OK, Laptop was real. MSM corruption

[henrygandorf 29179]

in ~2012, facebook altered the way their timeline was presented which made it way too easy for my then-girlfriend (now wife) to track nefarious blondo-related shit that was happening in my life before we met, so the choice was easy.  i deactivated the account and never looked back.  i used facebook to communicate with friends, post pics, etc.  it is mind-bottling that people depend on it for any source of actual real-time real-world news, opinions, or general information.

i understand twitter, which functions completely differently in terms of how you choose to curate how your feed is aggregated, and i use it some (but really only started the past couple years).  facebook to me is like instagram.  i don't get news from instagram either.

bizarre the things we choose to fuss about. 

[workswithseed 2037]

11 hours ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

I'm sorry, I must've missed the part where social media companies transformed themselves into the House and Senate and passed a law restricting free speech. 

Are they a platform or are they a publisher? 

[wildcat09 29260]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Are they a platform or are they a publisher? 

 

[henrygandorf 29179]

4 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

they are deciding what is and isn't disinformation

ok, so you think they are actively making decisions on determining what constitutes disinformation.

what makes you think that?  and why do you think they started to do that?  do you think they woke up one day and started a crusade?

[David Dennison 18661]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

They weren’t quite as discerning on the Russia collusion horseshit.  Neither were all the lefty homers on this very board.  

That's because it wasn't horseshit. 

 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Legislating the behavior of a social media platform because half of America is dumb as dirt seems kinda dumb.

[David Dennison 18661]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Legislating the behavior of a social media platform because half of America is dumb as dirt seems kinda dumb.

Agreed, but the government should break it up.

[henrygandorf 29179]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Legislating the behavior of a social media platform because half of America is dumb as dirt seems kinda dumb.

it's also a trademark of american society.  we always cater to the lowest common denominator.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Agreed, but the government should break it up.

So, "Face" and "Book"?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

22 hours ago, pacman said:

Even if all of the Hunter Biden mess was true, why is it any more of a concern than the Trump family business interests prior to, and conducted during, the Trump Presidency?

Hunter's business interests are alleged, while the Trump family's are well documented. Why are you in a frenzy over one, but not the other?

When is George W. Bush going to answer for putting Hunter on the board of directors at Amtrak?

[RomaVicta 29794]

On 3/20/2022 at 2:37 AM, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

I want a debate here. So all of MSM and the dems called the laptop a Russian plant.

1. Both sentences are equally true.
2. Both sentences are equally untrue.
3. All of the above.
4. All of the the above and Passive Aggressive Coach deals in misreprensation and lies so Roma negged.

We report, you decide. Fair and balanced here in America's newsroom, tovarisch!

[RomaVicta 29794]

On 3/20/2022 at 3:17 AM, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

all the nonsense like this he was proven right on.

The nonsense was proven to be nonsense. No neg for dishonesty. No pos rep for stumbling into a convoluted way of writing something vaguely true.

[henrygandorf 29179]

10 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

The nonsense was proven to be nonsense. No neg for dishonesty. No pos rep for stumbling into a convoluted way of writing something vaguely true.

and extra negs for the constant use of the phrase "donald trump was right".

google is all, "did you mean to type donald trump was an idiot"?

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

Kind of an old article but worth reading:

Facebook and Twitter don't censor conservatives. They hire and promote them.

Republicans used a Senate hearing to complain that social media doesn't do enough for them. The problem is conservatives don't want to play by any rules

Spoiler

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testified before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday about their content moderation practices, in a hearing that Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, promoted like a boxing match; indeed, the event was a circus.

Instead of holding the tech titans accountable for their broad decisions, showing any command of how these platforms are reshaping all aspects of everyday life for Americans, or even sticking to the topic at hand, this hearing — like other Republican-led tech hearings in the Trump era — devolved into a banal session of complaining about the alleged suppression of specific conservatives and conservative posts on social media.

 

These stories of alleged suppression tend to be simply anecdotal because the facts simply don’t back up sweeping assertions. We at Media Matters have done study after study after study after study showing that conservative content on Facebook receives significantly greater engagement than other content. The New York Times’ Kevin Roose has shown that the top-performing link posts on U.S. Facebook pages are dominated by conservatives like President Donald Trump, conservative podcaster and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shapiro and Fox News contributor and conservative news aggregator Dan Bongino.

In fact, the examples that conservatives give of alleged censorship are usually just examples of individuals breaking the rules or not knowing how social media works.

 

Take the hearing's focus on the New York Post’s temporary ban from Twitter, which has become a cause célèbre in recent days in right-wing circles. Contrary to widespread belief on the right, Twitter did not take action because it disagrees with the paper’s content, but rather because an article shared by the Post’s Twitter account contained personal contact information, in violation of Twitter's explicit rules, and the company refused to remove the tweets. Twitter took similar action against Splinter News a few years back for sharing White House adviser Stephen Miller’s personal information; conservatives did not complain at the time.

Thus, those claiming censorship are just working the refs.

The thing is, though, that there is evidence many of the refs at these companies want to be worked. Executives at Alphabet, Facebook and Twitter have all reportedly cozied up to Republicans in the last four years.

Facebook in particular has a long history of caving to right-wing pressure — going back to 2016. Facebook executives have held multiple meetings with top conservatives, made Breitbart a trusted news partner and changed the Facebook algorithm to avoid cries of censorship from the right. They even went so far as to intentionally suppress news from progressive sites like Mother Jones on the Facebook news feed in order to elevate conservative sources.

The examples that conservatives give of alleged censorship are usually just examples of individuals breaking the rules.

And while conservatives claim censorship is rampant on the platform, the hard truth is that Facebook has an active Republican operative — vice president of public policy Joel Kaplan — at the center of these stories who repeatedly sided with right-wing misinformation peddlers.

 

It was Kaplan who set up the 2016 meeting between Zuckerberg and prominent right-wing media personalities like Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham in order to assuage their concerns about anti-conservative bias in Facebook’s trending topics. Facebook’s own internal report had found “no evidence of systematic political bias” in the trending topics section, yet, following the meeting, Zuckerberg mollified his right-wing critics by replacing the humans editors of the Trending Topics section with an algorithm that was much more susceptible to manipulation. Indeed, that singular change significantly contributed to intensification of the fake news crisis of 2016 and regularly resulted in increased misinformation in users' feeds.

Four years later, Kaplan continues to shape Facebook’s policies into advocacy tools for right-wing chicanery and partisan interests.

 

Kaplan made an effort to “protect” Breitbart's account from being downsized in the news feed despite its distribution of harmful misinformation. Kaplan reportedly defended keeping up a network of fake news pages because removing them would “disproportionately affect conservatives.” Kaplan also reportedly defended basing Facebook’s algorithm on “super-sharers” — who are mostly extremely partisan — instead of regular Facebook users. And Kaplan shut down efforts to address polarization and extremism on the platform.

In his spare time, Kaplan remains a Republican operative; most infamously, he helped shepherd through Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination through the Senate.

But before working at Facebook, and even before working in George W. Bush’s White House, Kaplan was infamous for his participation in the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot during the aftermath of the 2000 election. That was when Kaplan, current American Conservative Union chairman Matt Schlapp, veteran GOP strategist Rory Cooper and other Republican operatives posed as normal Floridians and interrupted the ongoing Florida recount effort.

 

That the key decision-maker at Facebook for election-related matters once engaged in a partisan effort to literally stop votes from being counted in order to affect the outcome of an election should alarm everyone both inside and outside of Facebook. Kaplan is a virtually unchecked key figure for these matters at the company as we head into an election in which the integrity of the outcome will be under assault

We all recognize the risks to the integrity of our election that Facebook’s lack of action toward misinformation could pose. But few want to discuss the reality that Facebook’s facilitation of extremism and right-wing misinformation is much more a feature than a bug.

It’s long past time we have an honest and adult conversation about the roles of these big technology companies in our lives. That can’t happen when senators are focused on mean tweets — or when the companies hire partisan, dishonest operatives and give them a leading voice in the dissemination of news.

Yes, Joel Kaplan is still a VP of content moderation at "Meta."

[TexasEd 8064]

13 hours ago, Zepol87 said:

I have a few dumbass coworkers who hate Hunter Biden, pelosi, and Hillary. What caused this fascinatiion? I mean fucking hate also not just oh Trump is a dumbass and needs his ass kicked. They would cheer death 

Because their "news" sources don't really broadcast news, but they message with the intent of invoking anger and fear (the easiest way to manipulate people is through fear and anger).  The thing is that at first they did it only to get viewers so they could monetize fear/anger through ratings and ad dollars.  More recently it seems as if they are all in on believing the shit they spew.

Edited March 21, 2022 by TexasEd

[hobbes2702 12847]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

They weren’t quite as discerning on the Russia collusion horseshit.  Neither were all the lefty homers on this very board.  

Trumps campaign colluded with Russia. It’s not up for debate. How are you still not getting this?

[TexasEd 8064]

11 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Over much opposition from the people like me of their day.

Yeah, I am sure that was the goal of the heroic Jewish lawyers in the ACLU whose legacy you are now spitting on.

Look, Trump took a dookie on press freedoms and relations with the executive and in some instances the mass media has overreacted, and allowed social media to become their enforcement arm. What this does is just funnel the information you do get to see through tinier and tinier apertures. Do we really trust them to treat critical stories about them fairly on their feeds, or can they just not, if not mute, but turn down the volume on them? Like it or not, they shape the news now. 

You obviously do your own research (Did I use that correctly?).  So you can tell us all about the pizza parlors, lizard people, and JFK Jr. too.  I don't know why you are making such a big deal of this when you are part of the exclusive club with all the insights.  You can just go read the latest from Q!

Follow ole Flynn and the pillow guy around.  They won't steer you wrong.

[Nivek 16861]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

They weren’t quite as discerning on the Russia collusion horseshit.  Neither were all the lefty homers on this very board.  

more lies from Johnny Sack how typical.   

[Beau Vine 54004]

2 hours ago, immamac said:

This just isn't true. I did that 1 time because someone admitted in a thread to literally history stalking the person which is not what crowdsourcing is there for. It's there for multiple people negging and the situation being automatically handled. Use the ignore function and stop accusing me of stupid shit like this.

That's complete bullshit.  I did not admit to history stalking him, because I absolutely did not history stalk him.  I just negged every new post he made, because he's a fucking troll.  And you lined up behind the troll and supported him.  

[TwiceHorn 31283]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

They weren’t quite as discerning on the Russia collusion horseshit.  Neither were all the lefty homers on this very board.  

Actually, I think that's fair.  Which is not to say that the "Russian collusion" is horseshit.  

In the early going of the Trump administration, I think people, including the media, were a bit extra credulous about Trump.

Which, like this scenario, isn't quite redeemed by the fact that Trump proved to be an even bigger shitheel than was originally believed.

[immamac 42521]

1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

That's complete bullshit.  I did not admit to history stalking him, because I absolutely did not history stalk him.  I just negged every new post he made, because he's a fucking troll.  And you lined up behind the troll and supported him.  

I'm tired of you fucking titty babies crying about internet points. Use the ignore function and stop being such a fucking idiot. 

[jimmyjazz 45560]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm tired of you fucking titty babies crying about internet points. Use the ignore function and stop being such a fucking idiot. 

It's your call, but this is a really fucking stupid battle for you to fight. 

[Beau Vine 54004]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm tired of you fucking titty babies crying about internet points. Use the ignore function and stop being such a fucking idiot. 

[Sbbruin 21738]

12 hours ago, SaucyJack said:

Having been around high level govt action for 35 years, I can honestly say that Hunter Biden is the only relative of an elected/govt official I can remember using the family name/connections for personal gain/employment.

Oh, and I've never seen it in the business world.

 

 

 

username and wutnot.

[Captainant 27467]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm tired of you fucking titty babies crying about internet points. Use the ignore function and stop being such a fucking idiot. 

PAC is obviously trolling with this thread, and is apparent in his general posting pattern. He drive bys hot takes, refuses to actually engage on the issue and examine the sources he relies on, and then leaves the discourse derailed.

If he's on ignore, he's still derailing threads. You just don't want to take a moderation step and would rather we all ignore the poster covered in shit.

Unless you don't think what PAC does here in the CR counts as trolling?

[Bullneck 18987]

12 hours ago, aggie08 said:

Odd that you're unaware of the first five words then.

Congress shall make no law

[immamac 42521]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

PAC is obviously trolling with this thread, and is apparent in his general posting pattern. He drive bys hot takes, refuses to actually engage on the issue and examine the sources he relies on, and then leaves the discourse derailed.

If he's on ignore, he's still derailing threads. You just don't want to take a moderation step and would rather we all ignore the poster covered in shit.

Unless you don't think what PAC does here in the CR counts as trolling?

I think you discount how fucking stupid people are. He's not trolling he's just a complete fucking moron who believes crazy shit. 

Who are all these people who troll constantly that aren't getting banned? I'd love a list. 

[hobbes2702 12847]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

I think you discount how fucking stupid people are. He's not trolling he's just a complete fucking moron who believes crazy shit. 

Who are all these people who troll constantly that aren't getting banned? I'd love a list. 

Weird hill and what not. It’s your site though.

[immamac 42521]

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

Weird hill and what not. It’s your site though.

I fucking hate these guys as much as you, but just banning people for being idiots is way worse for the community than just putting the idiots on ignore. 

[elfenix 34172]

you actually banned immortal and he came right back and is posting again.  that is odd, to me.  i get letting the crowd sourced come back over and over again.  i don't get letting people you banned come back.  or even ones on vacation just hopping on their socks and posting again.

Edited March 21, 2022 by elfenix

[hobbes2702 12847]

Just now, immamac said:

I fucking hate these guys as much as you, but just banning people for being idiots is way worse for the community than just putting the idiots on ignore. 

I tend to agree but I think this one has shown plenty of evidence that he’s not just a normal sack level idiot. I mean the thread he started for debate is now 6 pages and he hasn’t posted. He shit in the pool and is watching everyone swim in it. I personally don’t really care that much because it’s the internet and trolls will always exist. I just don’t see the reason for pretending he isn’t trolling.

[immamac 42521]

5 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I tend to agree but I think this one has shown plenty of evidence that he’s not just a normal sack level idiot. I mean the thread he started for debate is now 6 pages and he hasn’t posted. He shit in the pool and is watching everyone swim in it. I personally don’t really care that much because it’s the internet and trolls will always exist. I just don’t see the reason for pretending he isn’t trolling.

Do you know how much time I don't have to babysit the 500 ways around an IP ban and then weaponizing people to create a whole bunch of accounts? 

You can just ignore these people and poof, they go away because there is nothing fun for them. Instead we get threads like this manufacturing problems that don't exist if already have solutions. 

[Beau Vine 54004]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

I fucking hate these guys as much as you, but just banning people for being idiots is way worse for the community than just putting the idiots on ignore. 

You know what's even worse for the community?  Having a moderator who protects these idiots.  

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

42 minutes ago, Nivek said:

more lies from Johnny Sack how typical.   

You don’t have him on ignore? 

[VRHorn 718]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

I fucking hate these guys as much as you, but just banning people for being idiots is way worse for the community than just putting the idiots on ignore. 

To me, it's different if you ban them vs. the community banning them. Turkey/Donkey/etc. organically failed just as he has 5 or so other times and you stepped in to prop him up. If rep exists, the consequences of being banned need to be adhered to in order for the community to have a voice.

To answer another question, Turkey and Immaculate Vibes (also on his 4th or 5th user) should unquestionably be allowed to fail and if you believe PAC is not a troll and just an idiot, I probably can't convince you.

[Nivek 16861]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

They have acquired too much power to fast over a vital sector they have no business making editorial decisions in whatsoever. 

 

Tl;dr: It's hard as fuck to get the truth out there as it is, and we don't need a whole new tier of untrained editors squelching what does get out.

 

(BOLD) This is absolutely true in a perfect world where people are not trying to spread disinformation or not tell the truth.   Since we don't live in Fantasy Land this is not practical in any means.   When Facebook did not make editorial decisions about the content, a genocidal event occurred in Myramar.    This actually happened as Facebook did not have programmers that understood that language and so it was not reviewed in any capacity.   Facebook for all of their fuckery, is a company that has greed on their mind first and foremost, but they did not want their platform used to spread hate and to incite murder and slaughter.

It is not hard to get the truth out there.  It is more difficult to discuss nuance on a platform which includes disingenuous people or people who refuse to engage honestly.   Look at the basketball forum, the level of hyperbole is normalized.  If you disagree with me that a 40 to 9 fouls is not telling about the fuckery of the officials then you know nothing about basketball (last night this was posted).    This entire thread was someone perpetuating a series of lies including the laughable mainstream media conspiracy, but pretends one of the most popular propaganda networks is not part of the media.   See any global warming discussion for more examples.  The scientists who work in the field often just don't care to engage people who are "PhDs in life."  They don't care to engage them, because those types are not reasonable and lack any real education in the subject matter.  They point to a sensor located near an exhaust port and then assume everything is the same or have zero understanding of how outliers are accounted for.    Because they are dishonest at their corp they assume everyone else is.     

[Neonmoon 38127]

1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

I guess what I am arguing for is there needs to be a check to balance them, a board of journalistic pros who advises them on who to mute and deplatform and who not to. Or at the very least they need an Ombudsman to explain why they are treating Mother Jones like a hate group. Or why they have decided its okay to wish death on Russian soldiers. (This came a week after I was suspended three days for saying Russians were weird.)

Are you suggesting the government regulate a private business?

[Nivek 16861]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You don’t have him on ignore? 

I kind of like to bully him and watch him run away.  It is funny to me to watch a lawyer fail to out lawyer a geologist.  

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11668]

11 minutes ago, Nivek said:

they are dishonest at their corp

an aggy never lies, cheats or steals, nor tolerates those that do

[Irwin F Fletcher 3550]

37 minutes ago, immamac said:

I think you discount how fucking stupid people are. He's not trolling he's just a complete fucking moron who believes crazy shit. 

Well then, can you send him an DM saying you contacted Facebook and resolved his issues? 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Irwin F Fletcher

[Beau Vine 54004]

18 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Are you suggesting the government regulate a private business?

Sounds like someone has his eyes on the Texas governor's office, amirite?

[WhatTheBuck 28713]

16 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I kind of like to bully him and watch him run away.  It is funny to me to watch a lawyer fail to out lawyer a geologist.  

That’s not what’s happening. How has he run away? You’re feeding a troll and making him come back for more. It’s like putting out food for a stray cat and expecting them to leave you alone. 

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Are you suggesting the government regulate a private business?

Or that they become public utilities or get broken up.

 Uncharted waters. While we've been in gradual decline for decades, social media has accelerated it exponentially. Drastic solutions could very well be required. 

 

 

[workswithseed 2037]

54 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Or that they become public utilities or get broken up.

 Uncharted waters. While we've been in gradual decline for decades, social media has accelerated it exponentially. Drastic solutions could very well be required. 

 

 

This sounds like a bunch of section 230 quibble.

[henrygandorf 29179]

43 minutes ago, Nivek said:

(BOLD) This is absolutely true in a perfect world where people are not trying to spread disinformation or not tell the truth.   Since we don't live in Fantasy Land this is not practical in any means.

ding. 

this is the answer to the question i have asked, twice. 

social media platforms have been manipulated and abused for a specific purpose, and now they’re choosing to do something about it. 

sounds like a reasonable business decision.  that a business would make. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

I see this thread is exactly the shitfest I would have expected from the OP/subject line

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

I'm tired of you fucking titty babies crying about internet points. Use the ignore function and stop being such a fucking idiot. 

Stop censoring us!

[jimmyjazz 45560]

On 3/20/2022 at 2:37 AM, Passive Aggressive Coach said:

I want a debate here.

Not a troll, for sure.

[MaybeACoordinator 8349]

22 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

ding. 

this is the answer to the question i have asked, twice. 

social media platforms have been manipulated and abused for a specific purpose, and now they’re choosing to do something about it. 

sounds like a reasonable business decision.  that a business would make. 

Yeah and their track record of business decisions has been flawless so far, so we can expect even more wise decisions.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6555]

14 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Stop censoring us!

Seems like cancel culture to me.