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

[eohrnberger]

The right wants nothing to contest their right wing propaganda.

Brainwashing the poorly educated is what keeps the republicans in power.

All this is just pure projection, considering how believed the Dem's MSM propaganda is around here.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yeah, I suspect so, and this is the concern then. Without any deterrence, it is likely that we can expect only more of the same.

Yeah, and Musk's use of X as his political platform confirms it. My guess is social media will go the same road as broadcast media has, which is just a reflection of where our society is.

I'm not thinking that this is a good analogy here, considering that physical businesses are much different than social media.

Yes and no. The concept as it relates to what someone can say in the "place of business" is the same though.

From what I recall it was not a clear cut as what you appear to be trying to make it.

Yes, and because what the social media companies were flagging and taking action against was specific types of content. The government was also flagging content and users, but it was driven on the type of content. This is why there wasn't a purge of all conservative posters on these sites, just those who were posting the flagged content.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yeah, and Musk's use of X as his political platform confirms it. My guess is social media will go the same road as broadcast media has, which is just a reflection of where our society is.

Social media isn't going to do what broadcast media, i.e. the Dem's MSM propagandists, which is destroy their own credibility by their obvious and overt partisan bias.

Yes and no. The concept as it relates to what someone can say in the "place of business" is the same though.

Sorry, meant to say 'not a good analogy'.

Yes, and because what the social media companies were flagging and taking action against was specific types of content. The government was also flagging content and users, but it was driven on the type of content. This is why there wasn't a purge of all conservative posters on these sites, just those who were posting the flagged content.

From what I recall it was both type of content and specific users, and frankly, as I've posted before, neither should come under direct government censorship, nor indirect government censorship via State Actors.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Social media isn't going to do what broadcast media, i.e. the Dem's MSM propagandists, which is destroy their own credibility by their obvious and overt partisan bias.

One can argue Musk did just that given his use of X for his own political interests. His silencing of political dissent of his users in other countries at the request of the government helps in that argument too.

From what I recall it was both type of content and specific users, and frankly, as I've posted before, neither should come under direct government censorship, nor indirect government censorship via State Actors.

Sure, but the specific users were identified because of the content they were posting. That they happened to be conservatives doesn't validate the idea they were targeted because they were conservatives. As for what the government can or can't do in this regard, SCOTUS has already adjudicated.

 

[eohrnberger]

One can argue Musk did just that given his use of X for his own political interests. His silencing of political dissent of his users in other countries at the request of the government helps in that argument too.


Sure, but the specific users were identified because of the content they were posting. That they happened to be conservatives doesn't validate the idea they were targeted because they were conservatives. As for what the government can or can't do in this regard, SCOTUS has already adjudicated.

I don't believe that this was ever clearly determined, but apparently you do believe so. Oh well.

Frankly, and highly likely, Dorsey had legions of San Francisco leftists working in the San Francisco Twitter headquarters reviewing posts and banning what offended them.
This was the staff which Musk subsequently fired.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I don't believe that this was ever clearly determined, but apparently you do believe so. Oh well.

It's not so much a question of belief, but what was evidenced in Twitter itself. Many conservative posters were not banned and continued to post on the platform.

Frankly, and highly likely, Dorsey had legions of San Francisco leftists working in the San Francisco Twitter headquarters reviewing posts and banning what offended them.

No evidence of that at all, and doesn't seem likely given their inability to scale moderation.

This was the staff which Musk subsequently fired.

Musk let go of people there for different reasons, so your assertion remains just that.

 

[eohrnberger]

It's not so much a question of belief, but what was evidenced in Twitter itself. Many conservative posters were not banned and continued to post on the platform.

There were also liberal content far more offensive than conservative content which wasn't censored, shadow banned or banned outright.

There is no agreement on this point, as you've stated it.

No evidence of that at all, and doesn't seem likely given their inability to scale moderation.

LOL. Seems to have scaled well enough to censor content they didn't like.

Musk let go of people there for different reasons, so your assertion remains just that.

Oh please. Now you are just insulting my intelligence.

 

[ElChupacabra]

There were also liberal content far more offensive than conservative content which wasn't censored, shadow banned or banned outright.

There is no agreement on this point, as you've stated it.

What specifically are you referring to?

LOL. Seems to have scaled well enough to censor content they didn't like.

Not so much since that content was still circulated on these sites.

Oh please. Now you are just insulting my intelligence.

No, I'm exposing your speculative reason for why he let go of those people. There were several reasons he gave for the layoffs, with most of them centering on removing content moderation, and not for the specific reasons you're positing.

 

[eohrnberger]

What specifically are you referring to?

Do you not recall the scourge of 'cancel culture'?
Yes, that. That 'culture' had also manifested itself on social media, Twitter and Facebook, at the time.
I recall the controversy at the time, as well as a number of instances.

Not so much since that content was still circulated on these sites.

Unless and until there's some sort of 'official count' of how many social media posts were censored and for what set of reasons, this back and forth over this particular issue isn't going to be resolved one way or another.

No, I'm exposing your speculative reason for why he let go of those people. There were several reasons he gave for the layoffs, with most of them centering on removing content moderation, and not for the specific reasons you're positing.

Fine. Whatever. A minor side point anyway.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Do you not recall the scourge of 'cancel culture'?
Yes, that. That 'culture' had also manifested itself on social media, Twitter and Facebook, at the time.
I recall the controversy at the time, as well as a number of instances.

Can you point to an instance where cancel culture led to the banning of a poster? I don't recall any.

Unless and until there's some sort of 'official count' of how many social media posts were censored and for what set of reasons, this back and forth over this particular issue isn't going to be resolved one way or another.

No official count's really needed though, because we already know COVID/election fraud posts were still surfacing on the platform, so it's clear these companies had limitations in how much they could block.