3 ms·

> This is clearly the much more pernicious issue that 1. social media companies are massively influencing the dissemination of information on an ad hoc basis in

by grecy 4y ago

> This is clearly the much more pernicious issue that 1. social media companies are massively influencing the dissemination of information on an ad hoc basis informed by personal political whims Of course mainstream TV and print "news" has been doing this for decades, but for some strange reason people assume they're somehow "better". I personally think it's great all this is coming out, because it shows how dangerous and manipulative large media (in all forms) really is.

bavell 4y ago
Agreed, I'm not surprised at all but I'm glad it's in the open.
- zaroth 4y ago
  The problem isn’t doing it per say. The problem is that they lied and basically gaslighted everyone as to the reason they censored the post. It was a total fabrication and they knew it.
  - grecy 4y ago
    The important part to keep in mind is that every news organization, social media site, print newspaper, magazine, radio station and everything else you can think of does exactly the same thing. This is actually not news, or anything new at all.
chrisbaker98 4y ago
At least there's competition in legacy media. If one newspaper buries a story because of naked political bias, you might still read about it in other newspapers. If Twitter decides you're not allowed to read something, where else can you go? They say if you don't like it you can just start your own Twitter - but when Parler tried to do exactly that, Big Tech colluded to destroy it.
- grecy 4y ago
  > If one newspaper buries a story because of naked political bias, you might still read about it in other newspapers. Might is doing a LOT of work in that statement. You know as well as I do stories get buried all over. > If Twitter decides you're not allowed to read something, where else can you go? Twitter is insignificant compared to Facebook, YouTube, Fox, CNN, and other global news outlets controlled by a handful of billionaires. The much more important question is where do you go when THEY bury a story.

by grecy 4y ago

bavell 4y ago

Agreed, I'm not surprised at all but I'm glad it's in the open.

zaroth 4y ago
The problem isn’t doing it per say. The problem is that they lied and basically gaslighted everyone as to the reason they censored the post. It was a total fabrication and they knew it.
- grecy 4y ago
  The important part to keep in mind is that every news organization, social media site, print newspaper, magazine, radio station and everything else you can think of does exactly the same thing. This is actually not news, or anything new at all.

chrisbaker98 4y ago

At least there's competition in legacy media. If one newspaper buries a story because of naked political bias, you might still read about it in other newspapers. If Twitter decides you're not allowed to read something, where else can you go? They say if you don't like it you can just start your own Twitter - but when Parler tried to do exactly that, Big Tech colluded to destroy it.

grecy 4y ago
> If one newspaper buries a story because of naked political bias, you might still read about it in other newspapers. Might is doing a LOT of work in that statement. You know as well as I do stories get buried all over. > If Twitter decides you're not allowed to read something, where else can you go? Twitter is insignificant compared to Facebook, YouTube, Fox, CNN, and other global news outlets controlled by a handful of billionaires. The much more important question is where do you go when THEY bury a story.