4 ms·

> You admit it's a rag, that publishes some of the lowest quality journalism. It's also very politically biased, in a way that damages the very fabric of societ

> You admit it's a rag, that publishes some of the lowest quality journalism. It's also very politically biased, in a way that damages the very fabric of society. Restricting its reach is the responsible thing to do in their case. Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. In fact, it's "the responsible thing to do"! Also, stating that NYP "publishes some of the lowest quality journalism" is an insane hyperbole with no basis in reality. It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US. This story, specifically, had more verifiable sources than plenty of recently published stories which cite only "anonymous" sources and are therefore completely unverifiable.

rbanffy 6y ago
> Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already. > It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US. It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. Lower than that it shouldn't be called a news outlet.
- NeverFade 6y ago
  Here's what's happening: our communication is moving to private venues. These venues initially maintain freedom of speech. Once they become effective monopolies, they start arbitrarily cracking down on speech they dislike. The vast majority of people are on these monopolistic platforms. Yes, dissenters can still publish on some obscure platforms that nobody is consuming. If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it. > It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. So convenient that you can know everything about The Post without apparently reading it at all. Also, seems we no longer need to bother looking at facts or evidence. If a news story is vaguely associated with someone we dislike, we can just declare it wrongthink and dismiss it completely without further discussion. In fact, you strongly advocate that it should be blocked from being published at all. If a piece of information is associated with a group or person we dislike for any reason, we should consign it to the memory hole. We shouldn't let people make up their own mind, we should make it for them.
  - ricardo81 6y ago
    >If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it. This is essentially the problem. FAANG are the gateways to the web and having your content removed from them makes it considerably harder to have a web presence. I'm sure most sane people would not want tech companies to be the arbiters of truth, though the solution as to how people can consume information without the inherent bias of platforms/algorithms/company policy remains to be seen.
- thu2111 6y ago
  You mean they can use the sites that are also censored by Google and Apple via their app stores? What people on these threads never seen to think about is, how long until Chrome starts blocking "misinformation"? Would you be making the same arguments then because, someone could theoretically download a separate web browser that nobody has ever heard of? The problem with these arguments is there's no obvious end to them. They are very much a slippery slope. It ends with people who want to criticise the Democrats having to build their own internet out of their own cables and radios, which would be a de-facto China-style totalitarian society. The problem is the sort of people who now work for these tech firms are fundamentally untrustworthy, and appear to have kicked out or 'converted' the people who used to work there who were. We are now left with a big pile of infrastructures and institutions that are controlled by political extremists. Unfortunately this means that if Biden does win his critics will claim his win wasn't legitimate/fair, just like Trump's critics claimed about Russia. Except "Trump won because of Russia" was investigated deeply and there was nothing there, whereas tech company censorship is plain as day and visible for all to see.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  > The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already. That's not true. NYP:s audience is much bigger than Gab or Parler.
Barrin92 6y ago
>Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. how is that worse than letting Rupert Murdoch control every newspaper, whose media conglomerate makes Twitter look tiny in comparison. As much as Dorsey an all the other techbros annoy me at least he's not an outright right-wing cartoon villain

rbanffy 6y ago

> Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already. > It may not be a top newspaper, but it's also far from being the worst paper in the US. It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. Lower than that it shouldn't be called a news outlet.

NeverFade 6y ago
Here's what's happening: our communication is moving to private venues. These venues initially maintain freedom of speech. Once they become effective monopolies, they start arbitrarily cracking down on speech they dislike. The vast majority of people are on these monopolistic platforms. Yes, dissenters can still publish on some obscure platforms that nobody is consuming. If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it. > It's a Murdoch rag, with the usual Murdoch standard for quality and ethics. So convenient that you can know everything about The Post without apparently reading it at all. Also, seems we no longer need to bother looking at facts or evidence. If a news story is vaguely associated with someone we dislike, we can just declare it wrongthink and dismiss it completely without further discussion. In fact, you strongly advocate that it should be blocked from being published at all. If a piece of information is associated with a group or person we dislike for any reason, we should consign it to the memory hole. We shouldn't let people make up their own mind, we should make it for them.
- ricardo81 6y ago
  >If you ban a story on Twitter and Facebook, you are effectively ensuring the vast majority of readers will never get a chance to see it. This is essentially the problem. FAANG are the gateways to the web and having your content removed from them makes it considerably harder to have a web presence. I'm sure most sane people would not want tech companies to be the arbiters of truth, though the solution as to how people can consume information without the inherent bias of platforms/algorithms/company policy remains to be seen.
thu2111 6y ago
You mean they can use the sites that are also censored by Google and Apple via their app stores? What people on these threads never seen to think about is, how long until Chrome starts blocking "misinformation"? Would you be making the same arguments then because, someone could theoretically download a separate web browser that nobody has ever heard of? The problem with these arguments is there's no obvious end to them. They are very much a slippery slope. It ends with people who want to criticise the Democrats having to build their own internet out of their own cables and radios, which would be a de-facto China-style totalitarian society. The problem is the sort of people who now work for these tech firms are fundamentally untrustworthy, and appear to have kicked out or 'converted' the people who used to work there who were. We are now left with a big pile of infrastructures and institutions that are controlled by political extremists. Unfortunately this means that if Biden does win his critics will claim his win wasn't legitimate/fair, just like Trump's critics claimed about Russia. Except "Trump won because of Russia" was investigated deeply and there was nothing there, whereas tech company censorship is plain as day and visible for all to see.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
> The NY Post can still publish their materials on Gab or Parler. Their intended audience is probably there already. That's not true. NYP:s audience is much bigger than Gab or Parler.

Barrin92 6y ago

>Let's just let tech monopolies determine what information we can or cannot communicate. Definitely nothing wrong will come of it. how is that worse than letting Rupert Murdoch control every newspaper, whose media conglomerate makes Twitter look tiny in comparison. As much as Dorsey an all the other techbros annoy me at least he's not an outright right-wing cartoon villain