US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by mongey, Mar 2, 2016.

  1. AxRookie

    AxRookie Aspiring Expert

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    260
    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    If that were the case then all of Trump's racist, bigoted, misogynist, BS lies, and much more would be removed...
     
    fantom likes this.
  2. Ralyks

    Ralyks The One Who Knocks Contributor

    Messages:
    5,672
    Likes Received:
    2,341
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dutchess County, NY
    Basically both of these, while I don’t disagree with your point SpaceDock, you know the only reason this is even happening is because Trump is having a tantrum, and not for anyone else but himself.
     
    AxRookie, fantom and SpaceDock like this.
  3. SpaceDock

    SpaceDock Shred till your dead

    Messages:
    3,640
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Location:
    Windsor, CO
    I, for one, am glad that Twitter found its balls, too bad it is four years too late.
     
    Ralyks, xzacx, narad and 2 others like this.
  4. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    758
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Filter based on what criteria? It's pretty clear that FauxNews had been filtering their content for decades. Do you really want every major company to have a personality and filter anything that doesn't agree with that persona? Will that outcome be beneficial for society? While I think tech companies should be partially responsible for creating divisions in society over the last decade, the society was already fragmenting even in the 90s due to filtered and biased news. Filtering content is not the way. I actually think the approach Twitter has been taking the last few days is responsibly trying to address the problems without removing content. I really want to see how this unfolds. I'm rooting for them. And I hope other tech companies have the balls to stand up.

    And if they are classified as publishers, does that mean they need copyright agreements with every user? Do they need to pay commission? How many users will stick around if their content isn't shown?

    How did PBS work? Maybe that is a worthwhile model.
     
    AxRookie likes this.
  5. SpaceDock

    SpaceDock Shred till your dead

    Messages:
    3,640
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Location:
    Windsor, CO
    @fantom I agree, maybe filtering is the wrong word. I do like the current Twitter model as well for now. I keep thinking about how in libraries you know fiction from non fiction based on where it is and how it is organized. I think social media and news needs some of that as well; scientific fact, debatable but widely accepted fact, fiction, And opinion. I just don’t think normal people can tell the difference anymore. That is the filtering I am thinking of.
     
    fantom likes this.
  6. Vyn

    Vyn Not a Sparkly Vampire

    Messages:
    2,639
    Likes Received:
    3,570
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    The issue is that thanks to social media bombarding us with so much information, people don't have the time to go fact-checking for themselves anymore, combine that with a lack of understanding about how statistics work, ideological echo chambers and confirmation bias, you end up with this perfect storm of people being able to spread misinformation easily.
     
    fantom, AxRookie and SpaceDock like this.
  7. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    758
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    And people don't agree on what "fact" or "fiction" mean anymore. You can't fix that when people intentionally lie about what the truth is to oppress and manipulate for power/wealth. I don't think society will ever be able to fix that.
     
    AxRookie likes this.
  8. Randy

    Randy ✝✝✝ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    23,492
    Likes Received:
    11,194
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    You're entirely right but the threshold for what's considered fact checking/filtering out bias is totally out of whack.

    If you tell someone on the opposite side you watch Fox or you watch CNN, instantly "okay, you don't know what you're talking about because they're so biased".

    Even if Fox reports "Trump holds rally, record attendance!" and CNN reports "Trump holds rally, disappointing turnout!", from the two headlines alone you can gather that Trump held a rally and there was at least someone there. If you read either article, you will most likely even read the specifics on crowd size, and reach your own conclusions.

    The idea that gathering facts needs to be a full-time job is primarily saved for people too lazy to read more than one headline on one page. Any person with even rudimentary critical thinking can answer what's facts and what's conjecture pretty easily. I just haven't decided if people are more stupid or lazy.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
    AxRookie and fantom like this.
  9. Randy

    Randy ✝✝✝ Super Moderator

    Messages:
    23,492
    Likes Received:
    11,194
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    The Electric City, NY
    Hawley is right but it's throwing the baby out with the bath water. It's stupid that social media companies were offered less oversight than publications by assuming they don't or never will wield the ability to editorialize based on what they allow or don't allow on their platform. So to that end, he's entirely right.

    But yeah, as has been stated, that's attacking social media for limiting free speech by empowering the government to tell private companies what they can and can't do on their own platform. That's a classic "cure is worse than the disease" solution.
     
    AxRookie and SpaceDock like this.
  10. spudmunkey

    spudmunkey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,045
    Likes Received:
    9,091
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Location:
    Near San Francisco
  11. spudmunkey

    spudmunkey SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,045
    Likes Received:
    9,091
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Location:
    Near San Francisco
  12. Vyn

    Vyn Not a Sparkly Vampire

    Messages:
    2,639
    Likes Received:
    3,570
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    Agreed. The bar for "Do I need to investigate this further?" is stupidly high and if anything is raised if it "came from the other side".

    This is just a personal anecdote - Over the last couple of years I've made an active effort to try and read news from multiple sources across the political spectrum because I used to just find myself bashing conservative news without actually investigating the claims simply because it conservative and therefore, in my mind, full of shit. So I began reading and actually looking into some of the claims an outlet such as Fox News makes when reporting on a story. Most of them did turn out to be complete garbage however I was wrong to dismiss the claims without actually investigating them and justifying my lack of investigation with "It's conservative propaganda, I don't need to know this."

    Cool side-effect though of having done this and continuing to do it - understanding why the claims are being made and why they appeal to the audience in the way they do. It's allowed me to have more effective and valuable discussions with people of different view points (even if I think their viewpoint is fucking insane).
     
    fantom and zappatton2 like this.
  13. SpaceDock

    SpaceDock Shred till your dead

    Messages:
    3,640
    Likes Received:
    1,827
    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Location:
    Windsor, CO
    ^ haha I do that too, I read Fox every morning for a glimpse into the mind of madness
     
    Vyn, sleewell and AxRookie like this.
  14. AxRookie

    AxRookie Aspiring Expert

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    260
    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    The biggest prob is 99% of people don't have any rudimentary critical thinking...
     
    Dineley and Vyn like this.
  15. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    758
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Let me fix that for you...
     
    LordIronSpatula likes this.
  16. AxRookie

    AxRookie Aspiring Expert

    Messages:
    646
    Likes Received:
    260
    Joined:
    May 24, 2020
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Thank god! how are you going to do that? lol
     
  17. possumkiller

    possumkiller Square Dance Caller

    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    5,145
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Location:
    Danzig
    I feel like we need a new game show. We can get Jeff Foxworthy to do something similar to Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader but he will read random quotes and contestants will have to guess if it was trump or a toddler. The grand prize could be Canadian citizenship for the winning contestant and their immediate family.
    IMG_20200530_105621.jpg
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2020
    Edika, Dineley, StevenC and 1 other person like this.
  18. BlackSG91

    BlackSG91 Loves Black Guitars & Meng Mengs

    Messages:
    2,314
    Likes Received:
    2,744
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Location:
    Exiled on 391 Main Street
    I can see you are new here and I agree with you 100%.:agreed:


    ;>)/
     
  19. GoldDragon

    GoldDragon SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,268
    Likes Received:
    389
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2014
    Location:
    Delaware
    I haven't analyzed the problem, but social media companies *only* survive if they are not responsible for libelous/slanderous user content.

    When they editorialize, attach labels or pinochios to some user content, then the question needs to be asked, did you scour your entire site for opposing opinons and vet them for truth?

    So they cannot selectively editorialize. They either have to do none, or all. They can't just pick out the president's tweets while ignoring hate speech from the left that may not be grounded in reality.

    Furthermore, concerns about social media "stealing" an election are valid. Probably more valid than arguments about russia or foriegn countries meddling with elections.

    So basically you have technology companies who have subsumed traditional media, and who aren't held to the same standards that traditional media are held to. I think everyone agrees that those restrictions on the press, were necessary to ensure that papers and magazines couldn't lie about political candidates to further their agenda.

    In fact, a paper lying about a political candidate would be worse than any foreign government meddling in our elections. (Also the mechanism which foreign governments interfere, IS social media, knowing that social media is not responsible for pulling their content.) Now imagine that almost every publication was aligned in its agenda to upset the results of an election.

    Honestly, social media has created more problems than it has solved. I would not be opposed to the government indirectly shutting the whole thing down.

    1) Hold social media sites accountable to the same standards of traditional press.

    2) Let them figure out if they still have a viable business model.

    My concern is that new media believes Trump stole the election by using their platforms to lie. And now they appear to feel justified in selectively applying filters to their content to "right the ship".

    We are in a "post truth" era. This was not brought on by Trump or the republicans, this is social media's doing.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2020
    Dumple Stilzkin likes this.
  20. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    880
    Likes Received:
    758
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    1: it is not possible to review everything. It makes complete sense to prioritize content that had more views over content that might be seen 4 times in a month.

    2: your comment about the media is garbage. Fox News regularly pushes lies about candidates. Other media outlets are worse. The problem is that they do "opinion pieces" and report it as news without actually telling people it is an opinion. You seem to think the media lies about Russian meddling. How is that a better standard.

    3. According to most experts, social media already stole an election by allowing Russian interference. You cannot separate the two. The concerns are valid and the tech companies are trying not to repeat history. It is pretty funny that you think them trying to address a problem that already happens is them trying to meddle and sway results. Ignore what the media thinks here. The experts think it happened and Republicans do not care because it worked out in their favor.

    4. I completely agree that social media created more problems for society than it is worth. But I don't think the government has a right to shut it down. If you say guns create a problem for society, or alcohol creates a problem, would you want the government to intervene? Example countries that shut down social media... China and North Korea

    5. I'm fine if social media and the news are held to higher standards, but I think you really need to consider how biased and deceitful regular media already is and ask if social media is really doing worse than major media conglomerates. You seem to think every media company that isn't Fox is slanderous. So maybe consider your view of media already isn't too positive

    Edits: autocomplete sucks
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2020

Share This Page