So Bandit, you wanted to have a discussion about media bias in general so what is your general perception of bias? I'm sure that where I'm from my perspective is going to be vastly different but I take an admittedly left-materialist position on topics so organizations that promote war, or continue the classic Operation Condor perspective on socialist leaders around the world are going to fall on the right side of the perspective, usually the upper right authoritarian side.
You're touching upon a 'personal' bias, something I fully accept and in fact appreciate about human beings. Nobody has the same experience through life, it shapes their views and expectations, their understanding and interpretation of others. Personal bias exists and should be welcomed to the degree that by sharing it helps us understand a fuller picture. This is not intended to say that bias that harms or hinders others (racism) should be welcomed, but should at least be understood to see how it fits into the overall cultural expectations and norms, and if it should be nurtured or nipped.
Media bias, however, is not a personal view - it is a corporate one. By extending beyond an individual to a corporate entity, there are expectations that arise with the surrounding society and culture. I say 'media' but I think more directly of 'news' when I say it. News is supposed to present to you what happened, so you can grasp it, interpret it, and decide for yourself what it means to you, to society at large. News is 'something happened'. Opinion is 'here is what I think about what happened', which I still hold to be an individual right...but now 'news' companies have shifted to voicing their opinion as what happened, saving the average person the effort of understanding the full context or forming any sort of meaning about it. This is what upsets me so about 'Media Bias'.
I could extend it further, as movies and television programs (moreso than movies, most likely) have the expectation of entertaining us as a primary goal, and educating us in some cases. However, we've seen over the years a steady infusion of not just situations (plot, storyline....events that happened) but a focus on the individuals, moreso what they thought and felt of what happened, and even going so far as to get 'preachy' to the audience on what they should think or feel on what happened. It's likely that those aspects have always been in media, and I was simply too immature to grasp the overt messaging. But now, I see it more, and it bothers me more.
And nice to see you by the way. Been awhile.
Likewise.
Twitter is undeniably a business and Andy's exclusion from the platform is 100% a business decision. So yes, if I'm to take the capitalist mode of thought here then absolutely its appropriate because Andy neither owns the platform nor the memes of production. Any exclusion therefore without a generalized critique on the current materialistic reality basis of media in a capitalist economy fails outright any notion of ethical questions regarding censorship.
There is something how social media overall is treated legally, though I can't recall the specifics. There is a balance between being a privately owned entity able to set it's own standards and rules for acceptance VS a public platform equivalent to a street corner where anyone can shout about what interests them. I'll have to go look for the article or reference, as it is frustrating me not to be able to articulate this effectively, but it comes down to something like the difference between a public internet forum (like BL) vs a ubiquitous monopoly (like FB or twitter). If we make a rule that nobody can say the word "Bandit", we are free to enforce that rule on our platform, mostly because there are a thousand other platforms where people CAN go and say the word "Bandit" with an equivalent social reach. More to the point, if we ban a person from our site, they have other ways of speaking and being heard by the audience they wish to reach.
However, when a giant like FB or twitter, if they censor a word (or more relevantly choose to censor certain views or content) they are THE global entity for such content and are effectively shaping the world's ability to hear all voices, to get information and form individual opinions on the content. They are in effect shaping the message, controlling it. Much worse, when they ban someone they are choosing who can be heard according to their own arbitrary standards. Who is to say they can't silence you next? This is the balance between being just another outlet, able to control the content of your members without impacting the world at large VS controlling what the world hears, sees, and thinks.
Given my growing up with BL and our BLUA holding out that 'we reserve the right to do whatever the fk we want', I have a huge amount of respect and support for FB and twitter being able to do the same. However, I struggle to accept them silencing someone for having a voice they don't agree with...but a lot of people do agree with. This leaves me in the conundrum of not knowing exactly where I stand on the mega-social companies having judicial independence of their content, they reach too many people to have that control, but they also shouldn't be overrun simply because they are so successful.
