|
Post by angryguy77 on Mar 13, 2019 14:34:31 GMT -6
Yep...judging content and intent are increasingly difficult in a polarized World. What's deemed unhealthy depends on your perspective...and if virtually all the content panel is of one ideological makeup...guess how it plays out.
For instance, if someone tweeted "All Liberals are idiots and should be locked in special concentration camps"...or "All Conservatives are idiots and should be locked in concentration camps"...your viewpoint on whether that's a serious offense likely stems from your underlying ideology. You can say that there are mechanisms in place (although those 3 don't even deny an underlying bias...they just vow to do better) but it doesn't change bias. Hate is a difficult term to define exclusive of bias.
And btw, because Twitter, Facebook, Google are run by liberal executives...there's no reason that they really want to change that beyond a cursory discrimination statement or two and vow to do "better" in the future.
There are LOTS of specific examples...and frankly even the companies themselves admit underlying bias...again..with a vow to do better in the future.
And btw, because Twitter, Facebook, Google are run by liberal executives... Umm.........I would venture to say that they are run by capitalists more than I would describe them as liberals. If the real money would be seen coming in from the conservative side, I would venture to say you would hear a lot of conservative ideals puking out of their mouths. Right......like george soros is a capitalist 1st and ideologue second.
All great capitalists have their businesses side with SJW's as well. Nike, Gillette etc don't need the other half of the country's money amiright?
It's not like FB, Twitter and other social media sites didn't come out butt hurt after Trump won saying they were going to "keep fake news" off their site. They whined about how conservative pages were influencing people and pledged to fix it.
However, I don't expect a guy who still thinks it was some "low level IRS" employees who targeted conservative groups to actually see the point being made by others.
|
|
Odin's Cooler Alumnus
kramerhammer
Viking (5,537)
Feb 8, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by kramerhammer on Mar 13, 2019 14:47:21 GMT -6
Umm.........I would venture to say that they are run by capitalists more than I would describe them as liberals. If the real money would be seen coming in from the conservative side, I would venture to say you would hear a lot of conservative ideals puking out of their mouths. Right......like george soros is a capitalist 1st and ideologue second.
All great capitalists have their businesses side with SJW's as well. Nike, Gillette etc don't need the other half of the country's money amiright?
It's not like FB, Twitter and other social media sites didn't come out butt hurt after Trump won saying they were going to "keep fake news" off their site. They whined about how conservative pages were influencing people and pledged to fix it.
However, I don't expect a guy who still thinks it was some "low level IRS" employees who targeted conservative groups to actually see the point being made by others.
Say wha? George Soros. OOOHHH. Booo. Who and what else are you all scared of? FoxNews? Nope. Uihlen, Koch, Adelson? Nope. They are legit. They all came out and pledged to fix it because it was WIDELY shown that the info shown on their sites for Trump were utter BULLSHIT. Sorry that truth hurts. Sorry that your walls are closing in on you. Sorry that we are not going to impeach your POS POTUS. Hope your amazing streak of having so many "secret agents" against you keeps you all in so many positions of power, just like you have enjoyed for so long.............wait a minute.........say wha?
|
|
Funkytown
Fri-hals (272)
Mar 4, 2019
Valhalla
|
Post by Funkytown on Mar 13, 2019 14:56:39 GMT -6
i think what he is saying is that specifically Twitters is being run by a liberal board of content judges. other social media have their own slants, but a twitter clean up will likely just mean removal of most things conservative. Yep...judging content and intent are increasingly difficult in a polarized World. What's deemed unhealthy depends on your perspective...and if virtually all the content panel is of one ideological makeup...guess how it plays out.
For instance, if someone tweeted "All Liberals are idiots and should be locked in special concentration camps"...or "All Conservatives are idiots and should be locked in concentration camps"...your viewpoint on whether that's a serious offense likely stems from your underlying ideology. You can say that there are mechanisms in place (although those 3 don't even deny an underlying bias...they just vow to do better) but it doesn't change bias. Hate is a difficult term to define exclusive of bias.
And btw, because Twitter, Facebook, Google are run by liberal executives...there's no reason that they really want to change that beyond a cursory discrimination statement or two and vow to do "better" in the future.
There are LOTS of specific examples...and frankly even the companies themselves admit underlying bias...again..with a vow to do better in the future. I understand what you're saying - I do - but I also think people are capable of separating their personal views from their jobs. People do it all of the time. I don't think the biggest issue is people being biased. I think the biggest issue would be setting up the guidelines for what is/isn't acceptable. People have different tolerance levels regarding what is "unhealthy content." For example, to me, the above examples are rather lazy, immature, and embarrassing -- but are they what I would consider "unhealthy content"? Probably not; it's just more social media nonsense not meant to be taken seriously.
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 13, 2019 15:00:24 GMT -6
Meaning more censorship of conservatives: Are conservatives the only ones who produce unhealthy content? If truly interested I encourage you to listwn to the video posted in first post this thread. Its worth it to understand how they censor based on their view and not a standard applied equally. Then try and take that into consideration when they say being “proactive”. This guy sums it up well lol. Imagine how twitter could ban conservatives in the week prior to presidential election saying it was “proactive”. If it had any sway on election it would be too late after the fact. This is a dangerous precident, since its been proven and also Jack/Twitter admitted as much (they censor conservatives at a very high ratio).
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 13, 2019 15:02:01 GMT -6
Yep...judging content and intent are increasingly difficult in a polarized World. What's deemed unhealthy depends on your perspective...and if virtually all the content panel is of one ideological makeup...guess how it plays out.
For instance, if someone tweeted "All Liberals are idiots and should be locked in special concentration camps"...or "All Conservatives are idiots and should be locked in concentration camps"...your viewpoint on whether that's a serious offense likely stems from your underlying ideology. You can say that there are mechanisms in place (although those 3 don't even deny an underlying bias...they just vow to do better) but it doesn't change bias. Hate is a difficult term to define exclusive of bias.
And btw, because Twitter, Facebook, Google are run by liberal executives...there's no reason that they really want to change that beyond a cursory discrimination statement or two and vow to do "better" in the future.
There are LOTS of specific examples...and frankly even the companies themselves admit underlying bias...again..with a vow to do better in the future. I understand what you're saying - I do - but I also think people are capable of separating their personal views from their jobs. People do it all of the time. I don't think the biggest issue is people being biased. I think the biggest issue would be setting up the guidelines for what is/isn't acceptable. People have different tolerance levels regarding what is "unhealthy content." For example, to me, the above examples are rather lazy, immature, and embarrassing -- but are they what I would consider "unhealthy content"? Probably not; it's just more social media nonsense not meant to be taken seriously. Ok but Twitter banned conservatives for tweeting “learn to code” and admitted it in the video. Thats the problem.
|
|
|
Post by angryguy77 on Mar 13, 2019 15:11:22 GMT -6
Right......like george soros is a capitalist 1st and ideologue second.
All great capitalists have their businesses side with SJW's as well. Nike, Gillette etc don't need the other half of the country's money amiright?
It's not like FB, Twitter and other social media sites didn't come out butt hurt after Trump won saying they were going to "keep fake news" off their site. They whined about how conservative pages were influencing people and pledged to fix it.
However, I don't expect a guy who still thinks it was some "low level IRS" employees who targeted conservative groups to actually see the point being made by others.
Say wha? George Soros. OOOHHH. Booo. Who and what else are you all scared of? FoxNews? Nope. Uihlen, Koch, Adelson? Nope. They are legit. They all came out and pledged to fix it because it was WIDELY shown that the info shown on their sites for Trump were utter BULLSHIT. Sorry that truth hurts. Sorry that your walls are closing in on you. Sorry that we are not going to impeach your POS POTUS. Hope your amazing streak of having so many "secret agents" against you keeps you all in so many positions of power, just like you have enjoyed for so long.............wait a minute.........say wha? oh, so it was fake news huh? Yet Brian Williams still has a job working for your MSM lying media Not like Dan Rather willfully lied to try to help out John Fing Kerry(who was in Vietnam if you didn't know). Funny how I don't see any outrage from you guys over the fake dossier......strange I don't see any libs talking about those stories being taken off social media sites. Hmmmmm well it can't be due to bias. Naw, your side would never do that right? They're not biased at all!
Sorry skippy, this isn't about Koch and the others, this is about your side being so mad they lost, they're going to be the arbiters of what is fake and real in order to help whatever dried up cadaver they run in 2020.
It's hilarious how you can say nothing to see here over liberal bias, yet you bring up fox every chance you get. Our side doesn't control the media like yours does, it doesn't control the entertainment industry, it doesn't control the public schools or colleges. The bias your side has is far more influential and frankly, far more dangerous collectively than anything found on fox. Your side is silencing opposing views on platforms that are replacing traditional sources of news. Facebook, twitter and the others basically have a monopoly and have a very strong position to keep the right from being heard. It's one thing to present something with an editorial slant, and a totally different animal when it comes to censorship.
|
|
|
Post by badgervike on Mar 13, 2019 15:25:56 GMT -6
Yep...judging content and intent are increasingly difficult in a polarized World. What's deemed unhealthy depends on your perspective...and if virtually all the content panel is of one ideological makeup...guess how it plays out.
For instance, if someone tweeted "All Liberals are idiots and should be locked in special concentration camps"...or "All Conservatives are idiots and should be locked in concentration camps"...your viewpoint on whether that's a serious offense likely stems from your underlying ideology. You can say that there are mechanisms in place (although those 3 don't even deny an underlying bias...they just vow to do better) but it doesn't change bias. Hate is a difficult term to define exclusive of bias.
And btw, because Twitter, Facebook, Google are run by liberal executives...there's no reason that they really want to change that beyond a cursory discrimination statement or two and vow to do "better" in the future.
There are LOTS of specific examples...and frankly even the companies themselves admit underlying bias...again..with a vow to do better in the future. I understand what you're saying - I do - but I also think people are capable of separating their personal views from their jobs. People do it all of the time. I don't think the biggest issue is people being biased. I think the biggest issue would be setting up the guidelines for what is/isn't acceptable. People have different tolerance levels regarding what is "unhealthy content." For example, to me, the above examples are rather lazy, immature, and embarrassing -- but are they what I would consider "unhealthy content"? Probably not; it's just more social media nonsense not meant to be taken seriously. It's a fair question Funkytown...good to have you around more btw. Inherent bias affects the way you view bias. I live in Uber Liberal Madison...which votes 80+ Democratic every election cycle. The local news is biased, your family and friends all view things the same...and tend to gravitate towards a position they think is centrist. I can't tell you how many time I've heard that all Conservatives are homophobic bigots....most don't actually mean any harm by it...they're stating it matter of factly...as if there really is no rebuttal..they are just stating fact. Most of the social media companies and their employees is based on similar demographics. They view normal very different than I view normal and thus their view of "hate" or innappropriate content can't help but be jaded. If the social media companies really wanted to fix the issue, they could move their content police from very liberal areas to somewhere else...and try to actually create an unbiased policing of content...they won't because they actually want to steer those discussions a certain ideological way.
The same discussion comes up when discussing "fake news". Who determines?
|
|
Funkytown
Fri-hals (272)
Mar 4, 2019
Valhalla
|
Post by Funkytown on Mar 13, 2019 15:28:22 GMT -6
Any idiots worrying about bias on this platform are idiots. I wouldn't go that far, but I would call this a first world problem. If it's political nonsense that people are worried about, I can reassure them that whatever political tweet they read, there is another one saying the exact opposite. People pick and choose which ones they want to believe in. Such is life. This reminds me of the Vikings fans who cry that ESPN doesn't say enough good things about the Vikings. Are you that insecure with your beliefs that you need them reassured on TV or what? Either you believe in your team or you don't; either they will win or they won't. Coverage doesn't matter. What will be, will be.
|
|
Funkytown
Fri-hals (272)
Mar 4, 2019
Valhalla
|
Post by Funkytown on Mar 13, 2019 15:37:32 GMT -6
If truly interested I encourage you to listwn to the video posted in first post this thread. Its worth it to understand how they censor based on their view and not a standard applied equally. Yeah, that video is quite long... But even if, in the past/present, censorship is/was based on their views and not applied equally ... couldn't they do better? Or is that not possible because they are largely liberal? Because that's what I'm hearing here. Liberals can't possibly perform their job duties without biases, but ... what? Conservatives can? Or they should start employing people based on their political preferences and keep it close to 50/50? How about, instead, they put some strict guidelines in place, communicate well, require continuous training/an open dialogue as issues arise, and expect people to do their freaking jobs?
|
|
|
Post by angryguy77 on Mar 13, 2019 15:40:22 GMT -6
Any idiots worrying about bias on this platform are idiots. I wouldn't go that far, but I would call this a first world problem. If it's political nonsense that people are worried about, I can reassure them that whatever political tweet they read, there is another one saying the exact opposite. People pick and choose which ones they want to believe in. Such is life. This reminds me of the Vikings fans who cry that ESPN doesn't say enough good things about the Vikings. Are you that insecure with your beliefs that you need them reassured on TV or what? Either you believe in your team or you don't; either they will win or they won't. Coverage doesn't matter. What will be, will be. Not quite an accurate comparison. It be more like if ESPN decided to limit things said about the vikings on their site while allowing stories puffing up GB to go unchecked.
ok that was a bad comparison by me as well. I should've picked something that actually doesn't happen to make a point.
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 13, 2019 15:53:06 GMT -6
If truly interested I encourage you to listwn to the video posted in first post this thread. Its worth it to understand how they censor based on their view and not a standard applied equally. Yeah, that video is quite long... But even if, in the past/present, censorship is/was based on their views and not applied equally ... couldn't they do better? Or is that not possible because they are largely liberal? Because that's what I'm hearing here. Liberals can't possibly perform their job duties without biases, but ... what? Conservatives can? Or they should start employing people based on their political preferences and keep it close to 50/50? How about, instead, they put some strict guidelines in place, communicate well, require continuous training/an open dialogue as issues arise, and expect people to do their freaking jobs? They could do better. Make rules and stick with them regardless the view. Apply the standard without bias. To fully understand check the video all the way through its Twitter CEO and his legal/HR person. As you watch you can see them squirming when confronted with facts. This is a public format used by many people. When they start to favor one political party it can has consequences. Its more collusion than fake Russia ever was.
|
|
OkieDokie
Surviving
Jarl (22,857)
Feb 5, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by OkieDokie on Mar 13, 2019 16:01:37 GMT -6
Makes a good point:
|
|
Odin's Cooler Alumnus
kramerhammer
Viking (5,537)
Feb 8, 2017
Valhalla
|
Post by kramerhammer on Mar 14, 2019 5:06:11 GMT -6
Say wha? George Soros. OOOHHH. Booo. Who and what else are you all scared of? FoxNews? Nope. Uihlen, Koch, Adelson? Nope. They are legit. They all came out and pledged to fix it because it was WIDELY shown that the info shown on their sites for Trump were utter BULLSHIT. Sorry that truth hurts. Sorry that your walls are closing in on you. Sorry that we are not going to impeach your POS POTUS. Hope your amazing streak of having so many "secret agents" against you keeps you all in so many positions of power, just like you have enjoyed for so long.............wait a minute.........say wha? oh, so it was fake news huh? Yet Brian Williams still has a job working for your MSM lying media Not like Dan Rather willfully lied to try to help out John Fing Kerry(who was in Vietnam if you didn't know). Funny how I don't see any outrage from you guys over the fake dossier......strange I don't see any libs talking about those stories being taken off social media sites. Hmmmmm well it can't be due to bias. Naw, your side would never do that right? They're not biased at all!
Sorry skippy, this isn't about Koch and the others, this is about your side being so mad they lost, they're going to be the arbiters of what is fake and real in order to help whatever dried up cadaver they run in 2020.
It's hilarious how you can say nothing to see here over liberal bias, yet you bring up fox every chance you get. Our side doesn't control the media like yours does, it doesn't control the entertainment industry, it doesn't control the public schools or colleges. The bias your side has is far more influential and frankly, far more dangerous collectively than anything found on fox. Your side is silencing opposing views on platforms that are replacing traditional sources of news. Facebook, twitter and the others basically have a monopoly and have a very strong position to keep the right from being heard. It's one thing to present something with an editorial slant, and a totally different animal when it comes to censorship.
Funny how I don't see any outrage from you guys over the fake dossier......strange I don't see any libs talking about those stories being taken off social media sites. Hmmmmm well it can't be due to bias. Naw, your side would never do that right? They're not biased at all!
There is outrage about the dossier, but not because it is fake. The outrage is that it was nearly 100% corroborated WHEN THEY GOT IT. They already knew nearly every single thing in it. Your stories are taken down not because of bias, but because they are utter bullshit. Our side doesn't control the media like yours does, That is true. Your media controls you and your POTUS. Shit there have been upwards of 12 FoxNews reporters or analysts working for the WH so far. The bias your side has is far more influential and frankly, far more dangerous collectively than anything found on fox We are so dangerous that we let you have Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS, the majority of state Governorships and legislatures and you all still are unable to catch us in nearly anything. You all really need to do a better job of protecting us from budget surplus' like Clinton left office with and saving the economy from collapse like Obama did. Please save us, we voted you into nearly fucking everything so quit worrying about us so much and get something done already.
|
|
|
Post by Bezerker88 on Mar 14, 2019 6:08:54 GMT -6
If truly interested I encourage you to listwn to the video posted in first post this thread. Its worth it to understand how they censor based on their view and not a standard applied equally. Yeah, that video is quite long... But even if, in the past/present, censorship is/was based on their views and not applied equally ... couldn't they do better? Or is that not possible because they are largely liberal? Because that's what I'm hearing here. Liberals can't possibly perform their job duties without biases, but ... what? Conservatives can? Or they should start employing people based on their political preferences and keep it close to 50/50? How about, instead, they put some strict guidelines in place, communicate well, require continuous training/an open dialogue as issues arise, and expect people to do their freaking jobs? That is because most Conservatives believe in free speech and will defend anyone's right to it. It's the whole "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend you right to say it" thing. And most Liberals(or should I say "the left") believe in only supporting things they agree with and try to censor anyone who says what they consider the "wrong thing". Tim Pool is a "true liberal" and holds the twitter people's feet to the fire in the video that you really should watch... I would think the whole "Covington Kids" fiasco would have taught people to know all the facts before deciding what happened instead of just viewing the clips that a select few decided to show them.
Silencing/deplatforming people does not change their thought... it just makes a person unaware of how those people think. I'd rather know who supports what so I can be informed instead of finding out later.
|
|
|
Post by angryguy77 on Mar 14, 2019 8:43:25 GMT -6
oh, so it was fake news huh? Yet Brian Williams still has a job working for your MSM lying media Not like Dan Rather willfully lied to try to help out John Fing Kerry(who was in Vietnam if you didn't know). Funny how I don't see any outrage from you guys over the fake dossier......strange I don't see any libs talking about those stories being taken off social media sites. Hmmmmm well it can't be due to bias. Naw, your side would never do that right? They're not biased at all!
Sorry skippy, this isn't about Koch and the others, this is about your side being so mad they lost, they're going to be the arbiters of what is fake and real in order to help whatever dried up cadaver they run in 2020.
It's hilarious how you can say nothing to see here over liberal bias, yet you bring up fox every chance you get. Our side doesn't control the media like yours does, it doesn't control the entertainment industry, it doesn't control the public schools or colleges. The bias your side has is far more influential and frankly, far more dangerous collectively than anything found on fox. Your side is silencing opposing views on platforms that are replacing traditional sources of news. Facebook, twitter and the others basically have a monopoly and have a very strong position to keep the right from being heard. It's one thing to present something with an editorial slant, and a totally different animal when it comes to censorship.
Funny how I don't see any outrage from you guys over the fake dossier......strange I don't see any libs talking about those stories being taken off social media sites. Hmmmmm well it can't be due to bias. Naw, your side would never do that right? They're not biased at all!
There is outrage about the dossier, but not because it is fake. The outrage is that it was nearly 100% corroborated WHEN THEY GOT IT. They already knew nearly every single thing in it. Your stories are taken down not because of bias, but because they are utter bullshit. Our side doesn't control the media like yours does, That is true. Your media controls you and your POTUS. Shit there have been upwards of 12 FoxNews reporters or analysts working for the WH so far. The bias your side has is far more influential and frankly, far more dangerous collectively than anything found on fox We are so dangerous that we let you have Congress, POTUS, SCOTUS, the majority of state Governorships and legislatures and you all still are unable to catch us in nearly anything. You all really need to do a better job of protecting us from budget surplus' like Clinton left office with and saving the economy from collapse like Obama did. Please save us, we voted you into nearly fucking everything so quit worrying about us so much and get something done already. No it wasn't ever corroborated when it was released. It was a "please God, let this be true" story your side ran with. The FBI knew it was a fake and they still gave it legs. You're going to sit here and tell me there's not bias or that your side's bias isn't dangerous when they carried water for Hillary? The news spent an eternity talking about Trump pissing on a bed with whores which wasn't backed up with ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL while ignoring Hilary destroying evidence and using her charity to fund campaigns illegally. You look at Obama and his connection prior to running for office. Look at the church he was attending. Can you honestly say that if a conservative had all those shady individuals in his past that the media would ignore that and focus on his opponents VP's IQ instead?
Come on man, you can disagree on policy, but you are not helping your credibility if you can't even acknowledge the points made about this liberal bias.
Again, stop with the fox....you realize we get our news for a ton of other sources? Of course you would all mock those right? You also realize many of our sources like Red State for example backed people that were not the conservatives first choice for president? That's just an example. Don't make this about a referendum on Fox, I'm not going to defend them or their credibility. I"m sure you will find bias on that channel, but as I said, that bias is far less harmful than censoring and entire side of the political spectrum.
Lol, the media controls Trump? Here I thought is was the Russians, or was it martians with a fisting fetish that pull the strings? Which boogyman is it today?
That guy went after many conservatives in the media when running. He's the last one you could say is controlled. BTW, which person could be more detrimental to the country while working for the president: A former fox news employee, or communist....cough cough...Valerie Jarrett...cough cough
Lol you voted us into nothing, we won because the people wised up.
How did a president who had the lowest GDP for his entire post war presidency save us? How did a president with the lowest employment rate for minorities help us? How did the president who had the slowest economic recovery save the country?
A weakened dollar, lost gains in the mideast, a wreaked Libya and a failed healthcare progame are his legacy. Oh wait, he did see to it that gays can get married and illegals can go to college so I guess he has something to his credit.
All that being said, I'm not going to pretend the GOP has done a swell job every time they've had power. For one, the party is run by those who've adopted failed liberal polices. It's also not easy to fix the damage done by liberalism over an entire century in a 4 year presidential term.
As far as Clinton's legacy, you can thank Newt and Dick Morris for that one. Had they not won, Billy would've been governing way differently. He was just smart enough to see that the country wasn't as liberal as he was.
|
|