Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official 2020 Election General***


hagmania

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Bamboo Bill said:

Almost all of it? And one cherry picked image is your proof?

This is a perfect example of why i usually don't play along with people acting innocent and asking for an example. It's a waste of time.

Me: Twitter is biased.

Them: How so?

M: Their fact checking is a joke.

T: Can you give me an example?

M: It's all over their site.

T:Give me one example.

M: Here's one.

T: Really one single cherry picked example is what you call proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I’m not standing up for Dorsey or big tech. I’m not a huge fan and lots of these people are terrible or are ego maniacs. However, they have a right imo to regulate speech on their platforms. I also think they  should make some efforts to stop hateful and destructive things being posted- especially when they are untrue and aimed at shifting political power. Of course  the censors will be bias, everything is biased. We as citizens have to be able to make sense of that as much as we have to make sense of all other bias and propaganda.

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I mean ... I think Ilov80s has got a point here. He just posted:

Doesn't that more or less make it acceptable to review Trump's tweets with lots of extra scrutiny and, given his platform, more constraints?

Well that was just one example. I chose that one because there's evidence of what Twitter changed and I knew people would dismiss it as just my opinion so I picked an example of what Jack admitted to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

This is a perfect example of why i usually don't play along with people acting innocent and asking for an example. It's a waste of time.

Me: Twitter is biased.

Them: How so?

M: Their fact checking is a joke.

T: Can you give me an example?

M: It's all over their site.

T:Give me one example.

M: Here's one.

T: Really one single cherry picked example is what you call proof?

You are making the claims just based on your opinion without anything to back it up. Do you have any issues with all of the misinformation and lies trump has tweeted and retweeted for more than a decade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sammy3469 said:

I’m pretty sure all that person has to do is present some other government official who told the truth to fire.  This is known as the “shiny object”.

What’s hilarious about him not conceding is every day is another in his face reminder how he lost. You’d think he’d just give it up and go golf than having dirt kicked in his face by the court and electors etc every day. But nope. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Capella said:

What’s hilarious about him not conceding is every day is another in his face reminder how he lost. You’d think he’d just give it up and go golf than having dirt kicked in his face by the court and electors etc every day. But nope. 

He’s got a bunch of people sending him money. I still get an email a dozen times a day. As long as they’re willing to keep forking over the green he will keep this up. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

No.

Are you saying Twitter is unbiased or applies their "fact checking" in an unbiased way?

Well which part of the tweet are saying WAS factual. You posted a nested tweet of a tweet. Are you saying what trump said was factual or what Huckabee tweeted was factual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Bamboo Bill said:

Almost all of it? And one cherry picked image is your proof?

I guess I don't understand how this is cherry picking. Apparently trump claiming a victory is untrue, but that untruth getting flagged proves that twitter is biased?

Does Huckabee think that trump was factually correct when he claimed that he won?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Then you will be able to post the link to him admitting what you are saying?

I think they have biases...but these claims that fact checking is all so biased is utterly ridiculous and an excuse to post lies and misinformation in a different place and not be questioned about it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWayExRuaYk

 

Dorsey admits it was ‘wrong’ to censor Hunter Biden story, NY Post

155,884 views

•Nov 17, 2020

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey addresses censorship concerns during Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BoltBacker said:

Well which part of the tweet are saying WAS factual. You posted a nested tweet of a tweet. Are you saying what trump said was factual or what Huckabee tweeted was factual?

My original statement was that the way Twitter applies it's fact checking is biased. It's biased both in the way they target conservatives, and also in the way they apply "facts".  The Trump tweet was simply one example, but one that demonstrated both of my complaints. Trump tweeted "I won!" and Twitter added a "fact" that the election was officially called for Biden. The election had not been officially called. When Huckabee RTd that with the observation/criticism of the fact check. Twitter later modified their fact check, which also followed onto Huckabees RT, rendering his statement confusing but for screen shots that captured what they had done.

All this came out of a conversation that Parler - gasp - doesn't "fact check" it's posts. I submitted that "fact checking" isn't helpful to anyone the way Twitter employs it. YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWayExRuaYk

 

Dorsey admits it was ‘wrong’ to censor Hunter Biden story, NY Post

155,884 views

•Nov 17, 2020

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey addresses censorship concerns during Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Oh FFS.

I was really hoping SOMEONE would step up and help out posting easily verified events for the people wanting to be spoon fed links. And of course it's Gordon Freaking Gecko.

I'm going to bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Oh FFS.

I was really hoping SOMEONE would step up and help out posting easily verified events for the people wanting to be spoon fed links. And of course it's Gordon Freaking Gecko.

I'm going to bed.

Its not being spoonfed...its about backing up claims and assertions being made.  And being wrong doing that on one story isn't the same as what you actually claimed....which is part of the point.

This reluctance by some to ever back up the claim they make is really an odd thing to me.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

My original statement was that the way Twitter applies it's fact checking is biased. It's biased both in the way they target conservatives, and also in the way they apply "facts".  The Trump tweet was simply one example, but one that demonstrated both of my complaints. Trump tweeted "I won!" and Twitter added a "fact" that the election was officially called for Biden. The election had not been officially called. When Huckabee RTd that with the observation/criticism of the fact check. Twitter later modified their fact check, which also followed onto Huckabees RT, rendering his statement confusing but for screen shots that captured what they had done.

All this came out of a conversation that Parler - gasp - doesn't "fact check" it's posts. I submitted that "fact checking" isn't helpful to anyone the way Twitter employs it. YMMV.

Yeah, that explains why the issue with "official" didn't make sense to me.

So we both agree that the trump tweet was factually incorrect, should have been flagged for being incorrect, and what you are saying is the twitter explanation of why it was being flagged wasn't accurate either. That's your example of bias, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sho nuff said:

Its not being spoonfed...its about backing up claims and assertions being made.  And being wrong doing that on one story isn't the same as what you actually claimed....which is part of the point.

This reluctance by some to ever back up the claim they make is really an odd thing to me.

Yeah, I really wasn't trying to kick a hornets nest here. I just thought it was presented as if twitter constantly stifles the right so it would be easy to provide an example if that was the case. 

To be honest, "I won the Election" on November 16th when apparently NOBODY on the board thinks that's actually true...... if that's the example of R's being flagged unfairly it seems pretty weak. 

But I've also thought of the New York Post as kind of a "tabloid" newspaper so I'm not shocked that they tend to get fact checked aggressively either. Isn't "ALL MEDIA!" left leaning anyway, at least to the people that think "I won the Election" shouldn't be fact checked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sho nuff said:
14 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Oh FFS.

I was really hoping SOMEONE would step up and help out posting easily verified events for the people wanting to be spoon fed links. And of course it's Gordon Freaking Gecko.

I'm going to bed.

Its not being spoonfed...its about backing up claims and assertions being made.  And being wrong doing that on one story isn't the same as what you actually claimed....which is part of the point.

This reluctance by some to ever back up the claim they make is really an odd thing to me.

Agreed. I don't understand the ethic that asking for corroboration or asking for a source is somehow dirty pool.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

:confused: 

Wrong again "French benefits" guy. I'm actually fine with a Biden Presidency. I'm not fine with election fraud - even the kind that doesn't change the outcome. You shouldn't be fine with it either, but you do you my man.

Was there fraud in 2016? Don't seem to recall you being vocal about election fraud back then.  Feel free to correct me. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Its not being spoonfed...its about backing up claims and assertions being made.  And being wrong doing that on one story isn't the same as what you actually claimed....which is part of the point.

This reluctance by some to ever back up the claim they make is really an odd thing to me.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBJx9kqa9bc

 

Senator Josh Hawley Uncovers SECRET Facebook Content Monitoring.

Discussion of TASK and Centra internal platforms.

 

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-sen-hawley-claims-facebook-program-called-centra-is-tracking-users-across-the-web-zuckerberg-denies-knowledge/

 

By Rudy Takala Nov 17th, 2020, 3:20 pm

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) confronted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over a tracking program known as “Centra,” which Hawley said had been revealed to his office a company whistleblower, but Zuckerberg denied knowing whether the program existed.

“Mr. Zuckerberg, tell me about ‘Centra,” Hawley asked Zuckerberg during a Monday hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee. “What is the Facebook internal tool called Centra?”

Zuckerberg replied, “Senator, I’m not aware of any tool with that name.”

Hawley responded by displaying photographs that he said showed the tool in use.

“Let me see if this refreshes your memory. There is a demonstrative over my shoulder,” Hawley noted. “Centra is a tool that Facebook uses to track its users not just on Facebook, but across the entire internet. Centra tracks different profiles that a user visits, their message recipients, their linked accounts, the pages they visit around the Web that have Facebook buttons. Sentra also uses behavioral data to monitor users’ accounts, even if those accounts are registered under a different name.”

Hawley said the program allowed Facebook to retain certain sensitive personal information, including which accounts users had visited and the photos they had uploaded.

The company has received unwanted attention on numerous occasions over the last several years for going to unusual lengths to track not only its users, but associates of its users who do not use the website. One recent example included the 2018 revelation that Facebook “marks” photos its users upload in order to continue tracking them outside the platform.

However, Hawley suggested the program may go even further than reports have revealed, and suggested the program may be used to take enforcement measures. He followed up with another question for Zuckerberg, asking, “How many accounts in the United States have been subject to review and shut down through Centra?”

Zuckerberg denied having knowledge of the program, but refused to deny that it existed.

“I do not know because I’m not actually familiar with the name of that too,” Zuckerberg said. “I’m sure we have tools that help us with our platform and community integrity work, but I am not familiar with that name.”

Hawley pressed Zuckerberg for further details. “Do you have a tool that does exactly what I have described that you can see here over my shoulder? Or are you saying that that doesn’t exist?”

A @Facebook whistleblower tells me it’s called Centra. Example below. Zuck said he couldn’t recall the name … he’s only the company CEO, after all pic.twitter.com/DLkQ46MiR4

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) November 17, 2020

Zuckerberg denied having the knowledge of the program a third time, but said he was “limited” in what he could share on the spot.

“I’m saying that I’m not familiar with it,” Zuckerberg responded. “And that I would be happy to follow up and get you and your team the information that you would is unlike on this. But I am limited in what I can — what I am familiar with, and can share today.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

My original statement was that the way Twitter applies it's fact checking is biased. It's biased both in the way they target conservatives, and also in the way they apply "facts".  The Trump tweet was simply one example, but one that demonstrated both of my complaints. Trump tweeted "I won!" and Twitter added a "fact" that the election was officially called for Biden. The election had not been officially called. When Huckabee RTd that with the observation/criticism of the fact check. Twitter later modified their fact check, which also followed onto Huckabees RT, rendering his statement confusing but for screen shots that captured what they had done.

All this came out of a conversation that Parler - gasp - doesn't "fact check" it's posts. I submitted that "fact checking" isn't helpful to anyone the way Twitter employs it. YMMV.

Twitter was incorrect in the use of the word 'official' in this case.  If Twitter would have added a 'fact' that the election was called for Biden by the major networks then it would have been correct.  Seems like this one is probably not the best example, as it was just a word error on Twitters part.  

I actually like that Twitter fact checks.  I think you just need to decide if Twitter is biased against Conservatives, or if Conservatives under the Trump administration just lie more often.

I'm sure if they had fact checks in 2016 and Hillary would have tweeted "I won!", they would have done the same thing.  Although, I couldn't see Hillary doing that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sho nuff said:

Then you will be able to post the link to him admitting what you are saying?

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NhYTm2auyw

 

Ted Cruz - Twitter And Facebook During Election Suppression Hearing

Questions whether Twitter is a publisher or a platform and should continue to receive Section 230 protection.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2020/11/17/ted-cruz-slams-jack-dorsey-for-twitter-warnings-slapped-on-tweets-about-voter-fraud/

 

"Ted Cruz Slams Jack Dorsey For Twitter Warnings Slapped On Tweets About Voter Fraud

November 17, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

When questioned by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that although he is not an expert in voter fraud, the social media giant’s warning labels on accurate statements about voter fraud are simply “linking to a broader conversation.”

“Why is Twitter right now putting purported warnings on virtually any statement about voter fraud?” Cruz asked.

“We’re simply linking to a broader conversation so people have more information,” Dorsey said.

Cruz, however, shot back at Dorsey saying that Twitter’s decision to “add context” to posts with accurate and verified information is a policy decision.
“You put up a page that says ‘voter fraud of any kind is exceedingly rare in the United States.’ That’s not linking to a broader conversation, that’s taking a disputed policy position. And you’re a publisher when you do that.”

“You can take a policy position, but you don’t get to pretend you’re a publisher and get a special benefit under Section 230 as a result,” Cruz added.

Cruz pressed the issue further, asking if certain statements such as “absentee ballots remain the larger source of potential voter fraud” and “voter fraud is particularly possible where third party candidates and political party activists are involved in handling absentee ballots,” were in violation of Twitter’s policies. Dorsey said Twitter would most likely label the statements with a banner disputing the content to “provide more context.”

“You’re right! You would label them because you’ve taken the political position right now that voter fraud doesn’t exist,” Cruz said, noting that the statements originated from former president Jimmy Carter’s Carter-Baker commission on election reform.

When asked if Twitter would label a verified story about a Texas woman who committed over 100 counts of election fraud, Dorsey said that story would probably remain untouched. Cruz threatened to test the theory.

Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of the committee to provide the Senators with more information to evaluate Section 230, which grants platforms like Twitter and Facebook immunity from liability for third-party content. Cruz slammed both social media platforms and Democrats for employing “totalitarian” tactics against those who disagree with them.

“There is absolute silence for the Democrats speaking out for the citizens silenced by big tech,” Cruz said. “Instead, there is a demand to use even more power to silence dissent and that’s a totalitarian instinct that I think is very dangerous.”

“There was a time when Democrats embraced and defended the principles of free speech. There was a time when Democrats embraced and defended the principles of the free press. And yet there is an absolute silence from Democrats speaking up for the press outlets censored by big tech,” Cruz added."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

But I was asking about bias in censoring people due to misinformation on twitter, not Imgur.  I'd like to know if twitter is censoring more misinformation coming from conservatives vs. coming from liberals.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abg4XKd53pg

 

Senator Mike Lee vs. Zuckerberg and Dorsey Over Republican Bias Claims

Questions on hateful speech and if Twitter/Facebook operates as "editors" and what constitutes "lacks context" as a pretext for censorship.

 

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11/17/21570589/facebook-twitter-election-bias-republican-democrat-donald-trump-senate-hearing-mike-lee

 

Sen. Mike Lee accuses Facebook, Twitter of bias against conservatives

By Dennis Romboy  Nov 17, 2020, 12:18pm MST

 

SALT LAKE CITY — Sen. Mike Lee accused Facebook and Twitter of being biased against Republicans and conservatives during the 2020 election, including tagging one of his own posts about alleged voter fraud.

The Utah Republican sharply questioned Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey about their promise to take a politically neutral approach to election content moderation at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday.

Lee said he found it “a little disturbing” that Facebook tagged one of his posts about the presidential race with “voter fraud, which is historically rare, has not affected any outcome in this election” and that mail-in balloting was “conducted in accordance with state voting rules.”

“The tag to me sounds a whole lot more like state-run media announcing the party line rather than a neutral company, as it purports to be, running an open online forum,” he said. “This kind of editorializing insulates people from the truth and it insinuates that anyone concerned about voter fraud must be crazy.”

President Donald Trump continues to wage war over the election results that left him well behind former Vice President Joe Biden in both the popular and Electoral College vote. The president has called the election “rigged” and “stolen” and has claimed victory more than once since Nov. 3.....

Lee said concerns about election irregularities might be out of the mainstream in Palo Alto, but they’re not out of the mainstream for the rest of America.

“I hope this kind of manipulation wasn’t intentional. But it’s getting harder and harder for me to accept the premise that it could be anything but intentional,” he said.

Lee accused Facebook of violating federal trade laws prohibiting businesses from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices when it comes to its pledge of neutrality.

“However, as we heard today and will continue to hear into the foreseeable future, there are instances in which your platforms are taking a very distinctively partisan approach and not a neutral one to election-related content moderation,” he said.

Zuckerberg said as Facebook strives to handle millions or billions of pieces of content a day as well as possible but does make mistakes.

Lee also asked Zuckerberg about tagging political ads for “missing context.” He said political ads and ads in general always lack context. He questioned whether Facebook had ever applied that label to a Democratic ad.

Zuckerberg said he was not familiar with that standard.

Facebook has resoundingly heard from users that they don’t want to see misinformation and believe it is a problem, he said. But they also don’t want it to be the arbiter of what is true and false.

“For what it’s worth, I strongly agree with that and I do not think it is the right thing for us to assume that role,” Zuckerberg said.

Both Zuckerberg and Dorsey acknowledged their platforms had made errors but also took steps to correct them.

Lee demanded to know why Twitter suspended the account of Mark Morgan, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol commissioner, for a tweet about the success of the southern border wall days before the election.

Dorsey said Twitter evaluated the tweet and found that Twitter was wrong. He said the mistake was due to “heightened awareness around government accounts during this time.”

“I understand that mistakes happen,” Lee said. “What we’re going to see today is that mistakes happen a whole lot more, almost entirely on one side of the political aisle rather than the other.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Capella said:
1 hour ago, General Malaise said:

Man, this is hard to watch from you.  Is this schtick?

Definitely seems to be a hard turn from the guy I remember posting here, but people change. 

This shouldn't be so befuddling to you guys.  Sorry.  :( 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I actually like that Twitter fact checks.  I think you just need to decide if Twitter is biased against Conservatives, or if Conservatives under the Trump administration just lie more often..

This.

Like it or not, one party is trending toward fighting against science and truth. The leader of that party is a serial liar and many in that party will follow along for fear of retribution. How is it surprising, then, when that party is "fact-checked" more than their counterparts?

That's not bias. That's just reality.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Capella said:

Biden is going to be the president in two months, but we are really testing the guard rails of democracy here. 

Really is testing the guard rails. What's really going to test it is whether we will have a true peaceful transfer of power after all avenues to challenges have been exhausted. Because he's using those. And he's not following punctilio, up to and including the inauguration. He's just not.

So let's just follow the dates and make sure 2+2=4 and all the I's are dotted and T's crossed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gianmarco said:

This.

Like it or not, one party is trending toward fighting against science and truth. The leader of that party is a serial liar and many in that party will follow along for fear of retribution. How is it surprising, then, when that party is "fact-checked" more than their counterparts?

That's not bias. That's just reality.

 

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2020/without-methodology-or-transparency-facebook-and-twitter-become-the-arbiters-of-the-truth/

 

"Without methodology or transparency, Facebook and Twitter become the ‘arbiters of the truth’

Naive are those who believe this isn't dangerous

By: Cristina Tardáguila

October 15, 2020

It seems like Facebook and Twitter have decided to assume the position they’ve been avoiding for so long. Less than a month from Election Day, both companies finally became arbiters of the truth on the internet. Naive are those who believe this isn’t dangerous.

Yesterday, a controversial article published by the New York Post went viral on social media for allegedly connecting Democratic candidate Joe Biden to Ukrainian energy company Burisma and their business interests. Faced with the increasing number of interactions with this URL and worried about the potential for misinformation, the two big tech platforms decided to take steps to reduce its distribution. Both decisions, however, are controversial and questionable.

A Facebook spokesperson tweeted at 11 a.m. that the company would reduce the distribution of the newspaper’s content even before a fact-checker had assessed whether the New York Post’s story was false.

Since 2016, several fact-checking organizations have worked with Facebook to reduce the volume of falsehoods circulating on the platform. (Disclosure: Facebook requires these organizations to be verified signatories of the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles)

When these “third-party fact-checkers” identify misleading content, they publish detailed articles and submit them to Facebook. The platform then connects the fact-check with the original post and alerts those who produced the flagged content along with those who may have shared it. As part of the same program, Facebook says it also reduces the distribution of “false” posts by up to 80% – lowering the likelihood of other people seeing and sharing it on its  NewsFeed.

All this effort is fundamentally supported by the five principles established by the IFCN. Professional fact-checkers should be transparent about their methodology, their sources and their organization’s financing. They should also have a public corrections policy and practice non-partisanship.

Yesterday, when Facebook publicly acknowledged that it also reduces the distribution of potential disinformation using other methods, the company surprised not only its users, but also the IFCN community.

What methodology do Facebook employees use in those situations? How do they identify what needs to be less distributed? What sources do they rely on to decide that something may be false? And… in those decisions, are the employees really nonpartisan?

While the fact-checking community was still digesting Facebook’s position and Baybars Orsek, the IFCN’s director, was still publicly asking the company for further explanation, another disturbing development unfolded.

Users reported that Twitter wasn’t allowing them to share the URL to the New York Post’s article. A message prohibiting that action was popping up here and there.

“Your Tweet couldn’t be sent because this link has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially harmful,” said the alert.

Angie Holan, editor-in-chief of PolitiFact, questioned it on her social media channels: “Who are these partners they (Twitter) speak of? Has Twitter partnered with fact-checkers without telling anyone? It would be news to me.”

And Orsek added: “It’s apparently more appealing to be ‘arbitrators of truth’ when the elections are around the corner and everyone has a stronger confidence level for the outcomes.”

In trying to explain their decisions, both companies’ responses left the public with more questions than answers. Facebook said it had always had this policy against doubtful content and that it was just applying it once more. The fact-checking community, however, wasn’t aware of it until today – which is a bit strange, considering they work together to tackle misinformation.

Twitter, on the other hand, told Motherboard it doesn’t allow hacked content to spread on its feed. But some fact-checkers laughed at this assertion recalling previous episodes involving Wikileaks and the National Security Agency.

It is important to remember that when assessing the veracity of content, fact-checkers follow pre-established methodologies and rely on public databases and original sources whenever possible. They tend to work for hours and hours, so as not to be unfair or biased.

Transparency is essential to the fact-checking community and to the cause of reducing mis and disinformation.  The decision to reduce or prevent the distribution of the New York Post’s article based on some mysterious, non-transparent criteria and an unknown methodology is a serious mistake. It is a step that brings these companies closer to the slippery slope of censorship."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

:confused: 

Wrong again "French benefits" guy. I'm actually fine with a Biden Presidency. I'm not fine with election fraud - even the kind that doesn't change the outcome. You shouldn't be fine with it either, but you do you my man.

I'm definitely not "fine" with it and have attempted to raise it here multiple times in the past as an issue, but everyone (until this election) has been crickets on it replying with "not enough to be meaningful".  I even got that response to the issues with the GOP in NC in 2016...from everyone and that fraud DID impact outcomes as the person busted had to step down.  That said, 3-4% of the votes in this country are rejected EVERY SINGLE ELECTION and many of those are from these sorts of "fraud" events.  I'm trying to understand why people are now claiming they are not ok with it when by all accounts, the "fraud" this election will be WELL within that range (if not less than normal).  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, General Malaise said:

So Twitter  - Trump's greatest medium for reaching out to his followers for a decade - is now biased against him?  Was Twitter biased against Trump when he ranted and raved about Obama not being an American citizen???????  

It's odd that the people that wrap themselves up in a shield of personal freedom, even if that stance contributes to a quarter of a million people dying in less than a year, can't just use their personal freedom to avoid using the services of a private company that in their mind is treating them unfairly.

Use parlor or palm olive or whatever platform that promotes bald faced lies if that is what your platform is based on and your audience craves. Seems pretty simple. Crying that "big tech is being mean to me" just exposes the fact that the party that used to rail about snowflakes has turned into what it once claimed to detest. This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's a freedom of choice issue. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what the answer is, but it does seem like these social media platforms got themselves into a position that probably was predictive, but maybe that they didn't want to deal with?  

Like gianmarco alluded to above, IMO this is just an extension of the problem that we are debating about in the other threads - the info and sources people use and how that looks for the different parties - ie how often do you see links to info from a right biased news source like OAN, etc.  vs the frequency you would see the equivalent from a left biased source of similar news credibility?  (i know, cue the debate on what those equivalencies would be).   

I've said it before, but my understanding is that what these threads are battling aren't a censorship issue, but an amplification issue.  Like Tristan Harris says a bunch on his podcast "we are guaranteed a freedom of speech, not a freedom of reach".  Basically they are saying that one post or video about with an anti-science take on Covid or that the left stole the election isn't the issue in a vacuum and should not be allowed on the internet, it's that the algorithms amplify those messages and is what is more likely to get clicks and views and keep us on those sites, so those are types that are being disproportionally seen by people vs. something with better reporting.  

You would think that the solution is to fix their algorithms, but until we figure out a way to monetize this stuff differently and it's not about ad $s for how much time people spend time on their sites, I don't see why they would change that.   So that is why we have the issue we do now, where they are trying to head off the misinformation so it doesn't get amplified.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is we as a society need to decide what we prioritize. Big tech isn't 'the problem.' Gov't isn't 'the problem' (at least not in this case). The problem is we prioritize information that aligns with our bias rather than the truth. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Doug B said:

Agreed. I don't understand the ethic that asking for corroboration or asking for a source is somehow dirty pool.

I never said it was. I just predicted (correctly) that it was a waste of time. Especially for something so common and easily verifiable. 

It's a message board. You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm under no obligation to spoon feed you example after example that are requested in bad faith and immediately dismissed when provided. That's the dirty pool part. 

Look if you guys want to believe Twitter and other social media aren't biased, knock yourselves out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

The answer is we as a society need to decide what we prioritize. Big tech isn't 'the problem.' Gov't isn't 'the problem' (at least not in this case). The problem is we prioritize information that aligns with our bias rather than the truth. 

Yup.   To be fair to platforms like FB - I am not sure it was on their radar that a majority of us would start using them for our news sources.   That was just supposed to be for us to see what people we dated in college and HS look like today, not for hard hitting truth about COVID and election procedures.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KarmaPolice said:

Yup.   To be fair to platforms like FB - I am not sure it was on their radar that a majority of us would start using them for our news sources.   That was just supposed to be for us to see what people we dated in college and HS look like today, not for hard hitting truth about COVID and election procedures.  

I have never had a FB account even though I have been pressured by the same folks who say I should have a Netflix account ad nauseam. I have been told it's liked LinkedIn on steroids and LinkedIn is bad enough for me, but I need it professionally. No regrets whatsoever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Yup.   To be fair to platforms like FB - I am not sure it was on their radar that a majority of us would start using them for our news sources.   That was just supposed to be for us to see what people we dated in college and HS look like today, not for hard hitting truth about COVID and election procedures.  

I'm sure it wasn't when it was first developed in the aughts, but once the profit potential was identified they adapted. It's still an effective tool for exactly what you described above, but it's on the user. Their average user is a dullard though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chaz McNulty said:

I think you just need to decide if Twitter is biased against Conservatives, or if Conservatives under the Trump administration just lie more often.

Well they're not exclusive but Twitter is definitely biased against conservatives. 

Conservatives get de-platformed, suspended,  shadow banned  and "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than others. It's why there was even a demand for Parler to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I never said it was. I just predicted (correctly) that it was a waste of time. Especially for something so common and easily verifiable. 

It's a message board. You have your opinion, I have mine. I'm under no obligation to spoon feed you example after example that are requested in bad faith and immediately dismissed when provided. That's the dirty pool part. 

Look if you guys want to believe Twitter and other social media aren't biased, knock yourselves out. 

The request was not in bad faith.  That is the first mistake...assuming something is in bad faith.

What was provided was not proof of what you claimed at all though...that is also dirty pool.  Making an assertion...providing a link (or relying on someone else to do so) that says something different...then acting as if you proved your point and its the other person's fault.

I believe they have some biases...I don't believe its as bad as everyone says at all.  I believe things should be fact checked and sites/platforms are doing so as they don't want misinformation spread around their media.  And like it or not...Trump and his supporters/surrogates have been quite guilty of spreading complete lies more so than any other group like it ever.  I don't think that is a controversial stance to take.  It is one of the things he uses most to push an agenda and gets people to push it for him and think he is spreading some truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Well they're not exclusive but Twitter is definitely biased against conservatives

Conservatives get de-platformed, suspended,  shadow banned  and "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than others. It's why there was even a demand for Parler to begin with.

I imagine you know this, but even if the bolded text above is true (I don't know if it is true or not), the italicized/underlined text above is not necessarily a logical conclusion.  That is, alternate explanations can account for the bolded.  For example, Donald Trump is "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than me.  That does not mean that Twitter is biased in my favor in any way.  As I have never posted something untrue to Twitter (granted, I have about 5 Tweets total), it has never been necessary for Twitter to fact check me.

Basically, "Conservatives post untrue things at a far ratio than others" could easily explain the bolded, without Twitter being biased at all.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I imagine you know this, but even if the bolded text above is true (I don't know if it is true or not), the italicized/underlined text above is not necessarily a logical conclusion.  That is, alternate explanations can account for the bolded.  For example, Donald Trump is "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than me.  That does not mean that Twitter is biased in my favor in any way.  As I have never posted something untrue to Twitter (granted, I have about 5 Tweets total), it has never been necessary for Twitter to fact check me.

Basically, "Conservatives post untrue things at a far ratio than others" could easily explain the bolded, without Twitter being biased at all.

It's along the lines of "NFL Referees are biased. They call more than twice as many penalties per game against Arizona as they do against New England."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I imagine you know this, but even if the bolded text above is true (I don't know if it is true or not), the italicized/underlined text above is not necessarily a logical conclusion.  That is, alternate explanations can account for the bolded.  For example, Donald Trump is "fact checked" at a far higher ratio than me.  That does not mean that Twitter is biased in my favor in any way.  As I have never posted something untrue to Twitter (granted, I have about 5 Tweets total), it has never been necessary for Twitter to fact check me.

Basically, "Conservatives post untrue things at a far ratio than others" could easily explain the bolded, without Twitter being biased at all.

I mean, I guess it's POSSIBLE to believe conservatives are shadow banning themselves, suspending themselves, and locking their own accounts and just lying about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

No.

Are you saying Twitter is unbiased or applies their "fact checking" in an unbiased way?

 

11 hours ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

The head of Twitter has admitted it in testimony before Congress. You don't get to play the "baseless allegations by Trump supporters" card on this one, sorry.

NB...these are the posts which started the whole link and spoonfed argument.  After the first I said I was unaware of such a proven thing and that it was baseless claims by conservatives...your reply was that the head of twitter testified to this.   I then asked you for linkes.

Now...what was provided...was a link about they should not have censored or removed the stuff about Hunter Biden.  That is not proving what you claimed here...in fact...he seems to have said the opposite in his testimony.

A link

And another about bias...

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54698186

Reminds me of moderation here...people complain...people accuse Joe and his moderators of being biased against conservatives...as with the article and "big tech", it seems such complaints are quite unfounded.  There are also several studies and stories out there going over and debunking the claims of shadow banning conservatives.

So I stand by my post that they are baseless complaints about overall bias and censorship.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to comment
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...