Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

One America News Service (OANS) questions


Recommended Posts

As mentioned before, If Hillary had said "I won the election" in 2016, I would have no problem with Twitter flagging or deleting her post.  But I don't think that Hillary would have tweeted that in the first place.

Maybe this is a bad example.  Are there other tweets that they flagged or deleted that would point more to a bias rather than just a plain untrue tweet?  If you can show an example that you can point to and say this tweet got deleted, but this one didn't, that shows a biasness, then I think more people might be inclined to believe it.

I do understand the frustration that Twitter let Trump lie on their platform for a long time before cracking down and implementing more stringent rules.  But I also think that Twitter did not want to be associated as a propaganda medium.  They are a private company, and I agreed with their new rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but the whole "social media is being biased with their misinformation labels" argument is, frankly, juvenile. It reminds me of when I was a 15 year old on videog

Maybe people that get banned on those sites should stop lying? That might help them stay within the terms of service that they agreed to when they joined 

Oh jon you wacky independent

To me the problem with the tech bias is so much bigger than this tweet by the right was true and they flagged it as false, or that tweet by the left was false and they left it alone.  It's so widespread among the different platforms and shows up in the practices beyond the disclaimers flags. They've admitted to so much it's frustrating to be discussing whether there's bias and not the degree. I can certainly understand when people cheer a conservative voice getting anything from a slap on the wrist to a permaban on a platform. But it shouldn't be celebrated - it should be condemned - from both sides. 

Yes it's a private company and they get to make their own rules. I can't think of a specific rule I disagree with - it's unequal application of those rules that's the problem. It's why so many people are joining Parler as a alternative to Twitter, and joining rumble as an alternative to youtube. I don't get it. Maybe I'm weird but I'll never see the allure of an echo chamber.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Not really a matter of my world view - and no is against ME. But as a I come across repeated examples - I prefer to make a mental note if it's a pattern and not a one time outlier. I was in denial about Twitter for a long time because I'm such a huge fan of the platform. Growing up in the tech field, I was big defender of most of the platforms - some of the leaders were my heros, so I certainly wasn't out for any of them. 

Zero espn analysts predicted the Lions to win the Super Bowl this year.  ZERO!

How come espn is so biased against the Lions?!?!

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

To me the problem with the tech bias is so much bigger than this tweet by the right was true and they flagged it as false, or that tweet by the left was false and they left it alone.  It's so widespread among the different platforms and shows up in the practices beyond the disclaimers flags. They've admitted to so much it's frustrating to be discussing whether there's bias and not the degree. I can certainly understand when people cheer a conservative voice getting anything from a slap on the wrist to a permaban on a platform. But it shouldn't be celebrated - it should be condemned - from both sides. 

Yes it's a private company and they get to make their own rules. I can't think of a specific rule I disagree with - it's unequal application of those rules that's the problem. It's why so many people are joining Parler as a alternative to Twitter, and joining rumble as an alternative to youtube. I don't get it. Maybe I'm weird but I'll never see the allure of an echo chamber.

You've said the bolded before.  Do you have a legitimate link to this?  I'm skeptical.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to many news articles, "YouTube has banned One America News Network from posting new videos for a week after OANN posted a video promoting a phony cure for COVID-19."  This violates Youtube's COVID-19 misinformation policy, which prohibits saying there is a guaranteed cure to the virus.

So, @NorvilleBarnes, do you think that there is a cure for COVID19?

If no, then what should Youtube do about the violation of their terms of service? Just let it slide?

I understand why you might think that big tech is trying to silence conservative voices, but if these are the people most commonly violating this policy, then they will also be the most commonly reprimanded for doing so. 

Edited by The Z Machine
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but the whole "social media is being biased with their misinformation labels" argument is, frankly, juvenile.

It reminds me of when I was a 15 year old on videogame forums and a bunch of fanboys from one side would troll and break all the rules and then argue "why is this forum biased against Sega fans?!?!" when they got punished for it.

Because, let's be real here, many of the biggest names in the GOP right now are essentially trolling on those platforms.  The entire strategy of people like Trump, Trump Jr, Bannon, OANN, etc is to peddle blatant unsubstantiated misinformation and hammer it into people's heads over and over again until they believe it.   So it makes perfect sense that they would get slapped for peddling misinformation more often when peddling misinformation is the entire strategy they set out to do on these platforms.

Like I said it's juvenile, but mostly sad that enough seemingly rational fully grown Americans can fall for a paultry trick that is the staple of 15 year olds on internet forums.  When I was sitting there watching this stuff as a kid I never dreamed we'd be seeing the same thing play out in congress, but here we are.

Edited by FreeBaGeL
  • Like 11
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FreeBaGeL said:

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but the whole "social media is being biased with their misinformation labels" argument is, frankly, juvenile.

It reminds me of when I was a 15 year old on videogame forums and a bunch of fanboys from one side would troll and break all the rules and then argue "why is this forum biased against Sega fans?!?!" when they got punished for it.

Because, let's be real here, many of the biggest names in the GOP right now are essentially trolling on those platforms.  The entire strategy of people like Trump, Trump Jr, Bannon, OANN, etc is to peddle blatant unsubstantiated misinformation and hammer it into people's heads over and over again until they believe it.   So it makes perfect sense that they would get slapped for peddling misinformation more often when peddling misinformation is the entire strategy they set out to do on these platforms.

Like I said it's juvenile, but mostly sad that enough seemingly rational fully grown Americans can fall for a paultry trick that is the staple of 15 year olds on internet forums.  When I was sitting there watching this stuff as a kid I never dreamed we'd be seeing the same thing play out in congress, but here we are.

Yeah, we get it.  As long as the bias favors your side it's juvenile and doesn't exist.  C'mon, man, are you serious with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, we get it.  As long as the bias favors your side it's juvenile and doesn't exist.  C'mon, man, are you serious with this?

Yeah, we get it. As long as you can misrepresent what other people write, it's OK. C'mon man, are you serious with this?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Yeah, we get it. As long as you can misrepresent what other people write, it's OK. C'mon man, are you serious with this?

Speaking of juvenile and misrepresenting what people say. :rolleyes:

I get you guys don't like opinions that go against the liberal orthodoxy in this forum, but try harder next time.  If you have a point, make it.  Don't mock.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
6 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Yeah, we get it. As long as you can misrepresent what other people write, it's OK. C'mon man, are you serious with this?

Speaking of juvenile and misrepresenting what people say. :rolleyes:

I get you guys don't like opinions that go against the liberal orthodoxy in this forum, but try harder next time.  If you have a point, make it.  Don't mock.

You misrepresented what FreeBaGeL wrote. Why? Did you think it was the only way that you could "win" whatever point you were trying to make? Were you just being disingenuous, arguing in bad faith because there's no "good faith" counter to what he wrote? Or did you misread what he wrote entirely?

I noticed that you did it with my post as well. Why assume that people who think you're wrong are following some sort of "liberal orthodoxy"? Maybe they just think you're wrong?

When you assume bias in others, aren't you just mirroring the conservative outrage about social media companies?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rich Conway said:
11 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

To me the problem with the tech bias is so much bigger than this tweet by the right was true and they flagged it as false, or that tweet by the left was false and they left it alone.  It's so widespread among the different platforms and shows up in the practices beyond the disclaimers flags. They've admitted to so much it's frustrating to be discussing whether there's bias and not the degree. I can certainly understand when people cheer a conservative voice getting anything from a slap on the wrist to a permaban on a platform. But it shouldn't be celebrated - it should be condemned - from both sides. 

Yes it's a private company and they get to make their own rules. I can't think of a specific rule I disagree with - it's unequal application of those rules that's the problem. It's why so many people are joining Parler as a alternative to Twitter, and joining rumble as an alternative to youtube. I don't get it. Maybe I'm weird but I'll never see the allure of an echo chamber.

You've said the bolded before.  Do you have a legitimate link to this?  I'm skeptical.

OK I'll take this as a good faith request - but the Biden laptop story is pretty well known, and came up as the very first google search response to "Jack Dorey admits".  LINK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

According to many news articles, "YouTube has banned One America News Network from posting new videos for a week after OANN posted a video promoting a phony cure for COVID-19."  This violates Youtube's COVID-19 misinformation policy, which prohibits saying there is a guaranteed cure to the virus.

So, @NorvilleBarnes, do you think that there is a cure for COVID19?

If no, then what should Youtube do about the violation of their terms of service? Just let it slide?

I understand why you might think that big tech is trying to silence conservative voices, but if these are the people most commonly violating this policy, then they will also be the most commonly reprimanded for doing so. 

Thank you for the perfectly reasonable questions. First, I have no idea if there is a cure for Covid and I haven't seen the video in question (in this one single specific example) myself. I can't comment on the content, but for the sake of discussion let's assume it was "fake news" and if it did violate youtube ToS. I'm not suggesting the offenders get off scott free simply because they're generally conservative.

IMO, something along the lines of a notice or disclaimer that the claims are disputed. Or even taking down the offending video. But not taking down the video, and demonitizing the channel, and locking them out of livestreaming and finally, blocking them from uploading any new videos on any other topic. It seems like the platform version of "excessive use of force". 

Also Happy Thanksgiving.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Thank you for the perfectly reasonable questions. First, I have no idea if there is a cure for Covid and I haven't seen the video in question (in this one single specific example) myself. I can't comment on the content, but for the sake of discussion let's assume it was "fake news" and if it did violate youtube ToS. I'm not suggesting the offenders get off scott free simply because they're generally conservative.

IMO, something along the lines of a notice or disclaimer that the claims are disputed. Or even taking down the offending video. But not taking down the video, and demonitizing the channel, and locking them out of livestreaming and finally, blocking them from uploading any new videos on any other topic. It seems like the platform version of "excessive use of force". 

Also Happy Thanksgiving.

Id probably agree with almost all of thus if there werent literally hundreds of ways for them to get their videos out for people to see. 

Keeping content off my platform isnt the same as keepong content off the internet. We all understand why joe limits types of posts here that he feels will reflect poorly on his business. im sure youtube has similar concerns

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Thank you for the perfectly reasonable questions. First, I have no idea if there is a cure for Covid and I haven't seen the video in question (in this one single specific example) myself. I can't comment on the content, but for the sake of discussion let's assume it was "fake news" and if it did violate youtube ToS. I'm not suggesting the offenders get off scott free simply because they're generally conservative.

IMO, something along the lines of a notice or disclaimer that the claims are disputed. Or even taking down the offending video. But not taking down the video, and demonitizing the channel, and locking them out of livestreaming and finally, blocking them from uploading any new videos on any other topic. It seems like the platform version of "excessive use of force". 

That's a reasonable argument.

What do you propose as fair punishment for repeat offenders of the policy? More of the same? Just take down the offending video again, but let them go ahead and repost it again and again and again, each time it simply gets removed until the next time it is reposted?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

OK I'll take this as a good faith request - but the Biden laptop story is pretty well known, and came up as the very first google search response to "Jack Dorey admits".  LINK

 

That link does not contain an admission of bias by any stretch.  It offers an admission of a single isolated incident in which one particular platform agreed that it may have pulled the trigger too quickly, and corrected their mistake later.  I was looking more for the CEO of Twitter saying "we're biased against conservatives" or "we intentionally fact-check conservatives more frequently".  I suspect such a thing does not exist?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

That link does not contain an admission of bias by any stretch.  It offers an admission of a single isolated incident in which one particular platform agreed that it may have pulled the trigger too quickly, and corrected their mistake later.  I was looking more for the CEO of Twitter saying "we're biased against conservatives" or "we intentionally fact-check conservatives more frequently".  I suspect such a thing does not exist?

Of course not. And if that's where the goalposts are now then you're right, Jack Dorsey has not said "we're biased against conservatives" If that's the only thing that counts as evidence of big tech bias then you can rest in your certainty that all is well in social media, conservatives simply "lie more" and so get punished more with fairness, and that Parler and rumble are growing not because Twitter and youtube are unfair, but because conservatives simply want a place where they can all lie to each other.

But to me, and to many others, the suppression of the Biden laptop story, the shutdown of pro-life pages, the cancellation of a gofundme account for Kyle Riitenhouse, the suspension of the TeamTrump account on Twitter, the inability to post links to Sidney Powels cases, are all part of things we see every single day across facebook, Twitter, youtube - and if you're not following many conservative people or orgs, you're probably not going to hear about it as much. Literally every single day I could post an example. Based on the number of people leaving for Parler and rumble, I don't think it's my imagination. There doesn't seem to be an equal application of the ToS against the left. There's certainly not the objections or an exodus to a "lefts version of Twitter".

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Of course not. And if that's where the goalposts are now then you're right, Jack Dorsey has not said "we're biased against conservatives" If that's the only thing that counts as evidence of big tech bias then you can rest in your certainty that all is well in social media, conservatives simply "lie more" and so get punished more with fairness, and that Parler and rumble are growing not because Twitter and youtube are unfair, but because conservatives simply want a place where they can all lie to each other.

But to me, and to many others, the suppression of the Biden laptop story, the shutdown of pro-life pages, the cancellation of a gofundme account for Kyle Riitenhouse, the suspension of the TeamTrump account on Twitter, the inability to post links to Sidney Powels cases, are all part of things we see every single day across facebook, Twitter, youtube - and if you're not following many conservative people or orgs, you're probably not going to hear about it as much. Literally every single day I could post an example. Based on the number of people leaving for Parler and rumble, I don't think it's my imagination. There doesn't seem to be an equal application of the ToS against the left. There's certainly not the objections or an exodus to a "lefts version of Twitter".

I think the bias is against lies and saying horrible things. I personally believe that companies should let people say whatever they want because I believe in free speech. However pretty much any website that allows anything (eg. 4chan) quickly become repositories of misinformation and childish insults. I am not sure how to solve that problem other than to moderate and ban users. I am sure the moderators on this site can agree that it is a fine line and nobody will ever agree where to draw it.

I've never visited Parler but I can probably guess what people post on there pretty accurately.

Edited by tymarsas
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Of course not. And if that's where the goalposts are now then you're right, Jack Dorsey has not said "we're biased against conservatives" If that's the only thing that counts as evidence of big tech bias then you can rest in your certainty that all is well in social media, conservatives simply "lie more" and so get punished more with fairness, and that Parler and rumble are growing not because Twitter and youtube are unfair, but because conservatives simply want a place where they can all lie to each other.

But to me, and to many others, the suppression of the Biden laptop story, the shutdown of pro-life pages, the cancellation of a gofundme account for Kyle Riitenhouse, the suspension of the TeamTrump account on Twitter, the inability to post links to Sidney Powels cases, are all part of things we see every single day across facebook, Twitter, youtube - and if you're not following many conservative people or orgs, you're probably not going to hear about it as much. Literally every single day I could post an example. Based on the number of people leaving for Parler and rumble, I don't think it's my imagination. There doesn't seem to be an equal application of the ToS against the left. There's certainly not the objections or an exodus to a "lefts version of Twitter".

I haven't logged in to Facebook in more than 3 years, and that once was the only time in more than 10 years.  I don't go on Twitter except when linked from here.

That said, your explanation of Parler growing could be because Twitter et.al. are biased, OR it could be because conservatives tend to lie more and thus get fact-checked or otherwise sanctioned more.  My point, as before, is simply that "conservatives get sanctioned more" (assuming that's true) is NOT by itself proof that Twitter et.al. are biased.  It's also not proof that they aren't.  It does not, by itself, give us enough information to know.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I haven't logged in to Facebook in more than 3 years, and that once was the only time in more than 10 years.  I don't go on Twitter except when linked from here.

That said, your explanation of Parler growing could be because Twitter et.al. are biased, OR it could be because conservatives tend to lie more and thus get fact-checked or otherwise sanctioned more.  My point, as before, is simply that "conservatives get sanctioned more" (assuming that's true) is NOT by itself proof that Twitter et.al. are biased.  It's also not proof that they aren't.  It does not, by itself, give us enough information to know.

Of course. And, without first hand observations, it's sort of a chicken and egg academic argument on which is the cause and which is the effect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rich Conway said:

I haven't logged in to Facebook in more than 3 years, and that once was the only time in more than 10 years.  I don't go on Twitter except when linked from here.

That said, your explanation of Parler growing could be because Twitter et.al. are biased, OR it could be because conservatives tend to lie more and thus get fact-checked or otherwise sanctioned more.  My point, as before, is simply that "conservatives get sanctioned more" (assuming that's true) is NOT by itself proof that Twitter et.al. are biased.  It's also not proof that they aren't.  It does not, by itself, give us enough information to know.

Right.  It's akin to a team employing the hack-a-shaq strategy against the Lakers and then complaining they got called for more fouls.  They didn't get called for more fouls because the refs were biased against them, they got called for more fouls because their entire strategy was to foul more.

I have no idea if conservatives as a whole present misinformation more than liberals.  I wouldn't even attempt to make that claim.  What I do know, and what has been actually studied and proven, is that extremists/radicals and conspiracy theorists present misinformation more often.  And right now extremists/radicals and conspiracy theorists are the major figures of the GOP.  

There simply is not an equivalent to DJT, DJT Jr., Steve Bannon, or OANN at the forefront of the democratic party right now.  If Joe Biden were to go on Twitter and say he actually won the popular vote by 30 million and won 538 electoral college votes in reality but for rigged Trump election tampering while not providing any evidence of that, Twitter would flag his post as well.  There is just simply not any major liberal willing to post anything so absurd and asinine a single time as guys like Trump post daily right now.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mile High said:

He's bent out of shape about Twitter tonight. Seems #diaperdon is trending #1

He does not understand how trends work...the tiny desk stuff was good.  And his rants against facts are nonstop as he is all in on OAN pushing his followers there and away from Fox.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JPPT1974 said:

Heard they had cut into the ratings of Fox. Not just OANS but Newsmax is a little known but growing network among the Conservatives.

Fox's ratings are down quite a bit ever since they called Arizona for Biden. That seemed to be a watershed moment of truth which started all of the backlash. It will be interesting to see if OAN and Newsmax will continue to see high ratings once their voter fraud stories fizzle out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
12 hours ago, Pitchfork said:

The bias is for facts.

"Things that support my side are facts!"

I hate to tell you this, but we're all being led by the media.  And facts aren't the drivers - the agenda is. 

No, things that's are verifiable through scientific process and research are facts. I'm not being led by anyone but a lot of people are being led by a person who continually states things that can verified as untrue by scientific process and research and then claiming when that happens it's bias. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

No, things that's are verifiable through scientific process and research are facts. I'm not being led by anyone but a lot of people are being led by a person who continually states things that can verified as untrue by scientific process and research and then claiming when that happens it's bias. 

Yeah, I know you don't want to believe it and it helps when the majority of the media gives you the confirmation bias you seek.

But if you step away and take a look at the larger picture it's actually visible with the naked eye how much were being led by agendas and not facts.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, I know you don't want to believe it and it helps when the majority of the media gives you the confirmation bias you seek.

I don't seek any of these things, I seek verifiable facts. Those headed to Newsmax, OANN, parler and the like, yes they are actively searching out an echo chamber because they can't deal with discussion of facts on an honest level. And dismiss any argument against their position as bias.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

I don't seek any of these things, I seek verifiable facts. Those headed to Newsmax, OANN, parler and the like, yes they are actively searching out an echo chamber because they can't deal with discussion of facts on an honest level. And dismiss any argument against their position as bias.

Funny you left out Twitter, Facebook, etc....and only mentioned Newsmax, OANN and Parler.  Geez, I wonder why?  I think you just proved my point.  :thumbup:

As long as the narrative fits your position, then it's not biased.

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sea Duck said:

Fox's ratings are down quite a bit ever since they called Arizona for Biden. That seemed to be a watershed moment of truth which started all of the backlash. It will be interesting to see if OAN and Newsmax will continue to see high ratings once their voter fraud stories fizzle out.

Just move on to new bogus claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Yeah, I know you don't want to believe it and it helps when the majority of the media gives you the confirmation bias you seek.

But if you step away and take a look at the larger picture it's actually visible with the naked eye how much were being led by agendas and not facts.

This is describing Trump but not the media you are complaining about.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pitchfork said:

I don't seek any of these things, I seek verifiable facts. Those headed to Newsmax, OANN, parler and the like, yes they are actively searching out an echo chamber because they can't deal with discussion of facts on an honest level. And dismiss any argument against their position as bias.

Which is why they are running to Parler...seeking people to confirm their own opinions and not be challenged.

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:
2 hours ago, Pitchfork said:

I don't seek any of these things, I seek verifiable facts. Those headed to Newsmax, OANN, parler and the like, yes they are actively searching out an echo chamber because they can't deal with discussion of facts on an honest level. And dismiss any argument against their position as bias.

Which is why they are running to Parler...seeking people to confirm their own opinions and not be challenged.

There's tremendous irony in people who believe in Trump's narrative, which he has disseminated on Twitter dozens of times daily for four years, leaving Twitter for a "right wing only" site, because Twitter is supposedly a liberal echo chamber.

It's a similar situation with the move from Fox News, who spread and supported his narrative for 4 years for OANN and Newsmax. Suddenly Twitter and Fox News, their homes for 4 years, are incredibly biased because they prefer to actually speak in honest terms. 

It seems so obvious but I guess not. And when the argument that comes back to me includes "whatabout Facebook?" - the absolute worst site for confirmation bias and radicalization,  - I really don't know where to go from there.

Edited by Pitchfork
  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

There's tremendous irony in people who believe in Trump's narrative, which he has disseminated on Twitter dozens of times daily for four years, leaving Twitter for a "right wing only" site, because Twitter is supposedly a liberal echo chamber.

It's a similar situation with the move from Fox News, who spread and supported his narrative for 4 years for OANN and Newsmax. Suddenly Twitter and Fox News, their homes for 4 years, are incredibly biased because they prefer to actually speak in honest terms. 

It seems so obvious but I guess not. And when the argument that comes back to me includes "whatabout Facebook?" - the absolute worst site for confirmation bias and radicalization,  - I really don't know where to go from there.

Same as those who have screamed fake news for four years being more guilty of pushing false stories than anyone.

  • Like 2
  • Love 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

"Things that support my side are facts!"

I hate to tell you this, but we're all being led by the media.  And facts aren't the drivers - the agenda is. 

:lol:

You need to upgrade to new tech that has "off" buttons...would probably do you wonders.  :thumbup: 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pitchfork said:

There's tremendous irony in people who believe in Trump's narrative, which he has disseminated on Twitter dozens of times daily for four years, leaving Twitter for a "right wing only" site, because Twitter is supposedly a liberal echo chamber.

It's a similar situation with the move from Fox News, who spread and supported his narrative for 4 years for OANN and Newsmax. Suddenly Twitter and Fox News, their homes for 4 years, are incredibly biased because they prefer to actually speak in honest terms. 

It seems so obvious but I guess not. And when the argument that comes back to me includes "whatabout Facebook?" - the absolute worst site for confirmation bias and radicalization,  - I really don't know where to go from there.

Well then by all means stay in your bubble.  :shrug:

I can only show you were the water is - I can't make you drink it.  If you prefer the peaceful safe-space of Twitter, Facebook and here that is fine by me.  At least I gave it a shot.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Or you could provide posts with substance.  Would probably do YOU wonders.

Not sure why you'd think it's either/or.....since you aren't turning it off and you gave me this "or" snipe, does that mean I actually DO post substance?

To be fair....I've admitted many times here, I'm a flawed individual but in 2020 I'm more in the "be the same as" boat.  I figure I can at least meet people where they're at.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Well then by all means stay in your bubble.  :shrug:

I can only show you were the water is - I can't make you drink it.  If you prefer the peaceful safe-space of Twitter, Facebook and here that is fine by me.  At least I gave it a shot.

You are out of your mind including Facebook in here as anything remotely safe space/left leaning. Unfathomable. 

As for Twitter and Fox News, their "bias" did not suddenly change. The facts of the current political situation became undeniable and they accepted those facts. 

And a lot of people who worshipped Twitter and Fox News for 4 years couldn't accept it and cried bias, and took their ball and went to OANN/Newsmax/parler.

The nature/bias/orientation of these organizations did not suddenly change. The factual reality of the American political situation did. But feel free to keep spinning. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pitchfork said:

The nature/bias/orientation of these organizations did not suddenly change. 

Of course it did. Frequently they admit the change in practice only when they get caught and not through any transparency of announced policy. 

Twitters policy of fact checking some conservatives and suspending others was very sudden.

YouTube frequently has suddenly taken down videos that have been up for years.

Facebook recently changed their news feed algorithm to promote CNN and NYTimes more.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:
57 minutes ago, JAA said:
19 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Facebook recently changed their news feed algorithm to promote CNN and NYTimes more.

Do you have a link for this?

LINK

No offense but your statement is factually inaccurate.

Facebook did not change their news feed algorithm to promote CNN and NYtimes.

It involved emphasizing the importance of what Facebook calls “news ecosystem quality” scores, or N.E.Q., a secret internal ranking it assigns to news publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

What actually happened is ... 

Facebook recently changed their news feed algorithm to promote publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, JAA said:

No offense but your statement is factually inaccurate.

Facebook did not change their news feed algorithm to promote CNN and NYtimes.

 

 

What actually happened is ... 

Facebook recently changed their news feed algorithm to promote publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

That doesn't make Norville's statement inaccurate. It just means that Norville is admitting that CNN and the NY Times are examples of high quality journalism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:
28 minutes ago, JAA said:

No offense but your statement is factually inaccurate.

Facebook did not change their news feed algorithm to promote CNN and NYtimes.

 

 

What actually happened is ... 

Facebook recently changed their news feed algorithm to promote publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

That doesn't make Norville's statement inaccurate. It just means that Norville is admitting that CNN and the NY Times are examples of high quality journalism

Yes it does. His statement was not true. Facebook did not change their algorithm TO promote anyone. They changed it TO promote specific matching criteria. The byproduct of that algorithm (not the intention) is CNN and NYT.  This is standard logical conjunction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JAA said:
3 hours ago, Sea Duck said:
3 hours ago, JAA said:

No offense but your statement is factually inaccurate.

Facebook did not change their news feed algorithm to promote CNN and NYtimes.

 

 

What actually happened is ... 

Facebook recently changed their news feed algorithm to promote publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

That doesn't make Norville's statement inaccurate. It just means that Norville is admitting that CNN and the NY Times are examples of high quality journalism

Yes it does. His statement was not true. Facebook did not change their algorithm TO promote anyone. They changed it TO promote specific matching criteria. The byproduct of that algorithm (not the intention) is CNN and NYT.  This is standard logical conjunction.

No offense taken. However, imho, you both slightly miss the mark.

"Facebook recently changed their news feed algorithm to promote publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism." which resulted in "a spike in visibility for big mainstream publishers, like CNN and NYT."

 and

"It just means that Norville is admitting that CNN and the NY Times are examples of high quality journalism" couldn't be more wrong. I think CNN and NYT are prime examples companies that have destroyed their own brands. CNN and NYT are facebooks ideas of high quality journalism, not mine.

Basically FB said let's give CNN and NYT high NEQ scores, and then let's change the algorithm to promote posts from sources with high NEQ scores. Of course it "resulted" in promoting NYT and CNN, that was no accident or byproduct, that's what it was designed to do.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...