Media Bias

[Cunt]

lol funny. I wonder why there is such large money in a simple process like counting ballots...

Maybe it's worth billions, but doesn't it work good with suspicious volunteer scrutineers? Machines might be better, but a few BILLION better?

[Hermit]

lol funny. I wonder why there is such large money in a simple process like counting ballots...

Smartmatic has supplied voting machines in over 25 countries for 20 years. If it loses 10% of its business as a result of media lies those losses could amount to 2.7 billion dollars over a period of ten years. That's the company's argument anyway.

I think most claims are ambit claims: Aim for the sky and see how close you get. Just about everybody who sues someone for defamation does that. Have you ever wondered by what calculation Nick Sandmann worked out that the Washington Post damaged his reputation to the tune of $250 million? Or what amount he finished up settling for?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Of course liberal elites at a university would tell lies to cover for the nasty, nasty social media companies. This isn't going to convince the poor oppressed conservative victims who're all over the airwaves talking about the horrible injustice of 'cancel culture.' Those damned chardonnay-supping leftist professors and their so-called evidence don't mean a thing when we all can see conservatives getting booted off social media platforms.

Oh, and don't go telling me about the excuses the platforms use for this. Their rules about things like hate speech, incitement to violence, and malicious disinformation are clearly aimed at conservatives.

'Claim of anti-conservative bias on social media platforms is "a form of disinformation," study finds'

After decades of claiming that everyone from the Los Angeles Times to Newsweek and Time has a "liberal media bias," the far right has found a new target: social media. Countless Republicans — along with their allies at Fox News, Newsmax TV and AM talk radio — have been claiming that major social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have it in for conservatives. But according to a new study from New York University, there is no evidence that such a bias exists. And in fact, the study found that social media outlets and big tech have allowed conservatives to reach a larger audience.

"(The) claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it," according to New York University's report. "No trustworthy large-scale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests."

[Brian Peacock]

They have it all and yet still believe they're the real victims.

[L'Emmerdeur]

They have it all and yet still believe they're the real victims.

You can be sure that the paper will not have any effect on their narrative of victimhood, either. I've been looking through it, and though the Salon article calls it a 'study' I'd describe it more as a review article.

'False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives' [PDF]

[JimC]

If conservatives claim censorship when social media companies ban racial hate speech, planning violent insurrection, plots to kill jews etc., then that is a clear admission that such things are within the umbrella of conservatism...

[Cunt]

planning violent insurrection

Was that planned on one social media site? Or many?

Were all the sites used for those plans treated the same way? Or were the blue ones given a pass, while red ones...

[pErvinalia]

Who gave "passes"? What does that look like?

[Cunt]

If the plans were made on three platforms, and the red one got their hosting pulled, but the two blue ones didn't, it would look like that.

[JimC]

OK, so give us the detailed evidence to support your hints of bias against conservatives, with all necessary links and sources.

You know, just like Hermit or L'emmy would...

[pErvinalia]

He can't do that, he's just asking questions.

[Joe]

He can't do that, he's It's just too much work asking questions.

[Cunt]

OK, so give us the detailed evidence to support your hints of bias against conservatives, with all necessary links and sources.

You know, just like Hermit or L'emmy would...

I agree, you haven't seen the bias against conservatives.

It's hard to see without strong empathy for the conservatives. You would have to test such an idea, to start, by agreeing on what some of the left/right disagreements are. It's tough, especially in a moderated forum. I've frankly given up. I mean, I know which way the bias goes (because I love some righties AND some lefies) but each side is chock full of people who think it doesn't happen to the other side.

Good luck working it out. I suggest find a friendly 'rightie', and explore it with them.

[JimC]

OK, so give us the detailed evidence to support your hints of bias against conservatives, with all necessary links and sources.

You know, just like Hermit or L'emmy would...

I agree, you haven't seen the bias against conservatives.

It's hard to see without strong empathy for the conservatives. You would have to test such an idea, to start, by agreeing on what some of the left/right disagreements are. It's tough, especially in a moderated forum. I've frankly given up. I mean, I know which way the bias goes (because I love some righties AND some lefies) but each side is chock full of people who think it doesn't happen to the other side.

Good luck working it out. I suggest find a friendly 'rightie', and explore it with them.

In other words, all your sly hints and insinuations that mainstream media/big government/big corporations demonstrate bias against conservative views remains utterly and completely unsupported. You've "given up" either because doing the requisite research is boring (or beyond your competence) or, more likely, because no such evidence exists.

You could expect people on the forum to respect a well put together argument, with supporting links to surveys etc. but don't expect us to trawl through vague podcasts that themselves are basically evidence free.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yeah, scientific evidence wouldn't be useful. After all, a conclusion that requires 'strong empathy' likely won't be borne out by evidence. You gotta KNOW the answer already based on your emotional attachments.