2 ms·
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
by 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).