-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Duluth What did Gab do? I missed that entirely so was surprised to see Parler outdoing them. I remember they got a lot of bad press since a mass shooter was on the platform but those same articles didn't mention the shooters facebook/twitter and other mass shooter social media accounts.
I followed them on Twitter and they were very political with their posts, while at the same time claiming to be a neutral platform for "free speech". To me, it seemed like they were exactly what they criticised Twitter for but a far right wing version. That may not be true but that's true impression I got I.E poor marketing.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Crucial I'd never heard of the term fake news until Donald Trump. Fake news is just news that he doesn't like
TBF it does exist.
To start with there were social media type posts masquerading as journalism that influenced people despite having no fact checking or credibility. Then, as position entrenchment has happened more and more there are blogs pretending to be fact and MSM using 'Opinion' type articles (like rugby and Ratpoo) to push views. These are often easily spotted by the use of hyperbole and logic jumps.
Yes, 'they' made a bed and have to lie in it but one sure way to kill of real journalism (which we need as a fourth estate) is to pounce on every error and shout 'Fake!' or worse still to call everything that you don't agree with 'Fake'.
All Trump has done with the "Fake News" quip is summarise the malaise.
Really? He calls almost everything he doesn’t like fake and praises those that promote him with half truths.
I understand what you are saying about the malaise though.
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
A partial exodus from platforms is much more preferable to the government intervention that Trump supporters have been asking for
I think government intervention and regulation of Social Media and the MSM of some sort is inevitable.
The dangers to effective government of social media censoring debate and newspapers and TV effectively pushing conspiracy theories is just too great for legislators to ignore.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Really? He calls almost everything he doesn’t like fake and praises those that promote him with half truths.
Because his opponents and the media have spent 4+ years playing his game and proving him right. They really are that dumb.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
I think government intervention and regulation of Social Media and the MSM of some sort is inevitable.
The dangers to effective government of social media censoring debate and newspapers and TV effectively pushing conspiracy theories is just too great for legislators to ignore.
Govt intervention would not stop censorship or promoting of falsehoods. It will just formalise it and centralise power.
Ultimately this will benefit the left because the bulk of bureaucrats lean that way and they will make the subjective decisions. The others who will benefit will be the current shareholders as competition will become more difficult (regulatory capture and the increased barrier to entry of having a team of lawyers navigate through regulation)
People leaving platforms is the solution. If there winds up being a left wing twitter, right wing twitter, who gives a shit about politics twitter... that fracturing is not a bad outcome.
I suspect it’s moot anyway because the politicians won’t be able to keep up with the technology changes that are coming.
-
I take your points but wasn't really talking about government control or policing of the media - more about putting basic journalistic standards in place and regulating those standards with some sort of independent regulator. Aim wouldn't be to ensure impartiality, but basic stuff like fact checking and not deliberately deceiving reader/viewers. As ever, putting this in place would be a tricky balancing act.
While people leaving SM platforms is fine, I do wonder if the current ones are so big that entry costs for say, a new Twitter would be too high.
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Marketing issues not technical ones
They picked a frog logo as the media was discovering pepe. The also got involved in a few 4chan jokes. It was poor tactics that made demonising them easier
I doubt even 4chan thought their hoaxes would have been taken so seriously. The moron brigade still bang on about the ok symbol and a green cartoon frog as being the new swastika. Was milk being white supremacist another joke of theirs? Had this sent to me today:
Jesus Fucking Christ
They'll be banning skiing next
-
Yes, noble intentions but the execution is what matters. The history of the US govt interventions in various media is enough for me to think it's a terrible idea.
Also it's worth noting the only proposal that seems to be under serious consideration is repealing section 230. That would have a massive negative impact on the right (I mean that in the broadest sense, not just Trumpers). I hope all the noise around that is just bluster, otherwise politicians are stupider than I thought.
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
While people leaving SM platforms is fine, I do wonder if the current ones are so big that entry costs for say, a new Twitter would be too high.
Twitter is the most under threat. The technology doesn't seem like too much of a barrier (gab was fine and Parler seems to be an improvement, I have accounts on both)
What Parler needs for success is a critical mass of users. Currently it is still fringe
The cost of leaving twitter is minimal because it's about current conversations. Compare that to facebook where the content is more about creating an archive as well as having conversations. It's harder to leave.
Is twitter well run? Are a large number of users unhappy? Is there a capable alternative? I think the potential for a significant exodus is there
The next most vulnerable is reddit
I've been pleasantly surprised by the way the conversation has changed on various platforms in the last few months.
It's been less about asking the govt for help and much more "how do we fix this ourselves" -
What's the Fern's view on the contention Biden is in a state of cognitive decline that would seriously affect his ability to be President?
I have noticed him slurring his words a lot.
Phasing out and forgetting what he was going to say.
Forgetting simple things.
Something seems up with him.I also notice he seems to be hiding away. Not putting himself out there except in highly controlled settings with friendly press. Even then, he does not make a convincing impression.
What's the plan here when Trump really starts to target him? -
@antipodean
The Presidential cycle is far more than 3 debates.
It's a daily onslaught. -
Time to re-establish mandatory retirement and extend it to the presidency?
-
Dem convention is 20th of August
I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Dem convention is 20th of August
I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact
Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
Or another reason? -
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Frank Biden will be well rested before any debate and well prepared for speaking points.
Either way it rolls, it will be an advertisement for further Constitutional amendment.
There's also the fact that the debates and other appearances on commercial TV in the US really only require three word slogans and indirect, generalised, scripted responses.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Dem convention is 20th of August
I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact
Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
Or another reason?Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments
Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad
Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Dem convention is 20th of August
I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact
Do you suspect he won't be the nominees because you think the Dems themselves believe is indeed in a state of serious decline and it will be too obvious to voters?
Or another reason?Dems are talking about it. His own campaign is clearly limiting his unscripted moments
Rasmussen polls are dodgy as fuck but 20% of Dem voters said they think he has dementia. If the real number is half that, it’s still pretty bad
Maybe he is fine. The perception is what matters
Who do they replace him with? The reason they've largely ignored the primary results and gone with him is due to the (probably misguided) belief that he has the best chance against Trump.
US Politics