5 ms·

during the biden administration they were expected to shift their moderation policies to fit in with the political ideology currently in the white house now it

during the biden administration they were expected to shift their moderation policies to fit in with the political ideology currently in the white house now it's been normalized and the other party is doing it. but the news outlets have waited until now to start crying wolf?

blased 2y ago
Maybe, just maybe, it's because most people in the media are Democrats, and therefore inherently self-biased in their concerns and worldviews, and they have a belief that prevents any critical self-examination easily summed up by the Stephen Colbert line that: "reality has a liberal bias." You can't argue with someone who thinks their beliefs are merely "reality." At least the other side recognizes it as religion, etc.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  there is a huge difference between a belief and a fact. most of the discontent in today's world is this exact issue...
  - coolhand2120 2y ago
    > there is a huge difference between a belief and a fact. What if a fact is disputed? Do you not have to choose which fact to believe? Gestalting between two disputed facts is the basis for scientific revolutions. Ptolemaic astronomers certainly had a belief that epicycles were "fact" and made every non-scientific attempt to destroy heliocentrism. Only when enough people didn't _believe_ in that "fact" did we evolve to better understanding. You can say "these were not facts and were just flawed observations", but you'll ignore that Ptolemaics _said_ these ideas were facts and had strong evidence and a belief that it really was. This model can be applied over and over again to many domains. This isn't my idea, rather it comes from the seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by TS Kuhn. So, no, there is not a bold line between belief and fact. We choose what facts to believe.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      we choose what facts to believe. this just might be the craziest thing I’ve read recently but given the current state of affairs not all that surprising…
      - coolhand2120 2y ago
        I cited a major academic work to back up my position and gave a real world example to demonstrate the concept. What about Khun is crazy? You should attempt to engage in the topic and avoid ad hominem attacks. Or are you of the opinion that “we don’t believe in facts”?
- riffic 2y ago
  More accurately, the quote is "Reality has a well known liberal bias," and was given in the persona of a character Colbert played on an Comedy Central show and can be seen with a certain irony. https://en.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=Reality_has_a_well_known_liberal_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=Reality_has_a_we...
  - blased 2y ago
    I think this reinforces my argument that liberals view it as indisputable that there is no bias in their favor in media and all their opinions are "merely reality."
    - riffic 2y ago
      well I think it's important to point out context and to be accurate with regard to the actual quote. imprecision with words leads to misinterpretation. I'm not clear what your larger point is though or why you're singling out my comment with your rebuttal.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
SV_BubbleTime 2y ago
>they were expected to shift their moderation policies to fit in with the political ideology currently in the white house They were expected to? Hmm, hot take.
- matrix87 2y ago
  I mean, they were, e.g. the Twitter files. Or all of the handwavey threats around section 230
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    The twitter files that showed that accounts of conservatives got special treatment that explicitly prevented them from facing consequences of breaking site rules?
    - zahlman 2y ago
      I have no idea how you cane to the conclusion that they showed any such thing. Even Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files) takes the stance that the points raised were generally showing bias against conservatives, and tries to downplay them.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        Did you actually read them or just go to wikipedia for a summary?
        zahlman 2y ago
        Per Taibbi (https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-files https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...), the files consist of "thousands of internal documents". I was replying to a single-sentence post, making a bold, politically charged assertion about their contents, without any attempt at substantiation, which disagrees with a source that would ordinarily be biased in that poster's favour. Expecting me to "actually read them" in this context is not reasonable and constitutes a massive shift of the burden of proof. I have seen many times before the assertion made by that comment, but never anything resembling evidence for it. It's also not something seen in Taibbi's analysis (Taibbi is a former political columnist for Rolling Stone and the author of several books that clearly show he is no friend to "conservatives").

blased 2y ago

Maybe, just maybe, it's because most people in the media are Democrats, and therefore inherently self-biased in their concerns and worldviews, and they have a belief that prevents any critical self-examination easily summed up by the Stephen Colbert line that: "reality has a liberal bias." You can't argue with someone who thinks their beliefs are merely "reality." At least the other side recognizes it as religion, etc.

bdangubic 2y ago
there is a huge difference between a belief and a fact. most of the discontent in today's world is this exact issue...
- coolhand2120 2y ago
  > there is a huge difference between a belief and a fact. What if a fact is disputed? Do you not have to choose which fact to believe? Gestalting between two disputed facts is the basis for scientific revolutions. Ptolemaic astronomers certainly had a belief that epicycles were "fact" and made every non-scientific attempt to destroy heliocentrism. Only when enough people didn't _believe_ in that "fact" did we evolve to better understanding. You can say "these were not facts and were just flawed observations", but you'll ignore that Ptolemaics _said_ these ideas were facts and had strong evidence and a belief that it really was. This model can be applied over and over again to many domains. This isn't my idea, rather it comes from the seminal work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by TS Kuhn. So, no, there is not a bold line between belief and fact. We choose what facts to believe.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    we choose what facts to believe. this just might be the craziest thing I’ve read recently but given the current state of affairs not all that surprising…
    - coolhand2120 2y ago
      I cited a major academic work to back up my position and gave a real world example to demonstrate the concept. What about Khun is crazy? You should attempt to engage in the topic and avoid ad hominem attacks. Or are you of the opinion that “we don’t believe in facts”?
riffic 2y ago
More accurately, the quote is "Reality has a well known liberal bias," and was given in the persona of a character Colbert played on an Comedy Central show and can be seen with a certain irony. https://en.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=Reality_has_a_well_known_liberal_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/?redirect=no&title=Reality_has_a_we...
- blased 2y ago
  I think this reinforces my argument that liberals view it as indisputable that there is no bias in their favor in media and all their opinions are "merely reality."
  - riffic 2y ago
    well I think it's important to point out context and to be accurate with regard to the actual quote. imprecision with words leads to misinterpretation. I'm not clear what your larger point is though or why you're singling out my comment with your rebuttal.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

SV_BubbleTime 2y ago

>they were expected to shift their moderation policies to fit in with the political ideology currently in the white house They were expected to? Hmm, hot take.

matrix87 2y ago
I mean, they were, e.g. the Twitter files. Or all of the handwavey threats around section 230
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  The twitter files that showed that accounts of conservatives got special treatment that explicitly prevented them from facing consequences of breaking site rules?
  - zahlman 2y ago
    I have no idea how you cane to the conclusion that they showed any such thing. Even Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Files) takes the stance that the points raised were generally showing bias against conservatives, and tries to downplay them.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Did you actually read them or just go to wikipedia for a summary?
      - zahlman 2y ago
        Per Taibbi (https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-files https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-fil...), the files consist of "thousands of internal documents". I was replying to a single-sentence post, making a bold, politically charged assertion about their contents, without any attempt at substantiation, which disagrees with a source that would ordinarily be biased in that poster's favour. Expecting me to "actually read them" in this context is not reasonable and constitutes a massive shift of the burden of proof. I have seen many times before the assertion made by that comment, but never anything resembling evidence for it. It's also not something seen in Taibbi's analysis (Taibbi is a former political columnist for Rolling Stone and the author of several books that clearly show he is no friend to "conservatives").