-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew seems like a very unlikely and specific example but I would probably subscribe to a something else
Isn't what I described pretty much what happened to Parler after the Capitol hoo-ha?
I just think we have to take responsibility for being informed, demanding "someone" else provides me with what I consider a balanced array of information seems to be asking for trouble
Wholeheartedly agree on taking responsibility and being informed . But there seems to be a threat to being able to do just that.
-
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
Why should they have to?
Why should one company - or a cartel - have the power to tell journalists,whose views they don't like, where and how they should publish?
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
Why should they have to?
Why should one company - or a cartel - have the power to tell journalists,whose views they don't like, where and how they should publish?
why shouldn't they? is that something we feel is an entitlement now? I expect all information to be presented to me with little or no effort on my part
if its important, go looking for it...if its not there investigate yourself, at each point if the effort to do those things outweighs the benefit you'll get then you have the value of that information
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew is there not, are there not a plethora of both left an right out there "publishing" on their own websites that people could go too if they don't like the info the facebook algorithm presents them?
Why should they have to?
Why should one company - or a cartel - have the power to tell journalists,whose views they don't like, where and how they should publish?
why shouldn't they?
Seriously? You're comfortable with the idea of a handful of powerful people deciding which information and news is easily accessible or not?
is that something we feel is an entitlement now? I expect all information to be presented to me with little or no effort on my part
Pretty much. Isn't that why society values a free press with a high degree of plurality and invests in technology and education to deliver and make use of/assess that easily accessible information?
if its important, go looking for it...if its not there investigate yourself, at each point if the effort to do those things outweighs the benefit you'll get then you have the value of that information
But only if you know that information is out there, where to look for it and you can get it?
-
@Victor-Meldrew ….if you know what info is out there then why would you need to go look for it? I always considered journalism going and asking questions not knowing what the answer would be
i wrote i bigger reply but really think it will probably just keep this going and im getting tired, you seem determined to think Facebook and twitter have an obligation to provide you with info you consider unbias, i disagree, i would be happy if they did...but i dont think they are beholden too, so I don't think we need to keep going round in circles
-
It'd be a shame to lose our freedoms through democracy because some people didn't want to believe Hunter Biden forgot where he left his laptop. Those pesky meddling Russians! 😄
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
Thomas Jefferson
Information is the currency of democracy.
Thomas Jefferson
-
@Kiwiwomble You do know, don’t you, that an actual newspaper (the New York Post) did in fact investigate the Hunter Biden story, and as a result printed and posted it as a news story only for Twitter and Facebook to start deleting any posts that mentioned it? IIRC correctly Twitter suspended the editor’s account for spreading misinformation. Whether we like it or not Facebook and Twitter are exercising editorial discretion over what their users can see.
As for alternative channels, if you don’t already know what views or channels are out there you are dependent on search engines to present you with options. Can you trust Google to do that with a range of options if you know they are an organisation that unilaterally decided to ban Parler?
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
It'd be a shame to lose our freedoms through democracy because some people didn't want to believe Hunter Biden forgot where he left his laptop. Those pesky meddling Russians! 😄
Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.
Thomas Jefferson
Information is the currency of democracy.
Thomas Jefferson
Who is the “our” in that buddy? The USA has (at least theoretical) press freedom but what about us in NZ? We have a very good reputation for having a free press but I wonder how easy it would be for a government to change that through simple regulation.
@Godder ?
-
@JC said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble You do know, don’t you, that an actual newspaper (the New York Post) did in fact investigate the Hunter Biden story, and as a result printed and posted it as a news story only for Twitter and Facebook to start deleting any posts that mentioned it? IIRC correctly Twitter suspended the editor’s account for spreading misinformation. Whether we like it or not Facebook and Twitter are exercising editorial discretion over what their users can see.
As for alternative channels, if you don’t already know what views or channels are out there you are dependent on search engines to present you with options. Can you trust Google to do that with a range of options if you know they are an organisation that unilaterally decided to ban Parler?
That kind of proves my point, actual journalists are going out and investigating...go and read those papers rather than wait for Facebook to tell you what to read
I’m not saying Facebook etc are good, far from it...but we know theyre bad...so why are we expecting them not to be
How did we use to find out stuff, we talked to people, I’ve leant loads just to talk to different people on here let alone out in the real world
I use social media but stopped relying on years ago just because the noticeable algorithm changes from friends lists firsts too “news” sources
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble You do know, don’t you, that an actual newspaper (the New York Post) did in fact investigate the Hunter Biden story, and as a result printed and posted it as a news story only for Twitter and Facebook to start deleting any posts that mentioned it? IIRC correctly Twitter suspended the editor’s account for spreading misinformation. Whether we like it or not Facebook and Twitter are exercising editorial discretion over what their users can see.
As for alternative channels, if you don’t already know what views or channels are out there you are dependent on search engines to present you with options. Can you trust Google to do that with a range of options if you know they are an organisation that unilaterally decided to ban Parler?
That kind of proves my point, actual journalists are going out and investigating...go and read those papers rather than wait for Facebook to tell you what to read
I think you're confusing journalism and control of distribution/media which makes journalism possible. And Facebook isn't telling us what to read - quite the opposite.
Facebook, Twitter and Google were deleting allegations about Asian grooming gangs for 2-3 years before the story was broken by The Times. Even then, they looked to suspend newspapers accounts as they decided the story was "Islamaphobic". When the odious Nick Griffin reported the allegations on his website - that was shut down. The tech companies controlled by a handful of people - not the legal system - decided Child sex abuse was less important than "Islamaphobia". This isn't a US politics example but a good example of what you appear to be arguing for.
Your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that hiding organised child sex abuse is nothing to worry about as a) the public should have been able to find this information out by penetrating the conspiracy themselves and b) if news sources and those investigating the child abuse scandal found themselves unable to publish effectively, they should set up their own Facebook, Twitter or, in the case of Griffin, develop their own internet..
I’m not saying Facebook etc are good, far from it...but we know theyre bad...so why are we expecting them not to be
Because they have a huge impact on media plurality, a free press and an unregulated ability to supress free speech, decide what is fake news or not, and control dissemination of information?
How did we use to find out stuff,
But this is now. The real world has changed and the reality is different. No point in managing what was.
I use social media but stopped relying on years ago just because the noticeable algorithm changes from friends lists firsts too “news” sources
Perhaps a lot of people don't take your approach. As I mentioned before, It's in a democracy's interest to ensure everyone has access to the widest range of views possible and the tools to make up their own minds.
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
This Presidency is not going to end well.
I think this is a good step. This allows more men to compete for medals.
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
This Presidency is not going to end well.
I think this is a good step. This allows more men to compete for medals.
Well, it worked for East Germany.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Just goes to show, this is not a new issue
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble You do know, don’t you, that an actual newspaper (the New York Post) did in fact investigate the Hunter Biden story, and as a result printed and posted it as a news story only for Twitter and Facebook to start deleting any posts that mentioned it? IIRC correctly Twitter suspended the editor’s account for spreading misinformation. Whether we like it or not Facebook and Twitter are exercising editorial discretion over what their users can see.
As for alternative channels, if you don’t already know what views or channels are out there you are dependent on search engines to present you with options. Can you trust Google to do that with a range of options if you know they are an organisation that unilaterally decided to ban Parler?
That kind of proves my point, actual journalists are going out and investigating...go and read those papers rather than wait for Facebook to tell you what to read
I’m not saying Facebook etc are good, far from it...but we know theyre bad...so why are we expecting them not to be
How did we use to find out stuff, we talked to people, I’ve leant loads just to talk to different people on here let alone out in the real world
I use social media but stopped relying on years ago just because the noticeable algorithm changes from friends lists firsts too “news” sources
I don’t even have accounts with any of the social media platforms, my attitude is very much like yours. But I have to accept that for a majority of people Facebook and Twitter are how news makes it’s way to them.
To make matters worse traditional media are rapidly becoming non-viable due in large part to the transfer of advertising revenues to the tech companies. Facebook is literally killing off newspapers at the same time as it is replacing them with news streams that it demonstrably is prepared to censor.
And indeed we have all seen how the remaining news outlets use Twitter and Facebook (and others) as the source of and validation of news “stories”. They’re participating in their own journey to irrelevance and eventual demise. Social media have turned traditional news organisations into Ouroboroi.
Meanwhile while we debate on a sports forum the relevance of social media as news sources, it’s pretty clear that the people who make our laws have moved on well past that. For them the question is settled: they obviously monitor Twitter in particular and give it weight in what they respond to. If our lawmakers believe Twitter represents what we all think and start incorporating that into laws, then we need to care about what they are seeing on it and how Twitter regulates that content.
-
As long as the First Amendment includes freedom of the press, there is very limited regulation available in the USA context. Freedom of the press includes from censorship by government (obviously) but it also includes freedom from interference in editorial decisions such as what is or isn't news.
Freedom of the press doesn't extend to freedom from regulation of commerce (since they are both in the constitution), but regulating commerce is more about antitrust laws around monopolies and the like than content.
Under Teddy Roosevelt, breaking up monopolies and oligopolies using antitrust legislation was a major government activity, and various laws maintaining that included media to avoid media companies getting so big that they would be able to influence and/or control elections, but extensive lobbying by Murdoch and co and various Supreme Court cases in the past 40 years has really watered that down in the media context.
Consequently, even if Congress decided it was desirable to heavily regulate online aggregator algorithms (unlikely but they might manage to reach an agreement on it), it's entirely possible that the courts would throw it out as government interference in the freedom of the press since it involves regulating editorial decisions, and the recent trajectory of the courts in this area is not one of allowing regulation.
US Politics