3 ms·

The difference is while few people would claim social media companies are in any way a credible source of truth, there is still a residual notion that the main

The difference is while few people would claim social media companies are in any way a credible source of truth, there is still a residual notion that the main stream media's role is to be the eyes and ears of society, a role that it obviously no longer deserves.

bilbo0s 6y ago
"The difference is while few people would claim social media companies are in any way a credible source of truth" Many, many people in my area regard social media as a credible source of truth. I know that people don't think much of the people where I live, and that comes from the lack of good educational opportunities afforded them out here in flyover country. But these people get to vote too. They get to participate in society as well. I guess I mean that they count. You can't say there is no one who claims social media is credible, when it is obvious there are millions who are swayed by social media precisely because it is credible in their view. In fact, if a story is only on social media, it's proof of the story's validity in their eyes. If the mainstream media won't run a story they found on social media, then it must be part of a conspiracy to keep the "truth" from getting out. I hear this narrative everyday in my area of the midwest.
- ctrlp 6y ago
  Sadly there's more and more support for their point of view. We are entering a new period of MSM censorship but this time we're seeing the social media platforms out in front taking active measures to censor political speech, probably due to a mix of short-sighted "best intentions" (flyover country is no more susceptible to indoctrination than the sophisticates on the coasts) and partly to avoid anti-trust suits from the likely victors in the upcoming election. Just like they censor on behalf of authoritarian regimes abroad to protect access to markets, they will do the same here. Good reason to break up the FAANGs for the public good.

bilbo0s 6y ago

"The difference is while few people would claim social media companies are in any way a credible source of truth" Many, many people in my area regard social media as a credible source of truth. I know that people don't think much of the people where I live, and that comes from the lack of good educational opportunities afforded them out here in flyover country. But these people get to vote too. They get to participate in society as well. I guess I mean that they count. You can't say there is no one who claims social media is credible, when it is obvious there are millions who are swayed by social media precisely because it is credible in their view. In fact, if a story is only on social media, it's proof of the story's validity in their eyes. If the mainstream media won't run a story they found on social media, then it must be part of a conspiracy to keep the "truth" from getting out. I hear this narrative everyday in my area of the midwest.

ctrlp 6y ago
Sadly there's more and more support for their point of view. We are entering a new period of MSM censorship but this time we're seeing the social media platforms out in front taking active measures to censor political speech, probably due to a mix of short-sighted "best intentions" (flyover country is no more susceptible to indoctrination than the sophisticates on the coasts) and partly to avoid anti-trust suits from the likely victors in the upcoming election. Just like they censor on behalf of authoritarian regimes abroad to protect access to markets, they will do the same here. Good reason to break up the FAANGs for the public good.