5 ms·

> Harris also promised to fix it, and had an actual plan for addressing housing, education, medical costs, and prices in general, but we are all now pretending

by csa 2y ago

> Harris also promised to fix it, and had an actual plan for addressing housing, education, medical costs, and prices in general, but we are all now pretending like none of that was a part of her campaign. Part of that is because there were tons of ads focusing on taxpayer funded sex changes for prisoners (funded by pro-Trump orgs): https://youtu.be/kQEMn1yRYVU https://youtu.be/kQEMn1yRYVU I have friends and family in Georgia, supposedly a swing state. They said that they could not escape seeing this add multiple times a day on tv or internet. Regardless of what one believes about the underlying premise of the ad, it is incredibly narrow in terms of scope, and that narrative stuck. I have a feeling this is one reason why many folks weren’t aware of her plans.

vkou 2y ago
I mean, sure, if their source of information about her policies is attack ads ran by her opponent, that says more about the media they watch than it does about her. She doesn't control the press, if it won't cover the policies, what is she to do?
- csa 2y ago
  > that says more about the media they watch than it does about her According to my family member who notices such things (and is not MAGA or conservative), Trump controlled most streaming ads/narratives, while Harris had more of the broadcast ads/narratives, especially for sports (minimally political). I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this as a media silo issue.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    That sounds exactly like a media solo issue. Except the fact that it's billionaire new media choose who gets to see what ad. I would be surpsied if part of big tech's choices on ads wasn't based on the leaders' own preferences. Especially in swing states
    - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
      That would require a massive, massive conspiracy that would be difficult to hide.
      - vkou 2y ago
        Why would it? It's not that people are forced to say things that they don't want to say. It's people who say the things that shouldn't be said don't get hired in roles where they can speak. Do you really think that, say, CNN, or WAPO will ever pay people to broadcast views that are actually, credibly threatening to the financial well-being of their owners? Or ones that will make their viewers uncomfortably challenged? The marketplace of ideas in American mass media has always been quite narrow and orthodox in its offerings. Sure, you can say anything you want, but it takes the support of someone with power to be able to say it in a place you will be heard. And the more media consolidates, the smaller and less diverse that field of patrons gets.
        disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        > Do you really think that, say, CNN, or WAPO will ever pay people to broadcast views that are actually, credibly threatening to the financial well-being of their owners? Or ones that will make their viewers uncomfortably challenged? I too have read Manufacturing Consent, so now. We're talking about social media though, which is mostly smaller independent actors trying to make a buck. And the ads/ranking systems for Meta are really really large and complicated, and to tune them for or against a particular political candidate would be a huge effort which would most likely be done by a bunch of SF based left wing engineers and data scientists, so it seems unlikely that this would have happened without leaks (given that everything leaks for FB/Meta lately).
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Why would they need to hide it? Has anything of consequence happened to Meta from 2016? Their stance is just a private company running ads. EU probably reacted stronger to them from Brexit, but I've heard nary a peep on the US side over such issues.
  - intended 2y ago
    It is 100% a media issue, and it’s not even a silo issue. America has been part of an information war orchestrated by private media entities as part of… the dumbest most successful culture war we have seen. You do not have a functional market place of ideas - it is not an issue of bias. IT is an issue of a monopolist on one side defining the narrative for everyone else, and ensuring no diversity of thought or narratives exist other than the ones that make political hay for the Republicans. I know this, because it’s more than studied, it’s been replicated around the world.

by csa 2y ago

vkou 2y ago

I mean, sure, if their source of information about her policies is attack ads ran by her opponent, that says more about the media they watch than it does about her. She doesn't control the press, if it won't cover the policies, what is she to do?

csa 2y ago
> that says more about the media they watch than it does about her According to my family member who notices such things (and is not MAGA or conservative), Trump controlled most streaming ads/narratives, while Harris had more of the broadcast ads/narratives, especially for sports (minimally political). I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss this as a media silo issue.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  That sounds exactly like a media solo issue. Except the fact that it's billionaire new media choose who gets to see what ad. I would be surpsied if part of big tech's choices on ads wasn't based on the leaders' own preferences. Especially in swing states
  - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
    That would require a massive, massive conspiracy that would be difficult to hide.
    - vkou 2y ago
      Why would it? It's not that people are forced to say things that they don't want to say. It's people who say the things that shouldn't be said don't get hired in roles where they can speak. Do you really think that, say, CNN, or WAPO will ever pay people to broadcast views that are actually, credibly threatening to the financial well-being of their owners? Or ones that will make their viewers uncomfortably challenged? The marketplace of ideas in American mass media has always been quite narrow and orthodox in its offerings. Sure, you can say anything you want, but it takes the support of someone with power to be able to say it in a place you will be heard. And the more media consolidates, the smaller and less diverse that field of patrons gets.
      - disgruntledphd2 2y ago
        > Do you really think that, say, CNN, or WAPO will ever pay people to broadcast views that are actually, credibly threatening to the financial well-being of their owners? Or ones that will make their viewers uncomfortably challenged? I too have read Manufacturing Consent, so now. We're talking about social media though, which is mostly smaller independent actors trying to make a buck. And the ads/ranking systems for Meta are really really large and complicated, and to tune them for or against a particular political candidate would be a huge effort which would most likely be done by a bunch of SF based left wing engineers and data scientists, so it seems unlikely that this would have happened without leaks (given that everything leaks for FB/Meta lately).
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Why would they need to hide it? Has anything of consequence happened to Meta from 2016? Their stance is just a private company running ads. EU probably reacted stronger to them from Brexit, but I've heard nary a peep on the US side over such issues.
- intended 2y ago
  It is 100% a media issue, and it’s not even a silo issue. America has been part of an information war orchestrated by private media entities as part of… the dumbest most successful culture war we have seen. You do not have a functional market place of ideas - it is not an issue of bias. IT is an issue of a monopolist on one side defining the narrative for everyone else, and ensuring no diversity of thought or narratives exist other than the ones that make political hay for the Republicans. I know this, because it’s more than studied, it’s been replicated around the world.