Media Bias

[Tero]

Gray man bad!

[Brian Peacock]

Meh. The point here is to cast anyone who questions the claims as rampant lefties and useful idiots for corporate communism. In a sensible discussion we might want to talk about the amazing amount of wealth and power concentrated in the hands of a few multi-billionaires like Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk and Murdoch, and whether that's good for us, our societies and our democracies. But instead, it seems, we have to be divided into good guys and bad guys and then let people who are clearly emotionally over-invested in that divisive project define who qualifies for what team.

Twitter, Meta, Amazon, Uber and the like aren't shit because some lefties on the board have been oppressing snake oil peddlers and idiots with overactive imaginations and a predisposition for violence, they're shit because they have an amazing amount of power, access to massive amounts of data, phenomenal amounts of capital, and a pathological drive to increase their influence and revenue at any cost - even at the cost of fragmenting the societies from which they draw their wealth and bankrupting the democracies which secure their contracts and property. In other words, everything Cunt and his fellow travellers complain about is basically true - the system is rigged against them, but it's not rigged in favour of the left, it's rigged in favour of billionaires and corporations and the political actors they patronise. Which is just to say that it's basically rigged against everybody, lefties and righties alike. The main difference between the left and the right is that righties believe the right kind of billionaire will make everything great again, whereas the left believe that the main problem is thinking that any billionaire truly has the best interests of ordinary people at heart.

That would sound reasonable, but for the uneven moderation favouring one political side over the other.

Meh. That non sequitur sounds like an excuse to change the subject to me.

Which is a reflection of Roth, and his ideologies....

Thought so.

[Cunt]

Nice that you are on a first-name basis with that wealthy shit-poster, but his 'hinting' is based on lies. I know that you really despise fact-checking. Too bad.

It isn't that I despise fact-checking, it's that I don't trust people or orgs just because they say they are fact-checkers.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

Oh, and are you SURE the NIH didn't fund gain of function research? Does that surety get affected by interested parties redefining the phrase?

By the way, Elon (yes, we are on a first-name basis) posted this recently. He has access to the documents you don't, so maybe he's on to something...

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1607989683077758977

Almost no one seems to realize that the head of bioethics at NIH – the person who is supposed to make sure that Fauci behaves ethically – is his wife

Or maybe he was being REALLY ETHICAL, even his wife thinks so!

I don't like that he suggested Tony's wife was anything less than great at her job, so Mr. Musk it is, now. What a prick.

Anyway, he also posted...

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1607992817896525826

“Gain-of-function” in this context is just another way of saying “bioweapon”.

Some good nuggets in article. Important to note that Fauci authored 2012 paper arguing for gain-of-function research!

Obama wisely put this on pause, but Fauci restarted it.

Mr. Musk is being a big meanie. Now that Tony has retired, he should be left alone.

When the science is clear (the vaccines work) and social media deny a platform to those who spread misinformation and disinformation ('plenty of pushback'), I have no problem with that. It is their right to make such decisions and not that it matters, but I happen to agree with those decisions.

You may be right. I rushed to get the vax because I allowed myself to believe it would stop the spread. Now I hear that chuckling 'speed of science' quote from the drug lady...well, I don't trust my sources on that subject anymore.

https://twitter.com/Rob_Roos/status/1579759795225198593

In COVID hearing, #Pfizer director admits: #vaccine was never tested on preventing transmission.

"Get vaccinated for others" was always a lie.

The only purpose of the #COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.

The world needs to know. Share this video!

As I understand it they were highly suspicious of the known and ongoing trolling/disinformation coming from Russia intended to help Trump, and were cautious about being taken in by yet another instance of the same.

Now that you know it is legitimate, do you wonder why they expended so much to suppress it?

Or are you still of the mind that it had nothing on it of note?

Regarding the 'laptop,' it appears that the drive supposedly containing a clone of the laptop has been tampered with repeatedly. But keep the faith, dear fellow. As you say, 'any day now.'

Not 'any day now', quite a while ago. Bubilinski confirmed elements on that laptop. Lots of people still don't want to know about '10% for the Big Guy'.

I wonder if those who don't want to know, align with one political viewpoint more than another...

That would sound reasonable, but for the uneven moderation favouring one political side over the other.

It might seem political, unless you consider that one side of the divide has an aversion to facts and critical thinking, and a propensity for wacko conspiracy theories. Should the reasonable not push back against the stupid?

So you are trying to suggest that there wasn't a bias in twitter?

Have you checked into that Roth chap? Or are you basing this on less information?

Meh. That non sequitur sounds like an excuse to change the subject to me.

Which is a reflection of Roth, and his ideologies....

Thought so.

So you are standing by the 'no bias in twitter leadership' position?

I'm gathering you also don't know Roth or his studies.

Thought so.

I'll present both sides of the argument
on one hand, is the theory of evolution, which, although not really intuitive, get a lot of verification from the geological record, and constatations of recent events

on the other is creationism, which is rooted in superstitious belief in the supernatural and the literal truth of a book, which, while claiming divine inspiration, is not even able to keep its own record straight, and that is a big hunk of balderdash.

I should check out what those evolutionary biologists say about stuff. Dr. Bret Weinstein and Dr. Heather Heying sound a LOT smarter about this stuff than most of us here!

[pErvinalia]

That would sound reasonable, but for the uneven moderation favouring one political side over the other.

It might seem political, unless you consider that one side of the divide has an aversion to facts and critical thinking, and a propensity for wacko conspiracy theories. Should the reasonable not push back against the stupid?

So you are trying to suggest that there wasn't a bias in twitter?

Without evidence of actual bias, I default to the above.

[Cunt]

That would sound reasonable, but for the uneven moderation favouring one political side over the other.

It might seem political, unless you consider that one side of the divide has an aversion to facts and critical thinking, and a propensity for wacko conspiracy theories. Should the reasonable not push back against the stupid?

So you are trying to suggest that there wasn't a bias in twitter?

Without evidence of actual bias, I default to the above.

Please answer then,

What role did Yeol Roth have at twitter?

What was the subject of his phd thesis?

[pErvinalia]

I don't know. Again, if you've got a point to make, make it.

[Cunt]

I don't know. Again, if you've got a point to make, make it.

You would have a tougher time believing it wasn't politically one-sided, if you knew.

Possibly would start to recognize a bias in their leadership, which would almost HAVE to funnel down to the rest of the teams. Or possibly you would still think none of their decisions - even banning Trump - were politically biased.

Or maybe you don't see bias the way I do.

What's that old quote? 'When you are accustomed to privilege, equality looks like oppression'.

Well, when some blue-checked lefty-ists finally got some of the 'moderator action' they were used to laughing at, they compared it to a 'massacre'.

Privileged and hilarious.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitters- ... cial-media

On Saturday, the Wikipedia page dedicated to the term "Thursday Night Massacre" went viral as what many viewed as a biased perspective of the event.

Former congressional candidate Michele Weslander-Quaid wrote, "Wikipedia referred to it as The Thursday Night Massacre. It was the day the leftist media found out the rules also apply to them."

[Brian Peacock]

I think you're presuming that twitter under it's previous regime had an obligation to apply its Terms of Service fairly and equally. Is that true?

[Cunt]

I think you're presuming that twitter under it's previous regime had an obligation to apply its Terms of Service fairly and equally. Is that true?

No, I am presuming that they claimed they would, on podcasts, in front of congress, and to their users.

But were they obligated? You would have to ask the previous owners.

Or read the disclosures being made of their internal communications by their current ownership.

I think it's hilarious how they admitted between each other that Trump's tweet didn't break any rules, then they hid them and banned him anyway lol

Anyone who fell for that bullshit should be a bit miffed. Of course, they would have to read the disclosures to realize which lies they fell for...

[Brian Peacock]

Who gets to decide if Twitter's Terms of Service are being applied fairly and equally?

[Cunt]

Who gets to decide if Twitter's Terms of Service are being applied fairly and equally?

Well, Mr. Musk is releasing the internal communications, showing what they were caught lying about.

Did you fall for any of the lies? If you did, did you feel wronged somehow?

I guess what I'm pointing out here is that YOU decide if their terms of service are applied fairly and evenly.

For myself, I think their lies about the reasons for banning Trump are terrible, but since those lies are so effective, most people still don't mind that twitter silenced politicians at will.

I'm hopeful that the moderation becomes less one-sided, but not very hopeful. Too many attack vectors to hope that an online space can provide anything close to free speech. Not to mention that most people don't want it. For instance, when is the last time you went to a right-wing space to enjoy their difference of opinion? I used to visit catholic forums, a christian one or two, but not so much anymore.

Maybe there is no bias in public twitter (before being owned privately) or maybe a huge bias. The important thing will be how people take it. When suspended journalists call being moderated 'massacre', it's hard to guess where 'in the middle' will be in those discussions.

[Brian Peacock]

What about the question?

[Cunt]

What about the question?

What question? I thought I answered clearly enough here...

Who gets to decide if Twitter's Terms of Service are being applied fairly and equally?

...
I guess what I'm pointing out here is that YOU decide if their terms of service are applied fairly and evenly.
...

Beyond that, if anyone sues, a Judge would decide.

Or if the FBI investigates the FBI's involvement, and finds crime, they'll go 'prosecute themselves'.

[Brian Peacock]

What about the question?

What question? I thought I answered clearly enough here...

Who gets to decide if Twitter's Terms of Service are being applied fairly and equally?

...
I guess what I'm pointing out here is that YOU decide if their terms of service are applied fairly and evenly.
...

Beyond that, if anyone sues, a Judge would decide.

Or if the FBI investigates the FBI's involvement, and finds crime, they'll go 'prosecute themselves'.

I'm not employed by Twitter, nor tasked with making those decisions. If you think that applying Twitter's Terms of Service equally and fairly is a job for each individual then all we're left with are a legion of individual disputes over what's right/wrong and what should/shouldn't be done about it. When it comes to applying the ToS then that's either a job for Twitter itself, or a job for some kind of independent regulator, wouldn't you agree? Of the two, which do you favour or think would be more effective?

[Cunt]

I'm not employed by Twitter, nor tasked with making those decisions. If you think that applying Twitter's Terms of Service equally and fairly is a job for each individual then all we're left with are a legion of individual disputes over what's right/wrong and what should/shouldn't be done about it. When it comes to applying the ToS then that's either a job for Twitter itself, or a job for some kind of independent regulator, wouldn't you agree? Of the two, which do you favour or think would be more effective?

I would say allow them a lot of room to take money to promote political messages to their customer base, then, with a little luck, those acts will be exposed. Thus some folks will know what lies they have been told, and others may choose to keep on believing.

That's what's happening. I don't know if you had fallen for any of the lies they told, so I can't know if you should be bothered. Some might flatly refuse to believe anything that goes against 'their guy'. It's understandable. No-one wants to find themselves in a struggle session.

51 former intelligence officials say that most people will go on trusting the FBI, despite their paying for favourable messaging around the Biden family. They go on to detail that all of this is just a coincidence, and not support for Dems over all competition.