Are the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter any good? Is there any chance they'd gain popularity?
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Conspiracy Theory Media & Manufactured Consent
- Thread starter Crankitup
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Moderator
- #52
Parler has gained massive popularity since the election! It’s a bit messy to scroll through atm but The benefit is you get none of that endless loops of childish banter crap you’ll find on twitter and facebook... For now anyway.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #54
The censorious left is obliterating free speech
A lot of things worry me about a Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration, but nothing troubles me more than that it will accommodate the left's disturbing march toward selective suppression of free speech. Much of the war against this sacred liberty occurs at the level of our culture, but when a...
www.semissourian.com
- Moderator
- #62
Stating the absolute obvious but this is a good article from The Daily Wire in how trust in the media is at all time low!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trust-in-media-at-all-time-low-majority-believe-reporters-purposefully-trying-to-mislead-people??utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
https://www.dailywire.com/news/trust-in-media-at-all-time-low-majority-believe-reporters-purposefully-trying-to-mislead-people??utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #63
Social Media Bias Just Got Even More Orwellian
pjmedia.com
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,092
- 198,371
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Moderator
- #64
"No Ads. Exclusive reporting"Social Media Bias Just Got Even More Orwellian
Banner and top right - an ad for Shady Rays
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #65
"No Ads. Exclusive reporting"
Banner and top right - an ad for Shady Rays
That's the ad hom finished with. What about the important thing? You know, the content?
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,092
- 198,371
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Moderator
- #66
It's not ad hominem - it goes to very heart of how honest a "news source" is. It would be hard to find a more biased source, but I did read the article. If anything, it's an argument for mainstream media as I doubt major publications would serve up such poorly written drivel.
"We're the victim here, look at this one study" sums it up.
For a start:
“The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy largescale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests.”
The article attacks the study, but provides no evidence against this finding in the study. It completely ignores how algorithms work on social media - liberal posters will have more liberal 'suggested articles' pop up, and vice versa conservative posters.
Then it conflates "Can't be answered conclusively" (emphasis added) with "can't be answered". Either deliberately dishonest or a poor summation.
The article then claims media bias (with no substantiation), and comes up with this pearler: "The range of thought on social media grows narrower by the moment."
The sheer number of social media accounts and posts continues to grow, making this claim absolutely ridiculous.
Sadly, there are a number of "MSM are out to get us!!!" types who will lap this up.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #67
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #69
Mofra you are confused.
They haven't lied at all. You are just confused.
It's pretty simple. At the top of the page they invite you to join their VIP program to enjoy no ads.
Now I'm wondering if an apology for your false accusation will be forthcoming soon?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #71
The Stern Center says "The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed."
Whether it was couched imprecisely or not, I see nothing wrong with PJ Media's response - "Nevertheless, the researchers felt confident declaring that charges of bias are based in “falsehood” or “disinformation.”
That's the crux of their argument.
Mofra
Moderator
- Dec 6, 2005
- 67,092
- 198,371
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
- Other Teams
- Footscray, Coney Island Warriors
- Moderator
- #72
Science and research itself is rarely conclusive, but that doesn't mean we cannot make findings based on the best available information e.g. the efficacy of certain medicines, the effects of electromagnetic energy and how that relates to setting safe limits for communications equipment, the likely impact of economic policy, etc.
It's not uncommon for an academic paper to list the limitations of it's research - arguably, it's encouraging. It sounds like a standard meta-review.
People hand over their private information to Zuckerberg for free.
The information that Assange took was classified as Secret and Top Secret with the penalties for doing this well known to everybody.
I don't know why Assange thought he wouldn't be chased by the governments he affected.
