Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

  1. #41
    Tribunus
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,236

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    You are comparing modern journalism to the press in the 15th century.
    I comparing journalism to journalism. If the current state is death then its always been dead, or deadish.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    I would argue yes the press has been better then it is right now in our time even. Why bring 15th or 16th century realities? To bring up a point about propaganda? Is that it?
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    If its your way of saying it is always been like this.
    I would like to reiterate we live in a digital world where social media, and big tech have more power then they ever had.
    Well of course because Big Tech really only arose in the 1970s with IBM, and Big Social Media in the 2000s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    You right business as usual suck and continues to suck, but it is well beyond party loyalty, there is many people who shifted from democrat voters to republican, Even in this last election. Where is actually improved his vote by seven million. I think people often underestimate current unhappiness in the Democratic party and the establishment.
    I don't. I thought he got 10 million more than last time?

    Yes, that's the "business as usual sucks" part. BTW Trump is establishment, he's a New York billionaire with a string of bankrupted companies and infuriated investors at his heels. Brain dead spin about "the Blue Collar Billionaire" and "the outsider" aside, he was partying with the Clintons and Epstein. The people looking for a change were cruelly lied to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    Trump is a leftist?
    No he's a right wing president who enforced his ignorant agenda eg disregarding the ordinary person's half baked notions about COVID contrary to The People's primary self evident right, to life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    Because Thomas Sowell point was about the self righteousness of the left wing ideology. The intellectual, and moral superiority complex that is patent in left wing mentality, probably goes hand in hand with a urbanite snob mentality.
    It was a ponderous bit of nonsense "why are my intellectual opponents so lame, and yet so badly dressed?" [smokes pipe]

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    My point wasn't about charismatic leaders. So no i think the point is missed.
    You quote some ideologue of the right, and one example pops its silly bubble. We could cite Bush II's nonsense about freedom while invading Iraq and passing the PATRIOT Act, the Sowell quote has the intellectual force of wet toilet paper.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight of Heaven View Post
    And on Trump specifically, i think is a bad example, his speech isn't usually one of judgement, or even contempt by the citizens of his own country. Something that differs from several democrat figures for instance. I would say as well the sanctimonious ways of modern "progressives" based on an ever clearer lack of any real solutions to the worlds problems is quite grating, even for a lot of people who are swing voters, also one of the reasons of the success of Trump imo.
    Trump moaned about his competence, and had his Muslim travel ban struck down. He claimed to have more popular votes in both elections, wrong both times. He claimed he would clean up the swamp, but Clinton didn't go to gaol. He was smugness personified, and disregarded the wishes of his followers (whether frustrated blue collar workers worried about work, rusted on Republicans rightly worried about a Clinton dynasty, or actual neo nazis looking for the Boogaloo), instead pork barrelling his own businesses. All style, no substance. He foisted his half baked ideology and mocked any dissenters.

    Your claim these attributes are the preserve of some imagined Left are plain wrong.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  2. #42

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Again, the accusation that I have misrepresented source material and that the source material doesn’t support what I’ve said is a bald faced lie. Three specific examples, not zero, of people and organizations on the political left demanding systematic enforcement of political censorship, in addition to the OP example of systematic censorship of factual reporting in the interest of discrediting a scandal that had the potential to impact Biden’s candidacy on the eve of the election. Your refusal to attempt basic background knowledge of the topic you’re trying to debate does not make facts into claims just because you reject them.
    Facebook caving to demands to censor incorrect political speech after Zuckerberg had previously refused to do so on free speech grounds
    You’ve been given the example of CNN as well as Democrat Congresspeople demanding censorship of right-leaning media networks by TV/Internet providers.
    See post 22, also, this:
    You’ve also been given the example of the White House announcing a plan to work with social media companies to censor incorrect political speech.
    As proven by multiple instances of systematic censorship of facts under the guise of “fighting misinformation,” “misinformation” is more aptly termed “stories Democrats don’t like.” Plenty of misinformation Democrats don’t mind is spread and encouraged, including false claims that the NY Post’s story about the Bidens was “disinformation” and “Russian fake news,” false claims that the lab leak theory was “disinformation” and “racist,” false claims claims that the Capitol Riot was an organized “coup attempt” by right wing groups supporting Donald Trump, etc. The pattern has been proven time and again.
    The reasons that Democrats can label things “misinformation” and pressure even companies as large and powerful as Facebook and Twitter into going along with it without too much effort are the same reasons you can’t come up with a single counterexample big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media: Leftist institutional dominance has reached such a degree that it is self-evident, and yet that fact poses little, if any, threat to that dominance, because there is no conspiracy nor command structure needed to maintain it.
    The vast majority of the US public is fully aware that political views are being censored arbitrarily.
    I see that you're still obfuscating bunch of points to make a case. It's a bit tedious to be honest. Ignoring the articles that are hidden behind a paywall, you're trying to connect Democrats grilling Zuckerberg on October 2019 to Twitter and Facebook limiting access to an NYP article in October 2020 as well as to Facebook's decision to no longer keep politicians exempt from hate speech rules on their website in June 2021. Somehow, we're supposed to accept these points as "big tech" acting by the commands of the Democrats to combat Republicans. I call that BS. You can argue that most big tech companies are more aligned with Democrat's ideas, ignoring counter examples like Parler, but to put it forward as a deep state conspiracy simply doesn't have much logic to it, especially considering the decades long silence against sources like Fox News.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Acting at the direction or prompting of another is what "acting at the behest of" means (since there was evidently some confusion).
    The claim/insinuation that it was stated that Twitter was responding to directions/explicit prompting will remain false irrespective of the frequency with which it is repeated. Such a claim wouldn't even make sense given the letter was signed after Twitter had initially censored the story. The argument was that Facebook/Twitter almost certainly used the speculative (and politically motivated) suggestion that the story was a product of Russian interference as a basis to throttle it and that this reasoning was encapsulated by the contents of the letter.
    In any event, since the evident intention here is to derail the thread/topic with semantic complaints, loaded questions and false claims, don't expect any further responses.
    I believe I asked you to provide the specific passage from that letter that you made claims about. Is it such a bad idea to stick to what terms we use actually mean? Or am I supposed to just go with the nature of hysteria in your position you're trying to promote here?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  3. #43

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by PoVG
    I see that you're still obfuscating bunch of points to make a case. It's a bit tedious to be honest. Ignoring the articles that are hidden behind a paywall, you're trying to connect Democrats grilling Zuckerberg on October 2019 to Twitter and Facebook limiting access to an NYP article in October 2020 as well as to Facebook's decision to no longer keep politicians exempt from hate speech rules on their website in June 2021. Somehow, we're supposed to accept these points as "big tech" acting by the commands of the Democrats to combat Republicans. I call that BS. You can argue that most big tech companies are more aligned with Democrat's ideas, ignoring counter examples like Parler, but to put it forward as a deep state conspiracy simply doesn't have much logic to it, especially considering the decades long silence against sources like Fox News.
    What’s tedious is that you continue to lie about the content and aim of both the OP and my subsequent posts to build a strawman about “deep state conspiracies” that no one in this thread has advocated for (and in fact specifically differentiated from more than once), all so you can disparage facts you don’t like without having to acknowledge them. Parler is not a “big tech company.” In fact it was briefly driven offline after being banned by big tech companies, so it doesn’t even work as whataboutism as much as it is another example of what the OP addresses. Similarly, your invention of this “silence” about Fox News is transparent sophistry, given you’ve been asked numerous times for a counterexample of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media - like Fox News - and you can’t/won’t do it.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; September 30, 2021 at 03:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  4. #44

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    I believe I asked you to provide the specific passage from that letter that you made claims about. Is it such a bad idea to stick to what terms we use actually mean? Or am I supposed to just go with the nature of hysteria in your position you're trying to promote here?
    To clarify, the initial questioning was loaded and badgering:

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    So, does Twitter or Google censor content at the behest of CNN or MSNBC?
    (It was not argued that Twitter or Google censor at the behest of CNN or MSNBC, nor would the existence of such a “command connection” be necessary to invalidate either my, or the OP’s arguments. At the same time, both CNN and NBC have pressured big tech companies to censor/deplatform/demonitize content).

    When this bad faith questioning failed to produce its intended result, the strategy then switched to asserting the false accusation implied by the question:

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    You claim that Twitter censored tweets because CNN or MSNBC told them to.
    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    That conspiracy is what Cope explicitly claimed earlier.
    After these false claims were rebuked, the strategy oscillated back to another loaded question, this time w/regard to the intel letter:

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Good. Care to show us where in the letter they are directing or prompting to censor information?
    (It was not claimed that the letter explicitly directed censorship, nor would such explicit direction be necessary to validate either my, or OP’s, arguments).

    In the same post (#42), the false claims regarding an alleged “command connection” were again repeated and promptly rebuked by the OP:

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Somehow, we're supposed to accept these points as "big tech" acting by the commands of the Democrats to combat Republicans.
    I call that BS. You can argue that most big tech companies are more aligned with Democrat's ideas, ignoring counter examples like Parler, but to put it forward as a deep state conspiracy simply doesn't have much logic to it, especially considering the decades long silence against sources like Fox News.
    (Parler was temporarily censored by Amazon/Apple in accordance with liberal 1/6 sensationalism despite the fact that platform repeatedly reported suspected criminal posts to the FBI and the vast majority of the riotous “co-ordination” took place on larger platforms like Facebook).
    Last edited by Cope; September 30, 2021 at 06:31 PM.



  5. #45

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    What’s tedious is that you continue to lie about the content and aim of both the OP and my subsequent posts to build a strawman about “deep state conspiracies” that no one in this thread has advocated for (and in fact specifically differentiated from more than once), all so you can disparage facts you don’t like without having to acknowledge them. Parler is not a “big tech company.” In fact it was briefly driven offline after being banned by big tech companies, so it doesn’t even work as whataboutism as much as it is another example of what the OP addresses. Similarly, your invention of this “silence” about Fox News is transparent sophistry, given you’ve been asked numerous times for a counterexample of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media - like Fox News - and you can’t/won’t do it.
    You keep claiming that I lied but haven't been able to show the slightest substance to support it. Please don't lie about what I argue. All you are doing is a smear tactic in the face of failure to address actual points. Parler may not be as big as Twitter but its a popular destination for conservatives which is similarly guilty of censorship. I won't really entertain that idiotic arbitrary, largely impossible to refute, claim that social media companies censor because of what news media reports. It's quite self evident that it doesn't even require much of an explanation. I appreciate the changing narrative around that though. If I push it further it will likely be described as, not at the behest of or in accordance with, but by coincidence...


    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    (It was not argued that Twitter or Google censor at the behest of CNN or MSNBC, nor would the existence of such a “command connection” be necessary to invalidate either my, or the OP’s arguments. At the same time, both CNN and NBC have pressured big tech companies to censor/deplatform/demonitize content).
    When this bad faith questioning failed to produce its intended result, the strategy then switched to asserting the false accusation implied by the question:
    Oh, it succeeded splendidly. Asking me if whether there was any "example of a large social media platform or search engine censoring legitimate information at the behest of Fox News/Breitbart/AmericanThinker" implied that there were examples for that happening at the behest of non-rightest media. It's a natural choice to ask about Twitter/Google and CNN/MSNBC. Hence, for all intents and purposes, you did argue that. The existence of such a command connection was neccesary in line with your wording. Interesting change of narrative you got there too. Now, its CNN and NBC pressuring big tech companies. Got it. Why? Because someone on there questioned the responsibility of misinformation propagated by companies. Amazing logic you got there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    After these false claims were rebuked, the strategy oscillated back to another loaded question, this time w/regard to the intel letter:
    (It was not claimed that the letter explicitly directed censorship, nor would such explicit direction be necessary to validate either my, or OP’s, arguments).
    "Loaded" seems to mean "legitimate questions that I fail to respond to with anything of substance" here. Again, you talking about providing an example of "social media/search engines censoring information at the direction/prompting of conservative outlets" pretty much implies that that letter, which was used as a source for the censors, had directions or prompting for social media companies to censor information. You can't have one set of standards for your claims and then expect a higher one for the opposite side. Not good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    In the same post (#42), the false claims regarding an alleged “command connection” were again repeated and promptly rebuked by the OP:(Parler was temporarily censored by Amazon/Apple in accordance with liberal 1/6 sensationalism despite the fact that platform repeatedly reported suspected criminal posts to the FBI and the vast majority of the riotous “co-ordination” took place on larger platforms like Facebook).
    See above about Parler.
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  6. #46

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Oh, it succeeded splendidly.
    Only in derailing the thread, not in refuting anything argued either by myself or the OP.

    Asking me if whether there was any "example of a large social media platform or search engine censoring legitimate information at the behest of Fox News/Breitbart/AmericanThinker" implied that there were examples for that happening at the behest of non-rightest media. It's a natural choice to ask about Twitter/Google and CNN/MSNBC. Hence, for all intents and purposes, you did argue that.
    The statement was an invitation to justify the bad faith claim that the OP was a partisan “rant”. It did not "ask" anything. And if there was an implication, it was that there are no examples of big tech companies reacting to the prompts of conservative media to censor content (and therefore no examples to support the claim that the OP was a partisan rant).

    Either way, it has now been effectively conceded that the allegation of an explicit claim of a command conspiracy was, as mentioned, false.

    "Loaded" seems to mean "legitimate questions that I fail to respond to with anything of substance" here.
    It means laced with a false/controversial assumption and typically designed score an optical/rhetorical, rather than substantive, victory. In other words, precisely the type of question posed in post #15.

    Again, you talking about providing an example of "social media/search engines censoring information at the direction/prompting of conservative outlets" pretty much implies that that letter, which was used as a source for the censors, had directions or prompting for social media companies to censor information. You can't have one set of standards for your claims and then expect a higher one for the opposite side. Not good.
    It makes no such implication (since the statement was not tied to the letter). Even if it did, by acknowledging that the letter “was used as a source for the censors” it is being inadvertently conceded that it had the effect of prompting censorship/further censorship (which was almost certainly one of the intentions of its publishers).

    See above about Parler.
    No examples of Parler censoring in accordance with conservative political interests or conservative disinformation have been provided.
    Last edited by Cope; October 01, 2021 at 12:05 PM.



  7. #47

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    NYT was recently caught repeating the same lie about the OP story, falsely claiming the Post’s expose on the Bidens was “unsubstantiated.”
    The Times report sneeringly begins that The Post’s article was “unsubstantiated,” which is bull. The Biden team never denied that the laptop is real, and Hunter Biden later told CBS, coyly, that the laptop “could be” his.
    People involved in the emails we published, including Tony Bobulinski, have confirmed the content. Our article is “unsubstantiated” because the Times and other outlets don’t want to actually report on it themselves.

    The Times can’t even get the timeline right. It writes, “Twitter actually reversed course within a day of its decision to block distribution of the Hunter Biden article, and its chief executive, Jack Dorsey, has called the initial move a ‘mistake.’” While it’s true Dorsey did call it a mistake, Twitter still banned The Post — blackmailing us by saying they wouldn’t unlock our account unless we deleted the Hunter Biden post. We refused; the story was true. Twitter finally backed down, but it wasn’t a day later, it was two weeks.

    https://nypost.com/2021/09/13/fec-backs-twitter-over-hunter-biden-censorship
    The FEC decided political censorship of the Post’s factual reporting was undertaken for “commercial reasons” because “content moderation policies are central to users’ experience and a core part of its overall commercial product.” This in effect confirms that political censorship is considered “central” to the marketing/branding of these platforms as de facto left wing propaganda organs. The ruling highlights the push to break up/regulate big tech.
    Google can swing an election. Facebook knows more about you than your spouse does. Amazon’s Alexa can record your living room conversations. Yet for all the talk about the Big Tech threat, these companies keep getting bigger, more powerful and more abusive.

    Republican politicians have focused on political censorship, and it is easy to see why: Conservatives are often censored on major social media platforms. Facebook and Twitter banned President Trump from their platforms while he was president.

    Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee has proposed a smart bill that would make major social media platforms common carriers, requiring them to provide reasonable nondiscriminatory access to all users. Airlines can’t ban you from flying because you voted for Mr. Trump, and phone carriers can’t cut you off for opposing abortion. Social media platforms shouldn’t be able to exclude you either.

    When Google changes its core search algorithms, the Federal Communications Commission should make sure the change isn’t nefarious. When Google makes deals to increase its market share, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission should scrutinize and intervene if necessary. And where our antitrust laws are insufficient, we need to write new ones.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-tec...30-11630959185
    Quote Originally Posted by PoVG
    You keep claiming that I lied but haven't been able to show the slightest substance to support it. Please don't lie about what I argue. All you are doing is a smear tactic in the face of failure to address actual points.
    Pure projection. Your “argument” is a strawman you repeat over and over because you're unable to respond to the topic/OP.
    Parler may not be as big as Twitter but its a popular destination for conservatives which is similarly guilty of censorship.
    Nowhere does the article allege Parler censored major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media. In fact it mentions Parler having moderation policies similar to TWC (no pr0n, no death threats/personal harassment, no gore/obscene content, etc).
    I won't really entertain that idiotic arbitrary, largely impossible to refute, claim that social media companies censor because of what news media reports. It's quite self evident that it doesn't even require much of an explanation.
    You weren’t asked to refute the factual and sourced claims I’ve made. You were asked for a counterexample of big tech censoring major stories in accordance with false stories/analyses promoted primarily by conservative media. You have not given any.
    I appreciate the changing narrative around that though. If I push it further it will likely be described as, not at the behest of or in accordance with, but by coincidence...
    This is another lie. My "narrative" was never changed, and you were given multiple examples of people and organizations on the political left demanding systematic enforcement of political censorship.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; October 01, 2021 at 11:50 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    No, we don't care about your libertarian "evidence".
    “To live without faith, without a heritage to defend, without battling constantly for truth, is not to live but to ‘get along’; we must never just ‘get along’.” - Pier Giorgio Frassati

  8. #48

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    This is an interesting essay from Wesley Yang which touches on some of the themes raised by the OP:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  9. #49

    Default Re: Big Tech, Big Media, and Big Lies

    To be fair Trump did doom the American/globalist establishment. He forever changed the political landscape and made anti-establishment politics mainstream. Even with the elites "fortifying" the elections and pushing one tyrannical edict after another, it is only their political power is steadily slipping away, as confidence in ruling class's legitimacy is evaporating by the hour. At some point upper classes will have to pick to either compromise with "extremist" populism to retain some of their wealth and power... or end up being crushed by it, just like many elites in history before them.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •