Media Bias

[Hermit]

Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

Censorship by the establishment media will take place with regards to the current 'Game Stop' rebellion.

Media don't censor, Daggles. Censorship is done by governments. The media are private enterprises protecting their bottom lines. You may not like how they go about it, but it's the owners' prerogative to decide how they go about it, much like it is yours to decide who you let into your home and who you don't.

I agree, but there may be some indirect government influence. Large tech companies may be seeking a cosy relationship with large governments (yes, to benefit their bottom line in the long run), and may make decisions on censorship which therefore have a political component (unstated of course...)

Can you give me an example?

I think the boot is very much on the other foot. The media are owned by the 0.1 percenters, and the 0.1 percenters own the politicians. That's why we have neoliberals or governments further to the right controlling most western style democracies. They are preselected by the real powers before voters get to choose which of the pre-approved set they will be governed by. Do you think it's a coincidence that the candidate with the greatest number of billionaires financing his campaign has won last November? Would you like to have a wild guess why Bernie Sanders keeps getting kneecapped? Turning to the local scene, do you expect Tony Albanese to rock the boat if Labor wins the next general election?

As Robert S. Borden wrote in 1976, "If voting could change anything it would be made illegal!" It's an exaggeration, but not all that far off the mark.

The key is "may be"; I have no concrete example, but the possibility is there.

OK. No example. We are in the realm of speculation then.

[JimC]

OK. No example. We are in the realm of speculation then.

Yes, as much of our posting is. But are you prepared to say with certainty that tech companies will never be influenced by the political world they operate in? I know that your main contention is that governments and political parties are simply shills, witting or unwitting, to the iron yoke of the corporate world, but I think this is too simplistic. Sure, corporations have a very unhealthy degree of power over politicians and parties, but it is not absolute. We have an ecosystem of organisations and economic powers, with mutually interacting processes.

[Cunt]

Do you think Crowder has shown any examples of this...

Our broader point is that we are pro-business but anti-fraud. Facebook lured consumers and creators to spend money and provide data and views under the promise of not engaging in political, racial or religious bias in enforcing their policies, but they have done so both expressly and secretively, and hence, the suit.

...kind of crap on his fairly popular show?

Like having his election stream cut without explanation, or other examples?

[Hermit]

OK. No example. We are in the realm of speculation then.

Yes, as much of our posting is. But are you prepared to say with certainty that tech companies will never be influenced by the political world they operate in? I know that your main contention is that governments and political parties are simply shills, witting or unwitting, to the iron yoke of the corporate world, but I think this is too simplistic. Sure, corporations have a very unhealthy degree of power over politicians and parties, but it is not absolute. We have an ecosystem of organisations and economic powers, with mutually interacting processes.

You're right. I was pushing the inside of the envelope too far in order to get my point across. It's not the first time I've done that either. Still, I think the boot is very much on the 0.1 percenters' foot. Not that they always march in lockstep with each other, which complicates matters somewhat more. In the US, for instance, Bezos and Soros favour the neoliberal faction of the system, Koch and probably Murdoch favour the more reactionary one, and most of big business places its bets on both.



One thing is fairly obvious, though: None of them back the democratic socialist. Number of billionaires and their spouses donating to the final eight democratic primary election candidates:

[Hermit]

Do you think Crowder has shown any examples of this...

Our broader point is that we are pro-business but anti-fraud. Facebook lured consumers and creators to spend money and provide data and views under the promise of not engaging in political, racial or religious bias in enforcing their policies, but they have done so both expressly and secretively, and hence, the suit.

...kind of crap on his fairly popular show?

Like having his election stream cut without explanation, or other examples?

There is no law requiring business to be fair. Facebook is not in the business of acting like a town hall meeting. It is in the business of making money. Crowder will not be able to establish that some law requires it act the way he would like. That is why his court case won't get beyond a brief preliminary hearing. It will not surprise me if he folds before he even gets that far, although he'll try his hardest. The court will tell him at the preliminary hearing that he has not established any grounds for a case and stop him right there.

Crowder knows it. He is not stupid at all. But he'll go on to inevitable defeat because he can then turn around and proclaim: "Even the court system is rigged." Great publicity. The deplorables will lap it up. He'll get more clicks. The rate is probably something like $4 per thousand, or more. Add increased sales of merch like coffee mugs and t-shirts with slogans on them and he's on a good wicket.

No need to convince me I'm wrong. Time will do that job. Or not.

[Brian Peacock]

Big tech is pretty clearly not trustworthy. It's funny how many are happy with them censoring, with government protection.

Censorship by the establishment media will take place with regards to the current 'Game Stop' rebellion.

Media don't censor, Daggles. Censorship is done by governments. The media are private enterprises protecting their bottom lines. You may not like how they go about it, but it's the owners' prerogative to decide how they go about it, much like it is yours to decide who you let into your home and who you don't.

I agree, but there may be some indirect government influence. Large tech companies may be seeking a cosy relationship with large governments (yes, to benefit their bottom line in the long run), and may make decisions on censorship which therefore have a political component (unstated of course...)

I think you're right, to some extent. The bar placed on certain people's social media accounts does have a political dimension, both in the influence govt has (regulation and law) on public and private activity, and in the way the private sector interprets it's presumed social, economic, and legal obligations. The actions of big tech are as much about trying to limit short-term damage to their social and economic standing as setting their stall against possible extra govt regulations further down the line. Basically, I don't think there's an agenda from big tech here other than them serving the usual corporate interests. They're just seeing which way the wind is blowing and trying to look like they're going with the flow.

[Seabass]

Former President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial is set to begin in the U.S. Senate next week, with the potential stakes that he could be disqualified from ever holding federal office again in the wake of his role in the January 6 insurrection. But right-wing media have issued a common refrain: Rather than go forward with this public process to hold Trump accountable, the country should just move on. After all, they say, the trial would just make it harder for President Joe Biden to “unify” the country as he’d promised.

Fox News has pushed this message since the Biden presidency officially began — often conveniently overlooking the core disunifying element of the Trump supporters who attempted to overthrow Congress, and that this resulted in five deaths including a Capitol Police officer.

But beyond that omission, Fox has also exhibited a major case of hypocrisy when it comes to investigating terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of Americans. Compare the network’s flippant attitude over the past month, for example, to its endless parade of commentary over investigations of the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Back then, for Fox, the more investigations, the better.

Fox News reactions to deadly terror attacks: 2012 vs 2021


Hannity is getting redder and puffier.

[Seabass]

Republicans On National TV Being SILENCED | The Daily Social Distancing Show

[Cunt]

[Cunt]

DeSantis NUKES Big Tech Censorship From Orbit, Proposes MASSIVE Fines, Tucker ROASTS NYU

https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1203716720791810048

[Cunt]

Civil Rights, Yale and racism.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1 ... 8214892546

In October 2020, Yale was sued by the US after a 2-year Civil Rights investigation revealed "long-standing and ongoing" race-based discrimination.

CNN Contributor
@AshaRangappa_
deleted records showing Yale's racism.

The Biden DOJ just dismissed the case without explanation

[L'Emmerdeur]

It was a culture warrior thing. How dare they take affirmative action in their admissions policy (1488)!!

'Justice Department Drops Race Discrimination Lawsuit Against Yale University'

The U.S. Department of Justice is dropping its controversial lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against Yale University, in which it accused the school of illegally discriminating against white and Asian American applicants in its undergraduate admissions process.

Justice Department lawyers submitted a four-sentence "notice of voluntary dismissal" to the U.S. District Court in Connecticut on Wednesday. A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed to NPR that it had dismissed the lawsuit "in light of all available facts, circumstances, and legal developments."

"The department will further review this matter through its administrative process," the spokesperson added. "The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that neither the United States nor the court has made any final determination in this matter."

The DOJ has also withdrawn its notice finding that Yale's practices violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, though the spokesperson said an underlying investigation to ensure Title VI compliance is ongoing.

[Cunt]

It was a culture warrior thing. How dare they take affirmative action in their admissions policy (1488)!!

'Justice Department Drops Race Discrimination Lawsuit Against Yale University'

The U.S. Department of Justice is dropping its controversial lawsuit brought by the Trump administration against Yale University, in which it accused the school of illegally discriminating against white and Asian American applicants in its undergraduate admissions process.

Justice Department lawyers submitted a four-sentence "notice of voluntary dismissal" to the U.S. District Court in Connecticut on Wednesday. A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed to NPR that it had dismissed the lawsuit "in light of all available facts, circumstances, and legal developments."

"The department will further review this matter through its administrative process," the spokesperson added. "The lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that neither the United States nor the court has made any final determination in this matter."

The DOJ has also withdrawn its notice finding that Yale's practices violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, though the spokesperson said an underlying investigation to ensure Title VI compliance is ongoing.

Yes, I knew the Dems were in favour of racial quotas. It's the most indigenous part of Elizabeth Warren.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Affirmative action doesn't necessarily involve quotas of any kind.

[Tero]

Voting machine