own feed and his politically aligned content. What makes social media companies what they are are their moderation policies. People are leaving in part, because they're not happy with the moderation or lack thereof.

"not happy with the moderation or lack thereof" = they miss their liberal / progressive echo chamber, so they migrate and create a new one.

Recall that before Musk bought Twitter, that's exactly what it was, as liberal / progressive echo chamber, and curated to be exactly that.

This whole notion of Twitter and other social media sites being anti conservative is incorrect considering what actually happened was conservatives posting content some of these companies was flagging as problematic for their sites was the one it took action on, rather than conservatives as a whole.

Again, ideologically driven declaration of being 'problematic'.

What you seem to be complaining about is a free market social media solution where the varying types of moderation strategies are competing for users. I do find it interesting that in your bullet pointed items you seem to be implying fact checking of content on Bluesky, which is nothing any company was doing across the board when they were taking action on some content.

No, I'm pointing out that liberals and progressives are intolerant of a social media environment which even permits posts which hold differing perspectives than theirs. They had such an echo chamber on Twitter prior to Musk, and bail out post-Musk, when it no longer is that echo chamber.

The fact check, the community notes features of Twitter now X, is what drove them off, when their drivel was challenged.
Left ideology, so strong in the marketplace of ideas it can't stand any challengers or opposition.

I don't think anyone expects social media companies to fact check every single bit of content posted, that's a massive ask. Expecting them to flag specific content is a whole other proposition.

Which wasn't the point in the first place.

 

[eohrnberger]

Part 2


It isn't in the context moderation policy differences. What we're seeing now with Bluesky growth is a good example of how a much smaller platform can attract other users and grow.

Yes, attract the liberals / progressives which promptly re-instituted their liberal progressive echo chamber which they lost on X when Musk took over.

Ok, but the facts are there is no evidence of them strong arming social media companies and none of the social media company leaders have stated that was the case.

Again, we are of differing views on this.

No. The curation is centered around the experience, and that moderates content on based on their policies to create a specific environment. They are not reviewing and editing all content on their platform and modifying content posted on their sites.

How is this 'curation' any different than a publisher who doesn't publish all the user's comments (well other than the ones they like)?
It's not.

We have seen how this 'curation' works in the pre-Musk Twitter, just as we've seen this curation and user base move to BlueSky. Liberals / Progressives just can't be happy unless they receive a constant reaffirmation that they are right about everything and that they are better than everyone else. Anything less, they suffer from dopamine deprivation.

 

[eohrnberger]

The larger and more complex a country, the more complex governance ends up being. Unless, of course, one goes the authoritarian model.

Good leaders are great simplifiers. Pretty clear that the federal government, particularly the corrupt DC swamp bureaucracy, isn't comprised of such good leaders.
And here you are, making excuses for their not being good leaders.

It's a mixed bag, much like most human endeavors. You have some governments that can take on large infrastructure projects and keep costs down; we're not that good in that regard. Think of infrastructure projects which often cost significantly less in other nations than they do here.


That was not definitive in what was released in the Twitter files, since there were not even implied threats on the part of the government, and Twitter and others would have had solid cases should they wanted to fight back legally. Zuckerberg himself testified to Congress the decision Facebook made on content moderation was theirs.

Zuck and other social media company CEOs 'We promise to do better' mantra. Skeptical, and rightfully so.

Then really the only real choice is to not believe anything or anyone based on this rationale.

The only real choice is to have an initial position of skepticism.

 

[eohrnberger]

*crickets*

The OP references to NewsGuard, and you are asserting that NewsGuard is 'government attacks on their work, investigations into their work, threatening them with lawsuits'?

Non-sequitur, your facts are confused, at least from what I can see.
NewsGuard is not under 'government attacks on their work, investigations into their work, threatening them with lawsuits'

 

[ElChupacabra]

Sorry, I don't see it that way.
Do you really think that any social media company would resist any federal agency's insistence at censoring, shadow banning or outright banning, or de-platforming anyone which those federal agencies didn't like?

Sure, since it didn't follow all of the recommendations the government suggested. Of course there's also legal recourse these companies had in what would have been a pretty bad case for the government to defend. The government cannot coerce companies into acting in this manner, and any obvious indications of that would have been easy to prove and ruled in the favor of social media companies.

When the wrath of the DOJ and any number of government bureaucrat regulators would, and could, perform a colonoscopy on said social media company?

Hell, we've seen this government response to the likes of SpaceX already.

Interesting that the "wrath of the DOJ and any number of government bureaucrats" did not perform a colonoscopy on said social media companies when their recommendations were not acted upon. Of course we now know that even the current SCOTUS did not find what the Biden administration did something that should be stopped.

 

[ElChupacabra]

LOL. From the land of rainbows and unicorns, that a social media company would want to engage in courtroom combat with the federal government. Especially so when the financial resources are so greatly mismatched in the government's favor.

I did get a chuckle out of the financial resources comment, given the market cap of many of these companies.

Any COVID information which didn't comply declared as 'questionable'.
Yeah, OK. Sure. </sarcasm>

Well, when you had all sorts of idiocy out there then yes, "questionable". You had idiots like Joseph Mercola and Thomas Levy who claimed that inhaling a mixture a small amount of hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent getting sick. My favorite were the USB drives sold online and promoted through social media posts as a bio shield against 5G transmitted COVID 19 virus. There's all sorts of idiocy out there.

In fairness, I do think the government and social media companies were too heavy handed. Looking back, they probably should have kept the content discussing mitigation measures as part of an open debate, and focused more on keeping the absurd stuff like my examples above away from the public.

"not happy with the moderation or lack thereof" = they miss their liberal / progressive echo chamber, so they migrate and create a new one.

Not entirely, as I already pointed out. 4Chan was 4Chan for a reason, otherwise everyone would still be on it as an alternative to other social media platforms. As for echo chambers, the president-elect has his own, as do right leaning crowd. What we're seeing is the free market at work in terms of what options people choose. Those who want their feed populated with a mixed bag of content they want and bizarre nutty like 5G Bioshield ads or whatever, can now enjoy that. People who want a better signal to noise ration may opt for something else.

Recall that before Musk bought Twitter, that's exactly what it was, as liberal / progressive echo chamber, and curated to be exactly that.

Yet there were conservatives on there as well, and since most social media companies use algorithms based on the content their users choose, the curated experience is mostly based on user content preferences. I doubt our feeds on old Twitter would have looked the same if your were following Trump and Alex Jones while I was following Oprah and Whoopi Goldberg.

Again, ideologically driven declaration of being 'problematic'.

You can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make your case any stronger. The moderation actions taken by Twitter and other companies didn't target conservative posters because they were conservatives, but because they were repeating information that was problematic in the government's efforts to contain the virus. That isn't a question of ideology at all any more than it would be if I recommended putting out a fire with gasoline and you suggested water.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Part 2

No, I'm pointing out that liberals and progressives are intolerant of a social media environment which even permits posts which hold differing perspectives than theirs. They had such an echo chamber on Twitter prior to Musk, and bail out post-Musk, when it no longer is that echo chamber.

I don't think this is accurate at all. I can understand how those who hold your view might think so, but it isn't supported by the feedback many have given as to why they've left, and most of the feedback has been that the site has become far more toxic than it was even before Musk purchased Twitter. Some users have stated that the comments section is filled with trolls and spammers, and that's just not a good experience unless you don't mind that kind of thing.

It's important to note that X still dwarfs most social media platforms of its kind, and there are still plenty of liberals/progressives on there. It's simply a matter of choice, and that some are choosing not to use it anymore is what one would expect in a free market environment where companies can fill the gaps others create.

The fact check, the community notes features of Twitter now X, is what drove them off, when their drivel was challenged.
Left ideology, so strong in the marketplace of ideas it can't stand any challengers or opposition.

Ok, then it sounds like ultimately it will be a right leaning haven. Win win, yeah? What You have not mentioned is one of the big drivers in people leaving is the change in terms of service where X will use posts on the site to train Grok. That's going to be a hoot.

Which wasn't the point in the first place.

No, but that's where we are culturally, so it shouldn't be a surprise at all.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yes, attract the liberals / progressives which promptly re-instituted their liberal progressive echo chamber which they lost on X when Musk took over.

Cool, so now the MAGA/right leaning folks have X I suppose. I'm also confused about this mentioning only of left leaning echo chambers when right leaning folks did the exact same thing.

Again, we are of differing views on this.

Ok, but you're either going to speculate or go by the evidence available and what leaders of these companies have stated.

How is this 'curation' any different than a publisher who doesn't publish all the user's comments (well other than the ones they like)?
It's not.

It is very different for the reasons I've already stated. Social media companies do not produce any of the content their users post on their site, nor do they editorialize it. Curation simply means grouping similar content together to provide a favorable experience for the user based on the users and content they follow. None of that is publishing.

If you submit a book for publishing, it will be reviewed for editorial changes which can range from a few changes to many, since the publisher is on the hook for the money they spend to publish, market, and distribute the work. That is a dynamic that does not exist in social media. At most, social media companies are removing content that violates their ToS, and those are set by the company.

We have seen how this 'curation' works in the pre-Musk Twitter, just as we've seen this curation and user base move to BlueSky. Liberals / Progressives just can't be happy unless they receive a constant reaffirmation that they are right about everything and that they are better than everyone else. Anything less, they suffer from dopamine deprivation.

This is silly, especially in the face of right leaning social media sites which you don't mention and can easily fit that dynamic. There's also the problem of stating this is the only reason people are leaving, which is incorrect as well and perhaps more of your bias showing. I would think free market types would be happy to see this kind of competition.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Good leaders are great simplifiers. Pretty clear that the federal government, particularly the corrupt DC swamp bureaucracy, isn't comprised of such good leaders.
And here you are, making excuses for their not being good leaders.

That depends. Some people are just simpletons and are incapable of little more than simplifying without out understanding the complexities. I've made no excuses, so you're reaching here.

Zuck and other social media company CEOs 'We promise to do better' mantra. Skeptical, and rightfully so.

Ok.

The only real choice is to have an initial position of skepticism.

Sure, but there's a difference between healthy skepticism and the biased variety, where it applies to only one group.

 

[Gardener]

All a person needs to do is pay attention to the framing.

If a site refers to far right, but seldom, is ever, far left, you know the site is extremely biased and untrustworthy. The same would apply in the opposite direction, but you would have to look pretty hard to find it.

 

[Bullseye]

"When veteran newsmen L. Gordon Crovitz and Steven Brill started their news site rating company, they were prepared for the inevitable cries of bias from both sides. What they didn’t anticipate was that NewsGuard, their company of about 50 employees, would become the target of congressional investigations and accusations from federal regulators that it was at the vanguard of a vast conspiracy to censor conservative views.

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted. It uses a slate of nine standard criteria, such as whether a site corrects errors or discloses its ownership and financing, to produce a zero to 100 percent rating.

...But conservatives now question the company’s premise. Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, accused the company of facilitating a “censorship cartel,” in a November letter to leading tech platforms. Noting that key legal protections depend on tech executives operating “in good faith,” Carr continued: “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard.”

NewsGuard, backed by legal experts, argues that Carr’s letter may violate the First Amendment by threatening the speech rights of private companies.

“The only attempt to censor going on here is by Brendan Carr,” Crovitz said in an interview."

Gifted link

What a tangled web of repression we weave when the government, under Trump, is going after news organizations for printing what they claim are lies while attacking independent agencies that evaluate disinfirmation.

And Trump is automatically the villain. What credentials do these two have in evaluating ideologies? Who rates THEM?

 

[j brown's body]

And Trump is automatically the villain. What credentials do these two have in evaluating ideologies? Who rates THEM?

You might read the article.

 

[eohrnberger]

Sure, since it didn't follow all of the recommendations the government suggested.

Hmm. They didn't?

Of course there's also legal recourse these companies had in what would have been a pretty bad case for the government to defend. The government cannot coerce companies into acting in this manner, and any obvious indications of that would have been easy to prove and ruled in the favor of social media companies.

Not only pushing from federal agencies, also pushes from congress.

8 House Dems demand to know how social platforms are preparing to combat 'misinformation' and 'disinformation'

Eight Democratic representatives issued a letter to social media executives this week demanding clarification how their platforms will protect against "misinformation" and "disinformation" during the 2024 election.

www.foxnews.com

Democrats fume at tech companies, but legislation may be elusive

Social media companies Facebook, Google and Twitter may have done enduring damage to their credibility because of the attack on the Capitol.

rollcall.com

Interesting that the "wrath of the DOJ and any number of government bureaucrats" did not perform a colonoscopy on said social media companies when their recommendations were not acted upon.

Didn't have to. All they had to do was threaten to, and also add Congressional Democrats per the citations above.

Of course we now know that even the current SCOTUS did not find what the Biden administration did something that should be stopped.

This a reading of the SCOTUS decision favorable to the narrative you want to push. In reality it was more mixed.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies.​

​

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Suggesting that the case could be “one of the most important free speech cases to reach” the Supreme Court “in years,” Alito would have ruled both that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit and that “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” at least one plaintiff’s speech.​

​

The lawsuit centers on “jawboning,” a term used to describe informal efforts by government officials to persuade someone outside the government to take action. In this case, the plaintiffs – two states with Republican attorneys general and several individuals whose social media posts were removed or downgraded – challenged the Biden administration’s efforts in 2021 to restrict misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. They argued that the administration’s actions had violated social media users’ rights to free speech.​

​

A federal judge in Louisiana ruled for the plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty agreed that federal officials had violated the First Amendment by “coercing” or “significantly encouraging” social media platforms’ content moderation decisions. Doughty issued an order that limited the extent to which the White House and several other government agencies could communicate with social media platforms.​

Justices side with Biden over government's influence on social media content moderation

The Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a lawsuit seeking to limit the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies. By a vote of […]

www.scotusblog.com

Lack of “concrete link” doesn't denote the supportive of the White House / Executive branch actions, as you appear to be claiming.
Further, “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” at least one plaintiff’s speech", so the executive branch did coerce, at least in one instance, and probably there were more.

 

[eohrnberger]

I did get a chuckle out of the financial resources comment, given the market cap of many of these companies.

The 'market cap of many of these companies' does not equate to funds available for a legal defense against federal prosecutors and, on top of it, complying with congressional demands. You can chuckle all you want, but it a is well known used by Dems to make the process the punishment, and this would be an example of that. Other examples would be what Penny had to go through, as well as others suffering at the hands of Dems lawfare campaigns.

Well, when you had all sorts of idiocy out there then yes, "questionable". You had idiots like Joseph Mercola and Thomas Levy who claimed that inhaling a mixture a small amount of hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent getting sick. My favorite were the USB drives sold online and promoted through social media posts as a bio shield against 5G transmitted COVID 19 virus. There's all sorts of idiocy out there.

Sure. All of which falls under protected speech, which you appear to want to eliminate, provided the speech doesn't align with the left's political positions, political opinions and political ideology.

In fairness, I do think the government and social media companies were too heavy handed.

Viewpoints on this differ.

Looking back, they probably should have kept the content discussing mitigation measures as part of an open debate, and focused more on keeping the absurd stuff like my examples above away from the public.

A case for more free speech as opposed to censorship or suppression of that free speech.

Not entirely, as I already pointed out. 4Chan was 4Chan for a reason, otherwise everyone would still be on it as an alternative to other social media platforms.

4Chan is a fringe and marginalized social media platforms, as it should forever remain to be.

As for echo chambers, the president-elect has his own, as do right leaning crowd. What we're seeing is the free market at work in terms of what options people choose. Those who want their feed populated with a mixed bag of content they want and bizarre nutty like 5G Bioshield ads or whatever, can now enjoy that. People who want a better signal to noise ration may opt for something else.

It appears that you are defining 'a better signal to noise ration' (sic ratio?) as the leftist echo chamber of self affirmation and no dissent. Well, you do you.

Yet there were conservatives on there as well, and since most social media companies use algorithms based on the content their users choose, the curated experience is mostly based on user content preferences. I doubt our feeds on old Twitter would have looked the same if your were following Trump and Alex Jones while I was following Oprah and Whoopi Goldberg.

That 'curated experience is mostly based on user content preferences. ' is a non-issue.

You can keep repeating that, but it doesn't make your case any stronger.

The moderation actions taken by Twitter and other companies didn't target conservative posters because they were conservatives, but because they were repeating information that was problematic in the government's efforts to contain the virus.

This already demonstrated as a false assertion / assumption.

That isn't a question of ideology at all any more than it would be if I recommended putting out a fire with gasoline and you suggested water.

 

[eohrnberger]

Part 2


I don't think this is accurate at all. I can understand how those who hold your view might think so, but it isn't supported by the feedback many have given as to why they've left, and most of the feedback has been that the site has become far more toxic than it was even before Musk purchased Twitter.

This 'toxicity' is the mere coming across differing opinions and positions, driven by the left's need of their echo chamber receiving their constant dopamine dose with each affirmation, especially so from false, misinformation and assertions has previously cited.

Some users have stated that the comments section is filled with trolls and spammers, and that's just not a good experience unless you don't mind that kind of thing.

See above.

It's important to note that X still dwarfs most social media platforms of its kind, and there are still plenty of liberals/progressives on there. It's simply a matter of choice, and that some are choosing not to use it anymore is what one would expect in a free market environment where companies can fill the gaps others create.

I'm not against people choosing, and that they were wasn't why I raised the point, as I have posted.

Ok, then it sounds like ultimately it will be a right leaning haven. Win win, yeah? What You have not mentioned is one of the big drivers in people leaving is the change in terms of service where X will use posts on the site to train Grok. That's going to be a hoot.

Users leaving X because of Grok is a ridiculous excuse. I'll agree that it'll be interesting as to what results this will bring.

No, but that's where we are culturally, so it shouldn't be a surprise at all.

 

[eohrnberger]

Cool, so now the MAGA/right leaning folks have X I suppose. I'm also confused about this mentioning only of left leaning echo chambers when right leaning folks did the exact same thing.

Ok, but you're either going to speculate or go by the evidence available and what leaders of these companies have stated.

So now you trust what companies have stated? I guess only when politically or ideologically convenient.

It is very different for the reasons I've already stated. Social media companies do not produce any of the content their users post on their site, nor do they editorialize it. Curation simply means grouping similar content together to provide a favorable experience for the user based on the users and content they follow. None of that is publishing.

Social Media 'curation' is far more than 'grouping similar content together', it includes censorship, the shadow banned and outright banning of user's content for reasons other than cited in Section 230 of CDA. All of which the social media companies have been doing.

If you submit a book for publishing, it will be reviewed for editorial changes which can range from a few changes to many, since the publisher is on the hook for the money they spend to publish, market, and distribute the work. That is a dynamic that does not exist in social media. At most, social media companies are removing content that violates their ToS, and those are set by the company.

You are citing a publishing example in defense of social media companies' curation, censorship, shadow banning and outright banning?
Isn't this destroying your own argument?

This is silly, especially in the face of right leaning social media sites which you don't mention and can easily fit that dynamic. There's also the problem of stating this is the only reason people are leaving, which is incorrect as well and perhaps more of your bias showing. I would think free market types would be happy to see this kind of competition.

You are dropping the user population aspect again. Same as in the earlier discussion on what was, and was not, considered being part of the MSM.

 

[eohrnberger]

That depends. Some people are just simpletons and are incapable of little more than simplifying without out understanding the complexities. I've made no excuses, so you're reaching here.

Well, it appears that you've not had experience with leadership or have studied it any.

Lesson #14: Great leaders are almost always great simplifiers, who can cut through argument, debate and doubt, to offer a solution everybody can understand.​

A Leadership Primer​

General Colin Powell​

https://grow.eg.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Colin-Powell-Leadership.pdf

Ok.

Sure, but there's a difference between healthy skepticism and the biased variety, where it applies to only one group.

Assertion without evidence. I have a healthy skepticism of Republicans.