20 ms·

It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politi

It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politics. That may be unavoidable anyways. I think people outside the SV bubble (I grew up there, don't live there anymore) don't realize how hated and despised their censorship policies really are. Musk has his pulse on that, so I'm happy to see him step in and shake up the group think.

systemvoltage 4y ago
> one of its competitors rises The ideological complex has not allowed anyone to rise. That's the issue. Even neutrality is considered distasteful.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  Huh, wha?
  - hedora 4y ago
  - adventured 4y ago
    If you're wondering about the neutrality premise. The furthest ~25% on the left and right have an increasingly extreme, partisan, borderline psychotic view of the world that you're either with us or against us. That polarization has become radically more aggressive over the past decade. Just to use a simple example: someone might might say it's not enough to not oppose men becoming women and dominating female swimming/sports (neutrality), you must support it. Anything else and you're an "enemy" and not an "ally." The left in particular has created an increasingly large vocabulary designed to polarize and split the population and draw lines between people (either or lines).
    - cbozeman 4y ago
      So we moderates kill off each half of our crazier cousins and live in moderate harmony! (this is extreme sarcasm, for those that can't tell)
    - Spivak 4y ago
      This doesn’t really make sense what you described isn’t actually a neutral stance — hell just the framing alone betrays your feelings. You’re already using extremely polarizing vocabulary in your attempt to be neutral. Someone in support of trans men and women being able to compete would take issue with: * “men becoming women” — transitioning doesn’t change your gender, it only aligns your outward appearance to the gender you have always been. * “dominating female sports” — the whole point of the opposing view is specifically that trans women don’t dominate sports. You’ve twisted it in such a way that even accepting the premise of your “neutral” statement is already super political. Here’s a real neutral stance that would be accepted by people on both sides of this particular issue. “I’m not qualified to have an opinion on this matter, the decision is best left to the athletic clubs and people more knowledgeable about the effects of HRT.”
      - not_sure_ 4y ago
        > transitioning doesn’t change your gender, it only aligns your outward appearance to the gender you have always been Is that really true? There's a growing body of evidence that "the gender you have always been" doesn't really apply as a general case. For example: detransitioners, autogynephiles, abusive parents attempting to 'trans the gay away' in their kids, and so on. Of course there are people who also report having felt like their dissonant gender identity for as long as they remember, and will for the rest of their lives. But this is not universal. Seems there are many reasons why one may decide on transitioning, and not all of them are positive.
        Spivak 4y ago
        First, since you used a throwaway for this, kudos for asking this in a way that is respectful and seemingly genuinely curious. I think at some point it becomes a little bit semantics. If you transition for reasons other than your dissonance or because you suffer from dysphoria then you’re probably gonna have a bad time. And if you’re forced to transition by abusive parents or government you’re gonna cause dissonance or dysphoria. Detransitioners are an interesting case because while it’s absolutely possible for people to be wrong the majority of cases of people doing it are because of external factors like violence, discrimination, and unsupportive friends and family. However, there are lots of safeguards to keep people from making mistakes. You need the sign off from a doctor, two psychologists, and have to be living as your post-transition gender for at least a year to get reassignment surgery, HRT is broadly speaking reversible, nobody is giving HRT at all to kids, teens only get puberty blockers until they and their doctors are sure, and adults still have to go through an interview. This process is supposed to catch autogynephiliacs (although this terminology is really really dated) and I suppose someone could lie their way into getting reassignment but that’s on them then. So yeah, I think we’re basically in agreement. I think a better way to say it so it’s universal is “transitioning doesn’t change your gender.” A gay woman forced to transition against her will is still a woman, a man who detransitions because it doesn’t alleviate problems misidentified as dysphoria is still a man, and a trans woman is and always has been a woman.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Well, the problem I see is the following: - Claim that Twitter is a private corporation and its their rules (Btw, you can check my history in 2020 where I did support purge of Trump from social media, but I am now comtemplating). - But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing incumbents not with market forces, but rather with censorship, algorithms, political and misinformation driven opposition. So now we have public square that enjoys monopolistic powers (yes, government officials exclusively publishing on Twitter. Your tax money cannot buy a platform where you can listen to the constitutuents that you voted for), but also prevents incumbents from rising through political proxies that I mentioned earlier. This is scary.
    - nemothekid 4y ago
      When someone says that _Twitter_ does heavy handed exercising of censorship or algorithmic manipulation just shows me that most people don't actually use Twitter and instead consume it view headlines. That wouldn't be surprising considering is the 15th largest social network by MAU globally. The Twitter product today is still largely the same as it was 10 years ago; Meta & friends do far more to stifle "free speech" but are never given the same sort of criticism because they do the "right" kind of amplification and moderating. Twitter is probably the least moderated of all the big social networks but it gets the most criticism for having too much moderation. What people actually want from Twitter is freedom from criticism from the mob, i.e "free speech for me, but not for thee". >But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing incumbents not with market forces, Not with market forces? You mean to say that censorship is what is actually holding Gab back from mainstream adoption? This sentiment has always been incredibly myopic. I don't know why American conservatives are always surprised when their flavor of politics aren't popular. For some reason Europe and the rest of the West, who are farther left than Americans, cease to exist and the reasons why sites like Gab aren't huge is because of censorship.
    - cbsmith 4y ago
      There seems like there's a presumption that already successful companies are not subject to the same forces as other companies, despite all the evidence (including Twitter's experience) to the contrary.
cbsmith 4y ago
taf2 4y ago
You mean like the news? As an experiment try this for two months. On month 1 - watch only CNN. On month 2 - watch only Fox. Maybe take a 1 week break between both and write down your thoughts on the world... very interesting how it evolves based on what you watch/listen too... From what I hear if you just watched Russian state media it'd be an even more extreme version. The great thing about our free society is you have the choice to do this experiment, as I understand it you can't do this in Russia today...
- choward 4y ago
  > as I understand it you can't do this in Russia today... Or Ukraine or many other countries. Not sure why you singled out Russia specifically. However, if you are just watching corporate media you're not getting the full picture either. CNN and Fox News have very similar opinions on non-culture war issues.
  - Breza 4y ago
    Russia has lots of people with access to technology and it also has wildly repressive speech laws. That combination makes it great for this example.
- xanaxagoras 4y ago
  Perhaps this is what is actually meant by "television programming"
memish 4y ago
Backing this up with some data, the most common reaction on twitter is: "Elon will improve Twitter by expanding freedom of speech on the platform" https://twitter.com/NarrativesProj/status/1511393097577545740 https://twitter.com/NarrativesProj/status/151139309757754574...
- and0 4y ago
  That's what makes all of this so ironic to me. Social media platforms and their users (especially Facebook) are not left-leaning. That a vast majority of Twitter users feel he will improve it means that the bias is fictional.
  - cbozeman 4y ago
    I don't know how you got that sentiment from that graphic, which doesn't have jack shit to do with political affiliation. I will put $100 down right now that if you did a statistically significant, unbiased, controlled, representative sample of verified Twitter users - as in people you can provably show are actual human beings - you'll find the majority are left-leaning. Oh wait, I don't have to, Pew Research Group already did it... https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw... Facebook is a different animal because more than half the planet uses it, and what we consider "left" or "right" as Americans is dramatically different than what other nations would consider "left" or "right" or "liberal" or "conservative".
    - enragedcacti 4y ago
      > verified Twitter users - as in people you can provably show are actual human beings Verified means the account is authentic and of public interest. It doesn't guarantee that you are a person and further, the vast, vast majority of real people on twitter aren't verified. as for the pew survey, it isn't controlling for many of the things that we know correlate with political affiliation, it is just reporting them as isolated facts. Just education and age would likely explain the delta in political affiliations within that survey. [1] Sure this doesn't change the fact that the slight majority is Dem-Leaning, but it should raise serious doubt that its because of bias on the part of twitter instead of just plain old demographics of the internet. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-...
tedivm 4y ago
Outside of the SV bubble people have actual lives that don't resolve around tech companies. Until someone shows actual evidence with real numbers behind it it's hard to take the whole "people don't realize how much people do or think X" seriously.
- packetlost 4y ago
  As someone who lives in the midwest, very disconnected from the SV bubble, this is spot on. I know several conservative-minded people that absolutely care about the censorship and policies SV companies push and despise them for it.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the country nowdays — it's used to organize churches, meetup groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals, etc. People care because censorship does affect how they build their real lives.
    - tedivm 4y ago
      > Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the country nowdays — it's used to organize churches, meetup groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals, etc. This may be true, but how many people in those church groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about censorship? In my experience far more of them are worried about harassment- I know far more women who can't use social media because of their stalkers than I do people who were kicked out of social media for having bad opinions.
      - ARandomerDude 4y ago
        > This may be true, but how many people in those church groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about censorship? Many, in my experience. To the point that I get sick of hearing about it, and I'm not an alt-right Q-anon type or anywhere near it.
jasonlotito 4y ago
> don't realize how hated and despised their censorship policies really are. Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not really care about their policies. They don't give two figs about it, and just go about their life just fine without being affected by it one bit. I'm sure you can find some people on both sides of the spectrum regarding their policies, but the vast majority don't. As someone who isn't from SV or has ever worked for in or for an SV company, my bubble is surrounded by farmers.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Doesnt seem that way from my perspective. Do you grant this is simply your impression? I tend to distrust you because you just assert this general truth that is rather controversial and you dont cite any data.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    The idea that an absolute majority of Americans have really spent any time even thinking about Twitter's censorship policies seems divorced from the reality I live in.
- cbozeman 4y ago
  > Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not really care about their policies. They don't give two figs about it, and just go about their life just fine without being affected by it one bit. That's the problem with not giving a shit. When things finally do become bad enough that it affects you personally, it's too late. When it comes to standing up for what's right - and I define what's "right" as mostly what the Constitution of the United States lays forth as our inalienable rights, you better give a shit from the word "go" and you better oppose it stridently because once freedoms get stripped away from you, they're nearly impossible to recover. I can't even imagine how the Founders would react to things like the PATRIOT Act. And we can blather on all goddamn day about "muh private corporations!" but when these corporations are actively suppressing competitors and are working hand-in-hand with news outlets to label any new alterative as a Mos Eisley-esque shithole that no respectable person would frequent, the point is moot. Facebook and Twitter are the modern day public square. Some people will want to claim it's "The Internet" itself; you can just go make your own public square and publish your own website, etc., but that's not actually how a public square works. Just because you hop on your tractor and box blade your front yard flat and pave it over with concrete and add some park benches to it, doesn't turn it into the public square. You actually have to have the public actively occupying it. The public square is where the people are. And the people are on Facebook and Twitter... at least in America.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
xanaxagoras 4y ago
> and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politics. That's exactly where we are now? When twitter censors right of center ideas and de-platforms those who think them, we invariably seek refuge in alternatives that engender far more radical thinking than if we had stayed in a larger public discussion.
- zht 4y ago
  how much of that is Twitter and how much of that is Fox News?
  - xanaxagoras 4y ago
    I don't follow.
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    Twitter having a liberal bias is 100% Twitter, 0% Fox news
tonguez 4y ago
“It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politics. That may be unavoidable anyways.” one can dream. as of now all corporations follow the same ideology of neoconservative imperialism because they are all owned by the same people (blackrock, etc)
nonethewiser 4y ago
"It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politics." Not ideal, but better than the status quo where there is 1 company catering to 1 group.
- raincom 4y ago
  Wasn’t how Fox News born?

systemvoltage 4y ago

> one of its competitors rises The ideological complex has not allowed anyone to rise. That's the issue. Even neutrality is considered distasteful.

cbsmith 4y ago
Huh, wha?
- hedora 4y ago
- adventured 4y ago
  If you're wondering about the neutrality premise. The furthest ~25% on the left and right have an increasingly extreme, partisan, borderline psychotic view of the world that you're either with us or against us. That polarization has become radically more aggressive over the past decade. Just to use a simple example: someone might might say it's not enough to not oppose men becoming women and dominating female swimming/sports (neutrality), you must support it. Anything else and you're an "enemy" and not an "ally." The left in particular has created an increasingly large vocabulary designed to polarize and split the population and draw lines between people (either or lines).
  - cbozeman 4y ago
    So we moderates kill off each half of our crazier cousins and live in moderate harmony! (this is extreme sarcasm, for those that can't tell)
  - Spivak 4y ago
    This doesn’t really make sense what you described isn’t actually a neutral stance — hell just the framing alone betrays your feelings. You’re already using extremely polarizing vocabulary in your attempt to be neutral. Someone in support of trans men and women being able to compete would take issue with: * “men becoming women” — transitioning doesn’t change your gender, it only aligns your outward appearance to the gender you have always been. * “dominating female sports” — the whole point of the opposing view is specifically that trans women don’t dominate sports. You’ve twisted it in such a way that even accepting the premise of your “neutral” statement is already super political. Here’s a real neutral stance that would be accepted by people on both sides of this particular issue. “I’m not qualified to have an opinion on this matter, the decision is best left to the athletic clubs and people more knowledgeable about the effects of HRT.”
    - not_sure_ 4y ago
      > transitioning doesn’t change your gender, it only aligns your outward appearance to the gender you have always been Is that really true? There's a growing body of evidence that "the gender you have always been" doesn't really apply as a general case. For example: detransitioners, autogynephiles, abusive parents attempting to 'trans the gay away' in their kids, and so on. Of course there are people who also report having felt like their dissonant gender identity for as long as they remember, and will for the rest of their lives. But this is not universal. Seems there are many reasons why one may decide on transitioning, and not all of them are positive.
      - Spivak 4y ago
        First, since you used a throwaway for this, kudos for asking this in a way that is respectful and seemingly genuinely curious. I think at some point it becomes a little bit semantics. If you transition for reasons other than your dissonance or because you suffer from dysphoria then you’re probably gonna have a bad time. And if you’re forced to transition by abusive parents or government you’re gonna cause dissonance or dysphoria. Detransitioners are an interesting case because while it’s absolutely possible for people to be wrong the majority of cases of people doing it are because of external factors like violence, discrimination, and unsupportive friends and family. However, there are lots of safeguards to keep people from making mistakes. You need the sign off from a doctor, two psychologists, and have to be living as your post-transition gender for at least a year to get reassignment surgery, HRT is broadly speaking reversible, nobody is giving HRT at all to kids, teens only get puberty blockers until they and their doctors are sure, and adults still have to go through an interview. This process is supposed to catch autogynephiliacs (although this terminology is really really dated) and I suppose someone could lie their way into getting reassignment but that’s on them then. So yeah, I think we’re basically in agreement. I think a better way to say it so it’s universal is “transitioning doesn’t change your gender.” A gay woman forced to transition against her will is still a woman, a man who detransitions because it doesn’t alleviate problems misidentified as dysphoria is still a man, and a trans woman is and always has been a woman.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Well, the problem I see is the following: - Claim that Twitter is a private corporation and its their rules (Btw, you can check my history in 2020 where I did support purge of Trump from social media, but I am now comtemplating). - But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing incumbents not with market forces, but rather with censorship, algorithms, political and misinformation driven opposition. So now we have public square that enjoys monopolistic powers (yes, government officials exclusively publishing on Twitter. Your tax money cannot buy a platform where you can listen to the constitutuents that you voted for), but also prevents incumbents from rising through political proxies that I mentioned earlier. This is scary.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    When someone says that _Twitter_ does heavy handed exercising of censorship or algorithmic manipulation just shows me that most people don't actually use Twitter and instead consume it view headlines. That wouldn't be surprising considering is the 15th largest social network by MAU globally. The Twitter product today is still largely the same as it was 10 years ago; Meta & friends do far more to stifle "free speech" but are never given the same sort of criticism because they do the "right" kind of amplification and moderating. Twitter is probably the least moderated of all the big social networks but it gets the most criticism for having too much moderation. What people actually want from Twitter is freedom from criticism from the mob, i.e "free speech for me, but not for thee". >But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing incumbents not with market forces, Not with market forces? You mean to say that censorship is what is actually holding Gab back from mainstream adoption? This sentiment has always been incredibly myopic. I don't know why American conservatives are always surprised when their flavor of politics aren't popular. For some reason Europe and the rest of the West, who are farther left than Americans, cease to exist and the reasons why sites like Gab aren't huge is because of censorship.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    There seems like there's a presumption that already successful companies are not subject to the same forces as other companies, despite all the evidence (including Twitter's experience) to the contrary.

cbsmith 4y ago

taf2 4y ago

You mean like the news? As an experiment try this for two months. On month 1 - watch only CNN. On month 2 - watch only Fox. Maybe take a 1 week break between both and write down your thoughts on the world... very interesting how it evolves based on what you watch/listen too... From what I hear if you just watched Russian state media it'd be an even more extreme version. The great thing about our free society is you have the choice to do this experiment, as I understand it you can't do this in Russia today...

choward 4y ago
> as I understand it you can't do this in Russia today... Or Ukraine or many other countries. Not sure why you singled out Russia specifically. However, if you are just watching corporate media you're not getting the full picture either. CNN and Fox News have very similar opinions on non-culture war issues.
- Breza 4y ago
  Russia has lots of people with access to technology and it also has wildly repressive speech laws. That combination makes it great for this example.
xanaxagoras 4y ago
Perhaps this is what is actually meant by "television programming"

memish 4y ago

Backing this up with some data, the most common reaction on twitter is: "Elon will improve Twitter by expanding freedom of speech on the platform" https://twitter.com/NarrativesProj/status/1511393097577545740 https://twitter.com/NarrativesProj/status/151139309757754574...

and0 4y ago
That's what makes all of this so ironic to me. Social media platforms and their users (especially Facebook) are not left-leaning. That a vast majority of Twitter users feel he will improve it means that the bias is fictional.
- cbozeman 4y ago
  I don't know how you got that sentiment from that graphic, which doesn't have jack shit to do with political affiliation. I will put $100 down right now that if you did a statistically significant, unbiased, controlled, representative sample of verified Twitter users - as in people you can provably show are actual human beings - you'll find the majority are left-leaning. Oh wait, I don't have to, Pew Research Group already did it... https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw... Facebook is a different animal because more than half the planet uses it, and what we consider "left" or "right" as Americans is dramatically different than what other nations would consider "left" or "right" or "liberal" or "conservative".
  - enragedcacti 4y ago
    > verified Twitter users - as in people you can provably show are actual human beings Verified means the account is authentic and of public interest. It doesn't guarantee that you are a person and further, the vast, vast majority of real people on twitter aren't verified. as for the pew survey, it isn't controlling for many of the things that we know correlate with political affiliation, it is just reporting them as isolated facts. Just education and age would likely explain the delta in political affiliations within that survey. [1] Sure this doesn't change the fact that the slight majority is Dem-Leaning, but it should raise serious doubt that its because of bias on the part of twitter instead of just plain old demographics of the internet. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-...

tedivm 4y ago

Outside of the SV bubble people have actual lives that don't resolve around tech companies. Until someone shows actual evidence with real numbers behind it it's hard to take the whole "people don't realize how much people do or think X" seriously.

packetlost 4y ago
As someone who lives in the midwest, very disconnected from the SV bubble, this is spot on. I know several conservative-minded people that absolutely care about the censorship and policies SV companies push and despise them for it.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the country nowdays — it's used to organize churches, meetup groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals, etc. People care because censorship does affect how they build their real lives.
  - tedivm 4y ago
    > Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the country nowdays — it's used to organize churches, meetup groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals, etc. This may be true, but how many people in those church groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about censorship? In my experience far more of them are worried about harassment- I know far more women who can't use social media because of their stalkers than I do people who were kicked out of social media for having bad opinions.
    - ARandomerDude 4y ago
      > This may be true, but how many people in those church groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about censorship? Many, in my experience. To the point that I get sick of hearing about it, and I'm not an alt-right Q-anon type or anywhere near it.

jasonlotito 4y ago

> don't realize how hated and despised their censorship policies really are. Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not really care about their policies. They don't give two figs about it, and just go about their life just fine without being affected by it one bit. I'm sure you can find some people on both sides of the spectrum regarding their policies, but the vast majority don't. As someone who isn't from SV or has ever worked for in or for an SV company, my bubble is surrounded by farmers.

nonethewiser 4y ago
Doesnt seem that way from my perspective. Do you grant this is simply your impression? I tend to distrust you because you just assert this general truth that is rather controversial and you dont cite any data.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  The idea that an absolute majority of Americans have really spent any time even thinking about Twitter's censorship policies seems divorced from the reality I live in.
cbozeman 4y ago
> Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not really care about their policies. They don't give two figs about it, and just go about their life just fine without being affected by it one bit. That's the problem with not giving a shit. When things finally do become bad enough that it affects you personally, it's too late. When it comes to standing up for what's right - and I define what's "right" as mostly what the Constitution of the United States lays forth as our inalienable rights, you better give a shit from the word "go" and you better oppose it stridently because once freedoms get stripped away from you, they're nearly impossible to recover. I can't even imagine how the Founders would react to things like the PATRIOT Act. And we can blather on all goddamn day about "muh private corporations!" but when these corporations are actively suppressing competitors and are working hand-in-hand with news outlets to label any new alterative as a Mos Eisley-esque shithole that no respectable person would frequent, the point is moot. Facebook and Twitter are the modern day public square. Some people will want to claim it's "The Internet" itself; you can just go make your own public square and publish your own website, etc., but that's not actually how a public square works. Just because you hop on your tractor and box blade your front yard flat and pave it over with concrete and add some park benches to it, doesn't turn it into the public square. You actually have to have the public actively occupying it. The public square is where the people are. And the people are on Facebook and Twitter... at least in America.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

xanaxagoras 4y ago

> and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politics. That's exactly where we are now? When twitter censors right of center ideas and de-platforms those who think them, we invariably seek refuge in alternatives that engender far more radical thinking than if we had stayed in a larger public discussion.

zht 4y ago
how much of that is Twitter and how much of that is Fox News?
- xanaxagoras 4y ago
  I don't follow.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  Twitter having a liberal bias is 100% Twitter, 0% Fox news

tonguez 4y ago

“It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politics. That may be unavoidable anyways.” one can dream. as of now all corporations follow the same ideology of neoconservative imperialism because they are all owned by the same people (blackrock, etc)

nonethewiser 4y ago

"It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies cater to specific politics." Not ideal, but better than the status quo where there is 1 company catering to 1 group.

raincom 4y ago
Wasn’t how Fox News born?