• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

Media Bias Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
JessFR said:
I know right?

There's all these people who are either current or ex Facebook users. So few like me who were never Facebook users. :(

EDIT: actually that's not entirely true. I tried Facebook once a few years ago, for about a few weeks. Then ditched it again after determining that every reason I didn't try it sooner seemed to be correct.
Click to expand...

tenor.gif


I made a TLB facebook (and twitter) account, mostly to name-claim and avoid anyone impersonating me. My real self does not exist on FB.
 
How about that Liberal MSDNC hosting Trump's town hall on the exact time and date of Joe Biden's town hall?
 
Captain.Heroin said:
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Why would this influence the election at all given this?
Click to expand...

To the first part - consistency is the expectation. Well, that and fairness. The concept of fairness has taken a steady decline over the past many years, which was accelerated by 'fakenews' claims. The lack of consistency here only re-enforces the idea that they are biased.

To the second bit...I really don't think it makes much of a difference, honestly. Those that believe what FB allows, continue to consume and agree. Those that believe it acts in bad faith and slants the information available have already tuned it out and discount any such content and situations like this. I really don't see it swaying votes or influencing the election. Only damaging the platform's status as Deru points out.


Deru said:
I think had Facebook and Twitter done nothing, it likely would have had very little impact.
Click to expand...

I agree. The fact that the did do something, and botched it, is more notable. Had they let it go, believers of either side would have continued on with their beliefs.
 
mal3volent said:
How about that Liberal MSDNC hosting Trump's town hall on the exact time and date of Joe Biden's town hall?
Click to expand...

When?

DOH - google is my friend, seems it is tonight!

The only Trump town hall on MSM I recall was ABC back in September. Another which I'll admit i didn't watch. As to NBC running this one up against ABC hosting Biden...I dunno. Best I can guess is a ratings grab, to try and compete for eyeballs. The quick google search is full of hits about NBC employees being disgusted and some outcry how this is bad for democracy (say what?).
 
TheLoveBandit said:
When?

DOH - google is my friend, seems it is tonight!

The only Trump town hall on MSM I recall was ABC back in September. Another which I'll admit i didn't watch. As to NBC running this one up against ABC hosting Biden...I dunno. Best I can guess is a ratings grab, to try and compete for eyeballs. The quick google search is full of hits about NBC employees being disgusted and some outcry how this is bad for democracy (say what?).
Click to expand...

don't you think the ethical, democratic thing to do would be schedule the two town halls separately so voters could watch both?

It's too bad Donald chickened out of debate #2 .

they are both tonight btw... sleepy joe on abc, the don on msnbc
 
Last edited:
This happened recently and ought to be captured in this thread as well:


Twitter and Facebook's action over Joe Biden article reignites bias claims

On Wednesday, Twitter prevented people from posting links to a New York Post story, warning those trying to click it that the link was "potentially unsafe".

It only later explained it had limited sharing because the story contained "hacked materials".

Facebook also took action, limiting the report's distribution in its news feed.

It said it had done this as part of a "standard process" to give third-party fact-checkers time to review the content and decide if it should be treated as misinformation.

However, it is highly unusual for an article published by one of the mainstream popular newspapers to be treated in this way.

It is now less than three weeks until Mr Biden, the Democratic candidate, faces the Republican incumbent Donald Trump in the presidential election on 3 November.

The moves by Twitter and Facebook have renewed accusations of social media censorship and bias.
Click to expand...

^^ That article goes on (follow the link) to speak of the laptop content, as well as what actions FB and Twitter took to limit the spread of that (dis?)information.

Similarly,

You Haven’t Heard More About Hunter Biden’s Emails Because Twitter And Facebook Didn’t Want You To

Link won't work from forbes, but you can search that headline.

...
Some of you are following along and have read the story published by the Post yesterday that contained these accusations about Biden and Ukraine. For others, it kinda rings a bell. And for still many, many more, the story doesn’t sound familiar at all, and probably seems more like a plot found at the bottom of Tom Clancy’s wastepaper basket.

These circumstances are created in no small part by a set of extraordinary actions taken yesterday by Facebook FB -4.3% and Twitter TWTR -5.1% to prevent the Post’s investigation from being widely shared. Twitter blocked users from sharing the URL to the Post’s story and locked some users out of accounts for doing that, including high-profile ones belonging to the Post itself and White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany. On Facebook’s end, company spokesman Andy Stone said the social network was “reducing its distribution on our platform” without further clarifying precisely what Facebook did.
...
Click to expand...


Since this came out recently, Joe Biden has yet to say the laptop isn't Hunter's or that any of the contents aren't factual. The closest anyone has come on the left to denying it was Schiff and others claiming it was Russian disinformation (quickly corrected as having nothing Russian about it by the Intelligence Community). The IC has since brought the info to Congress where an investigation is beginning. I won't go into the laptop contents here, nor the implications for a Presidential candidate. Instead, my focus in this thread is the actions by FB and Twitter to block sharing of the url to the article on the New York Post.

We never hear of social media blocking a major news publication (sorry...I have a hard time calling it 'news', regardless of which way a company leans). These media platforms have quality controls in place, and have been working since the 2016 elections to limit the spread of misinformation. They enlist fact checkers (often accused of having bias), and rely on members flagging content for review. However, in this instance, the platforms put a lid on all sharing of this article prior to any sort of evaluation for credibility, and as time has progressed the content has been confirmed as true and accurate by the Intelligence Community of the US gov't (trust it as far as you wish).

The bottom line, and big concern here, is that the bias conservatives have often accused the social media platform giants of exercising was put on full public display as they squelched any sharing of factual information that may be damaging to Joe Biden as a Democratic candidate for President. This is even more offensive and alarming given the spread of misinformation and discussion about Trump's Collusion with Russia which was eventually proven false. This also is a 180 from the accusations levelled against Trump of quid pro quo with Ukraine, given Hunter is in fact the one selling pay for play with his family name according to the laptop information.

Again, this isn't a rant about the laptop contents, but the visible extreme bias by which FB and Twitter have acted. This has led to the heads of these companies being called in to Congress to testify as to the reasoning behind their actions. This may lead to some reform of the freedom by which they operate, one can only hope.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
Why? Why should this be silenced? Is it not true? I have to believe it is true, given the guy tweeting it is in charge of the whole damn thing.
Click to expand...
i agree that is questionable. i can't find any statement from twitter on the reason for the action.

fwiw, his twitter account has been restored.

alasdair
 
alasdairm said:
aside, @TheLoveBandit would you consider bluelight a platform or a publisher?

if the former, what makes bluelight not a publisher - simply the size and reach?

alasdair
Click to expand...

Tough question I've been considering lately. I'm not sure I have an answer. Yes, we reserve the right to censor any posts people make, but we do so according to the rules and guidelines we've established for our community. Within that framework, we strive to be fair and evenhanded, so as not to censor or silence any particular voice unless it violates the clear and posted community guidelines.

Yes, we have a smaller size and reach than those mega-companies, and that does play a part in determining status as a publisher (influencing what message gets to the public) or a platform (providing the channel, but not throttling or controlling based on the entity's values). But I believe the approach is less black and white than such metrics. I believe it is more philosophical in that people who post to our site know ahead of time what is allowed and what isn't, and we do have a means for settling disputes that arise. Alternatively, twitter and FB have only recently established a means of dispute (which appears to be somewhat clunky and unclear at best), and has had little compunction about removing content according to decisions only they know, based on criteria only they know, and only after a person has made the post (re-reading this sounds stupid, but the point is the poster cannot know until their content is removed). I suspect things like porn and truly offensive materials that violate their terms of use have traditionally been removed quickly and without much kerfuffle. It is the more recent removal of content that does not appear to breach publicly stated guidelines which is causing the issue, and thereby the difference between a publisher and a platform. That, in combination with what appears to be an uneven application of these unwritten, unknown rules, which is driving public (conservative, gov't) outcry and concern. At least, that's my take.
 
Last edited:
I believe bluelight is a private website and we'll do whatever we want. ;)

Or in reality we'll spend all day agonizing about if we should do what we want. :P
 
I don’t generally consume much media produced by the neo liberal establishment. The hill has some objective contributors from time to time. I like Chris chapel of China uncensored and sometimes watch Tim pool and Dave ruebens analysis. If I do click on a neo liberal Establishment, left wing, or right wing outlet I generally avoid anything stated that isn’t absolute verifiable fact. NPR is one I’ll read since their bias is mostly in omission. Like with that extremist jihadist kid that was planning to assassinate bide recently. They called him right wing and completely left out that he was an avowed Bernie bro. I don’t see why the establishment feels to editorialize things or create a narrative. One day we will get sources that just report facts, that’s the dream at least.
 
^ That's unfortunately never going to be possible in a social construct such as ours. Facts become subjective, and with the spectrum between left and right, the reinforcement doesn't exist to change. But, in a sense, there is a beauty in that: two opposing viewpoints that creates a continuous, fluid medium of ebbs and flows.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top