5 ms·

This article itself is undermining democracy. It reads like an ad for now censorship. The Atlantic is owned mostly by "philanthropist" Laurene Powell Jobs sinc

This article itself is undermining democracy. It reads like an ad for now censorship. The Atlantic is owned mostly by "philanthropist" Laurene Powell Jobs since 2017. Why is it that philanthropists are always buying up media companies? It couldn't possibly be to promote their own ideologies. They always happen to push for censorship also. Billionaires buying up all media companies and censoring debate is a far bigger threat to democracy than some people chatting online.

onetimeusename 4y ago
Somewhat parallel to your point is how traditional media seems to have blended and adapted their business model to work pretty well with social media. I remember years ago people talked about how the internet and social media would displace traditional media (I consider The Atlantic to be a traditional media source). But, in reality, traditional media has a big presence on websites like Twitter or YouTube and journalists at traditional media companies have large followings on social media. I think they are a major stakeholder of social media at this point.
b3nji 4y ago
BoardsOfCanada 4y ago
Also, the Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg was hired after his pivotal role in drumming up support for the invasion of Iraq, by falsely associating Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-b...
spasekocev 4y ago
This reply has been deemed conspiracy theory by independent fact-checkers!
black_puppydog 4y ago
Another explanation is that these traditional media outlets were/are having a hard time economically, making it a) easier/cheaper to buy them, and b) more attractive for someone considering themselves a philantropist, given that they are by many considered to provide a vital service to society. You're free to disagree, especially with that last bit of course. But assuming this view, "philantropists" buying news outlets is at least internally consistent without assuming malice. Of course, whether or not someone like Bezos should be considered philantropic in his motivations is another matter entirely...
- choward 4y ago
  > a) easier/cheaper to buy them, and Sure, that's what make then pull the trigger to buy the company. > b) more attractive for someone considering themselves a philantropist, given that they are by many considered to provide a vital service to society. I find this hard to believe but I'm very skeptical when it comes to the narrative of the "philanthropist".
- TremendousJudge 4y ago
  The ultra-rich have always bought media outlets. Citizen Kane is fiction, but is based on very real people.
daenz 4y ago
>Why is it that philanthropists are always buying up media companies? It couldn't possibly be to promote their own ideologies. Devil's advocate: why should large media platforms be only for the misanthropic? if you take your suggestion to its conclusion, no "philanthropists" would own a media company, so who does that leave?
- choward 4y ago
  > if you take your suggestion to its conclusion, no "philanthropists" would own a media company, so who does that leave? Everybody else? The problem is that these billionaires have too much power. There are a lot independent journalists. They are constantly attacked and censored by these big media companies. The run hit pieces on independent journalists and label them conspiracy theorists without giving any examples of misinformation. Another example is how billionaire owned YouTube only considers big billionaire owned media companies as "authoritative sources" and promotes them in the algorithm. There are many things that are labeled misinformation and get censored when reported by independent journalists. But then all it takes is one corporate media company to claim the same thing and now all the sudden it's okay to say. In summary, when you ask "who does that leave", it leaves a ton of people which is why billionaires try to attack them.
  - daenz 4y ago
    You're conflating philanthropists and billionaires. The person I was replying to called out philanthropists by name. Unless you don't believe someone can be both a philanthropist and wealthy enough to buy a media company, in which case we simply disagree.
ausbah 4y ago
can't they both be problems? "people chatting online" is pretty disingenuous when it's what underlies the spread of misinformation and partisanization in politics, culminating in stuff like trying to overturn the 2020 election and Jan 6th
- choward 4y ago
  If your plotting something illegal like a coup, that's already illegal. However, if you want to question the results of an election you should have every right to do so. Look at 2000 and 2016. Both those results were questioned and people weren't censored. What changed? Our election system is far from perfect. The only way for it to get better is to talk about.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
Put up or shut up. Cite some sources of this "conspiracy" that Jobs is using The Atlantic to push their agenda.
jasonshaev 4y ago
At the end of the article the author provides 3 high level areas to focus on improving. (1) and (3) clearly have nothing to do with censorship. It's also not fair, in my opinion, to assume that (2) implies censorship considering the author doesn't give any detail on HOW to reform social media. If the solution to (2) is "require social media companies to offer a chronological news feed," which has been suggested a bazillion times in the comments, how is that censorship? Personally, I think the word "censorship" should be reserved for governmental suppression but that ship sailed a long time ago. >> I proposed three imperatives: (1) harden democratic institutions so that they can withstand chronic anger and mistrust, (2) reform social media so that it becomes less socially corrosive, and (3) better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age.
- choward 4y ago
  > Personally, I think the word "censorship" should be reserved for governmental suppression but that ship sailed a long time ago. This is the exact same argument used all the time to justify censorship. Most people agree about government censorship being bad and corporate censorship being fine. However, what people miss is that this is government censorship. To think what's going on now isn't government suppression is completely naive. There are several examples of the US government influencing social media to have them censor. They admit it all the time. Here's an example: https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-white-house-flagging-covid-185647266.html https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-white-house-flagging-covid-1856... And this came out more recently: https://www.mintpressnews.com/meet-ex-cia-agents-deciding-facebook-content-policy/281307/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/meet-ex-cia-agents-deciding-fa...
  - jasonshaev 4y ago
    "Corporate censorship" is "fine" because preventing corporations from moderating content is inconsistent with the 1st amendment. I do not agree that those 2 articles support your point. "“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” she [Psaki] said." It's still up to Facebook to determine wether or not to take down a post. There is a BIG difference between a government official reporting a post to Facebook and the government passing a law preventing a citizen from posting in the first place (which would obviously violate the 1st amendment). The second article describes people who used to work in government now working for Social Media companies. It is, in my opinion, a stretch to call that government censorship. "The problem is that having so many former CIA employees running the world’s most important information and news platform is only one small step removed from the agency itself deciding what you see and what we do not see online –" Disagree. It is a BIG step to leap from "former government employees, including members of the CIA, work in trust, security and moderation" to "the CIA is controlling what is on social media."
Balgair 4y ago
The Atlantic has been 'over the top' for a long time now. Like, 1984's Ghostbusters lampooned The Atlantic as overly pedantic worrywarts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s They have consistently lived up to their billing for neigh 40 years. It's really quite the achievement from the print-digital changeover. If anything, I'm impressed.

onetimeusename 4y ago

Somewhat parallel to your point is how traditional media seems to have blended and adapted their business model to work pretty well with social media. I remember years ago people talked about how the internet and social media would displace traditional media (I consider The Atlantic to be a traditional media source). But, in reality, traditional media has a big presence on websites like Twitter or YouTube and journalists at traditional media companies have large followings on social media. I think they are a major stakeholder of social media at this point.

b3nji 4y ago

BoardsOfCanada 4y ago

Also, the Atlantic's editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg was hired after his pivotal role in drumming up support for the invasion of Iraq, by falsely associating Saddam Hussein with al-Qaeda. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-b...

spasekocev 4y ago

This reply has been deemed conspiracy theory by independent fact-checkers!

black_puppydog 4y ago

Another explanation is that these traditional media outlets were/are having a hard time economically, making it a) easier/cheaper to buy them, and b) more attractive for someone considering themselves a philantropist, given that they are by many considered to provide a vital service to society. You're free to disagree, especially with that last bit of course. But assuming this view, "philantropists" buying news outlets is at least internally consistent without assuming malice. Of course, whether or not someone like Bezos should be considered philantropic in his motivations is another matter entirely...

choward 4y ago
> a) easier/cheaper to buy them, and Sure, that's what make then pull the trigger to buy the company. > b) more attractive for someone considering themselves a philantropist, given that they are by many considered to provide a vital service to society. I find this hard to believe but I'm very skeptical when it comes to the narrative of the "philanthropist".
TremendousJudge 4y ago
The ultra-rich have always bought media outlets. Citizen Kane is fiction, but is based on very real people.

daenz 4y ago

>Why is it that philanthropists are always buying up media companies? It couldn't possibly be to promote their own ideologies. Devil's advocate: why should large media platforms be only for the misanthropic? if you take your suggestion to its conclusion, no "philanthropists" would own a media company, so who does that leave?

choward 4y ago
> if you take your suggestion to its conclusion, no "philanthropists" would own a media company, so who does that leave? Everybody else? The problem is that these billionaires have too much power. There are a lot independent journalists. They are constantly attacked and censored by these big media companies. The run hit pieces on independent journalists and label them conspiracy theorists without giving any examples of misinformation. Another example is how billionaire owned YouTube only considers big billionaire owned media companies as "authoritative sources" and promotes them in the algorithm. There are many things that are labeled misinformation and get censored when reported by independent journalists. But then all it takes is one corporate media company to claim the same thing and now all the sudden it's okay to say. In summary, when you ask "who does that leave", it leaves a ton of people which is why billionaires try to attack them.
- daenz 4y ago
  You're conflating philanthropists and billionaires. The person I was replying to called out philanthropists by name. Unless you don't believe someone can be both a philanthropist and wealthy enough to buy a media company, in which case we simply disagree.

ausbah 4y ago

can't they both be problems? "people chatting online" is pretty disingenuous when it's what underlies the spread of misinformation and partisanization in politics, culminating in stuff like trying to overturn the 2020 election and Jan 6th

choward 4y ago
If your plotting something illegal like a coup, that's already illegal. However, if you want to question the results of an election you should have every right to do so. Look at 2000 and 2016. Both those results were questioned and people weren't censored. What changed? Our election system is far from perfect. The only way for it to get better is to talk about.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

Put up or shut up. Cite some sources of this "conspiracy" that Jobs is using The Atlantic to push their agenda.

jasonshaev 4y ago

At the end of the article the author provides 3 high level areas to focus on improving. (1) and (3) clearly have nothing to do with censorship. It's also not fair, in my opinion, to assume that (2) implies censorship considering the author doesn't give any detail on HOW to reform social media. If the solution to (2) is "require social media companies to offer a chronological news feed," which has been suggested a bazillion times in the comments, how is that censorship? Personally, I think the word "censorship" should be reserved for governmental suppression but that ship sailed a long time ago. >> I proposed three imperatives: (1) harden democratic institutions so that they can withstand chronic anger and mistrust, (2) reform social media so that it becomes less socially corrosive, and (3) better prepare the next generation for democratic citizenship in this new age.

choward 4y ago
> Personally, I think the word "censorship" should be reserved for governmental suppression but that ship sailed a long time ago. This is the exact same argument used all the time to justify censorship. Most people agree about government censorship being bad and corporate censorship being fine. However, what people miss is that this is government censorship. To think what's going on now isn't government suppression is completely naive. There are several examples of the US government influencing social media to have them censor. They admit it all the time. Here's an example: https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-white-house-flagging-covid-185647266.html https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-white-house-flagging-covid-1856... And this came out more recently: https://www.mintpressnews.com/meet-ex-cia-agents-deciding-facebook-content-policy/281307/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/meet-ex-cia-agents-deciding-fa...
- jasonshaev 4y ago
  "Corporate censorship" is "fine" because preventing corporations from moderating content is inconsistent with the 1st amendment. I do not agree that those 2 articles support your point. "“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” she [Psaki] said." It's still up to Facebook to determine wether or not to take down a post. There is a BIG difference between a government official reporting a post to Facebook and the government passing a law preventing a citizen from posting in the first place (which would obviously violate the 1st amendment). The second article describes people who used to work in government now working for Social Media companies. It is, in my opinion, a stretch to call that government censorship. "The problem is that having so many former CIA employees running the world’s most important information and news platform is only one small step removed from the agency itself deciding what you see and what we do not see online –" Disagree. It is a BIG step to leap from "former government employees, including members of the CIA, work in trust, security and moderation" to "the CIA is controlling what is on social media."

Balgair 4y ago

The Atlantic has been 'over the top' for a long time now. Like, 1984's Ghostbusters lampooned The Atlantic as overly pedantic worrywarts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwKR_y93izs&t=115s They have consistently lived up to their billing for neigh 40 years. It's really quite the achievement from the print-digital changeover. If anything, I'm impressed.