Inside Mark Zuckerberg's Private Meetings With Conservative Pundits (politico.com) 183
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to discuss issues like free speech and discuss partnerships, Politico reported on Monday. From the report: The dinners, which began in July, are part of Zuckerberg's broader effort to cultivate friends on the right amid outrage by President Donald Trump and his allies over alleged "bias" against conservatives at Facebook and other major social media companies. "I'm under no illusions that he's a conservative but I think he does care about some of our concerns," said one person familiar with the gatherings, which multiple sources have confirmed. News of the outreach is likely to further fuel suspicions on the left that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the White House and stay out of Trump's crosshairs. The president threatened to sue Facebook and Google in June and has in the past pressured the Justice Department to take action against his perceived foes. "The discussion in Silicon Valley is that Zuckerberg is very concerned about the Justice Department, under Bill Barr, bringing an enforcement action to break up the company," said one cybersecurity researcher and former government official based in Silicon Valley. "So the fear is that Zuckerberg is trying to appease the Trump administration by not cracking down on right-wing propaganda."
"perceived foes" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"perceived foes" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's verifiable fact that most social media company leadership has a left-wing bias
Don't worry, I am sure the free market will ensure that everything balances out in the end.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, historically it was the Republicans who were the trustbusters.
Re: (Score:2)
Teddy Roosevelt was big on the idea companies could get so large they would carry a weight that should properly only be wielded under (little-d) democratic control.
Of course class warfare was in full fury back then, where politicians took advantage of historical kings and lords owning everything and we should, having taken over, do the same crap they did, but for The People.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, looking at the actions of Mr. Zuckerberg; It appears that the free market is starting to take it's toll on his bottom line. He's recognized that loosing half his customer base to other platforms isn't the best marketing strategy. Now he has to play catch up in order to woo them back. While Facebook will stay viable for the future, I suspect those that jumped ship are long gone. It will be interesting to see which of the newer "free speech" social media platforms will win out.
Re: (Score:3)
It will be interesting to see which of the newer "free speech" social media platforms will win out.
You're right about "free speech", because any platform must first pass the approval of Google and Apple in order to be available in their app stores.
Meet the new Facebook, same as the old Facebook.
Bernie Sanders is actually left wing (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a media bias. It's an _establishment_ bias. A bias to protect the establishment and their money and interests. Which makes sense, look at who owns all the media. It's the establishment. It's a bunch of rich, well connected guys. So it's inevitable there would be a conservative (little 'c') bias.
What you should be asking yourself is do your interests align with that establishment. I'm pretty sure they don't. For one thing they don't like paying middle class wages.
Silicone vally is not left (Score:2)
Re: Bernie Sanders is actually left wing (Score:2)
"Left" and "right" are meaningless today. They serve only to confuse and stultify public discourse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All companies that are in the business of spread and exchange of information have a left-wing bias because reality itself has a liberal bias.
Where my opinions are not only just as good as your facts, but even better, secured by the rationalization of my own infallible superiority.
I can't imagine why there is such a growing divide in this country.
Re: "perceived foes" (Score:2)
"My Facebook stock seems to indicate otherwise."
Faceboot's surveillance probes - "like" buttons, messenger, libraries used in hundreds of cellphone apps - still have great coverage. Therefore Faceboot continues to rake in big bucks from their gestapo contracts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you sure? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No private company has a duty to be unbiased, period.
I say they do. You say they don't. Both of us are just asserting claims.
But here's an actual argument: society is better off with more public forums where ideas can be freely exchanged without censorship. This must be traded off against the rights of owners. So, when a company is owned by a small group of people with a common political agenda, that concern wins. When a company is owned by the public at large, nothing important is lost by forcing them to be unbiased, and much is gained.
So, besides sayin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Among the high points are 'Christians' who seem to have never read Christ's views on wealth
Are you saying Jesus didn’t teach that all of his followers should be rich and that the unwashed masses should be kept on their side of the border by a beautiful shiny new wall and fend for themselves?!
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus' teachings against the rich who abuse or neglect the poor are strong and clear.
They can applied to a great many of the powerful at all points of the political specturm.
On the other hand, there is no record of Jesus opining on the subject of government taking from the rich to give to the poor.
His teachings are orthogonal to our political debates.
Re:"perceived foes" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, funny quote about paying your taxes:
Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."
Wait, what? Christ says, Pay Your Taxes... Too bad every Christian Church in America doesn't follow that one
Maybe there are some nice things Christ said about the wealthy...
The saying was a response to a young rich man who had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied that he should keep the commandments, to which the man stated he had done. Jesus responded, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." The young man became sad and was unwilling to do this. Jesus then spoke this response, leaving his disciples astonished.
Maybe somebody needs to point this out to the ministry
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Every church in America pays all the taxes that other non-profits pay. They pay all the property taxes, utility taxes and fees, licensing, and so on, that every other non-profit does.
In fact, since many churches are not non-profits, they pay the same taxes as any other corporation.
In other words, churches in the United States do not get any special benefits... despite your false claim.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you Sir, for demonstrating what Pedantic means
If you bothered to read the original statement that I replied to: "On the other hand, there is no record of Jesus opining on the subject of government taking from the rich to give to the poor."
The author Mononymous, set such a LOW BAR that he claimed Jesus Christ never offered an opinion on taxes, I easily refuted that
In regard to Churches having non-profit status in America, please explain to me how public benefit is derived from some bible-thumper grifti
Re: (Score:2)
Relative to what? Britney Spears? Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris whose entire "shtick" is getting money for saying something doesn't exist, which by definition never can provide any value whatsoever, regardless of what they are preaching doesn't exist?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, none of those people you mention claim to be non-profits
So yes, Joel O'Steen is pretty much a well paid entertainer, who like Britney Spears, should be paying some income taxes
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, none of those people you mention claim to be non-profits
I thought that atheism was definitely not for prophets.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the equivalent of covering your ears and saying "LALALALA" very loud so that you cannot hear what is being told to you
At least you recognize that O'steen is an entertainer
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
All Christian churches pay Caesar everything he is asking them to. Go ahead, check with Caesar personally.
If we take the analogy in a broad abstract sense, then "Caesar" represents the current government, which gives in law the tax incentives it does. That is what "Caesar" says, and is what defines what belongs to "Caesar" for the present time.
There is nothing prohibited about changing the government position on taxes, and insofar as that benefits the churches, that is what is of benefit per Christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
See, that's the problem when you follow pastors that just make shit up
Let me put the Wiki page on Tax Resistance in Judea right here: [wikipedia.org]
The taxes imposed on Judaea by Rome had led to riots. New Testament scholar Willard Swartley writes:
The tax denoted in the text was a specific tax It was a poll tax, a tax instituted in A.D. 6. A census taken at that time (cf. Lk. 2:2) to determine the resources of the Jews provoked the wrath of the country. Judas of Galilee led a revolt (Acts 5:37), which was suppressed only
Re: (Score:2)
in response to
The passage was a response to a young rich man who had
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I left the 'eye of the needle' verse out of my response and it appeared I was tying the phrase to the wealthy person to the quote on paying taxes
Re: (Score:2)
People easily gloss over this part. It is worthy of close consideration. What is too rich? Who is too sinful?
Re: (Score:2)
The "Eye of THE Needle" was a low gate in the wall of Jerusalem. It required that camels to crawl on their knees to get through it. So they had to be trained to do it. Normal desert caravan camels could not do it. The point is if you were rich you need to work on yourself to get to heaven.
Re:No, not really (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement, in a nutshell, encapsulates the problem with the left: they view any point of view different from theirs not only wrong, but illegitimate - and it flows logically from that position that there is no issue of suppressing illegitimate views or speech.
The problem of course is who determines whether or not speech is illegitimate? Why, the leftist technocrats at these companies do. The same ones that brag about keeping hiring blacklists of conservatives at Google, the same ones that moonlight at Antifa rallies, the same ones that push Brendan Eich out of Mozilla.org for donating money to a perfectly legal political cause, with absolutely no countervailing pressure, because these same forces have been exceptionally successful at either kicking out conservatives or silencing them with the very real threat of losing their jobs if their political views became known.
This leads to circumstances where Facebook bans doxing...unless you are on their Dangerous Person's list, and then it's a-ok. So, you want to encourage people to attack Laura Loomer at her home? Facebook doesn't have a problem with that. Same thing with Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes. But Yvette Felarca - who has been indicted on inciting a riot charges (leftist violence)? She's A-Ok. Note that Gavin McInnes has never been arrested or charged with political violence, nor Alex Jones. Same thing with Eric Clanton of the bike lock fame.
Thus, we have Facebook acting as a publisher - determining what content is valid and what content is not, which means they lose the protection of being a platform provider and are thus liable for the content inciting violence against conservatives on their site.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, not really (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that it suddenly becomes a problem again, because let's face the simple fact: most people are going to respond to situations on an independent basis depending on how the specifics align with the rest of their world view rather than looking at the facts objectively and apply their general beliefs or morals to them without letting the other details creep in.
To see where you really stand on the issue, take it a step further and ask yourself if a commercial organization should be able to use its freedom of speech (or association as it were) and decide not to to business with someone solely based on skin color or religion. I think that a person's answer to that question really tells them how they ought to respond to these other questions. Anything else just seems like twisting your rules only after the fact to avoid your own moral hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3)
That test works on the assumption that your opinion, no matter how verifiably wrong, no matter who it singles out and seeks to deliver a message of hate against, no matter what damage in can cause with the spread of misinformation, is worthy of the same legal protections against exclusion as is someone's race, sex, or religion.
There is a very clear difference between "we don't serve black people" and "we don't want you to stand in our store and tell our customers that our food is poisoning them." If you ar
Re: (Score:2)
"Conservatives" and "establishment Republicans" are opposing camps now. It's the latter who are pro-corporate. "Establishment Republicans" and "establishment Democrats" march in lockstep where anything related to corporate profits are on the line. This is why both parties now have schisms between the grassroots and the corporate cucks.
Conservatives support the rights of giant corporations about as much as Bernie Bros do. The one thing they agree on is the establishment has worn out its welcome.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
lol, right, that's why the right says all leftist love crime and want to destroy america... because of their great respect for the opinions of others.
Re:No, not really (Score:4, Insightful)
That's rich. Remember Charlottesville? How about the synagogue attack? How about the church attack? How about the El Paso attack? Now, where are all of these leftists murdering people that you apparently have knowledge of?
False (Score:3)
False:
From Wikipedia: "Police believe a manifesto with white nationalist and anti-immigrant themes, posted on the online message board 8chan shortly before the attack, was written by Crusius; it cites the year's earlier Christchurch mosque shootings and a right-wing conspiracy theory known as the Great Replacement as motivation for the attack."
Re: False (Score:2)
One can be "on the left" and be racist. See China.
Re: (Score:3)
Who gets to say what's a fatc and what's a point of view? He is your ruler. You can say "but it's obvious", but that's not a mechanism.
In court (in the US), there are no "facts" presented. There are uncontested statements. There are expert witnesses. But only the jury can determine fact. Courts work this way because it's an adversarial process.
The same thing's true anywhere in politics, because politics is an adversarial process. The voter is the only legitimate determiner of fact. Appointing anyone
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that I've been accused of being a white supremacist - on here - because I said that racism is bad.
Should my voice be silenced because I refuse to accept racism against people of any colour? I know it's only my point of view but I feel it's an important counter against actual racists claiming otherwise.
CNN mgt tired of Zucker telling them "hammer Trump (Score:4, Informative)
Well, CNN staffers such as their media coordinator, Nick Neville, are getting tired of CNN president Jeff Zucker telling them to ignore the news and just hammer Trump 24/7 because he has a personal vendetta against Trump.
https://youtu.be/m7XZmugtLv4 [youtu.be]
You can see and hear Zucker and other CNN execs for yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Meanwhile, in right-leaning media (FoxNews, RedState, etc.), reporters and pundits are getting suppressed and fired for criticizing Trump, McConnell, and others:
Former Fox News Analyst Says Network Forbid Conservatives From Criticizing Trump, Sarah Palin" [newsweek.com]
Two RedState writers quit, citing pro-Trump bias [thehill.com]
Erick Erickson: Ailes took me off Fox News because of McConnell criticism [thehill.com]
Increasingly, "conservative media" is starting to look more like the PR department of the Republican Party: Even conservative voices tha
Water is wet (Score:2)
You sure spent a lot of time stating what everyone already knows - Fox leans conservative. And water is wet.
Actually I think you even weakened your point with most of your links. For example, your relfe link says that when the reporters wanted to do a four-part hit piece on Monsanto, the station said "fine, but you also need to include Monsanto's response to the allegations". That makes the Fox station look more fair, not less. You'd have been better off just saying "as everyone is aware, Fox tends conser
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When did "punch a Nazi" turn into "punch anyone who isn't rabidly far left"?
It didn't "turn", it was always this. Right from the beginning. The useful idiots are told a lie and they believe it without even thinking twice, then their actions, thoughts, and emotions are all based on that lie. Their masters point them in the direction of any opposition to the political or corporate agenda, feed them the lie, and let them loose.
In these soft minds, the programming is so intense, so ingrained, that it will never go away. Look at these people who completely believed the Russiagate bullsh
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Zero kills by antifa
Given the multiple attempted murders (e.g. full arm swings with a heavy metal bike lock onto someone's unprotected head) your defence of "we're just too incompetent to kill anybody" isn't really winning the argument here.
Re: No, not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Only one person had plead guilty
Actually, it's Michael Flynn, Rick Gates. Michael Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Alex van der Zwaan, Richard Pinedo, Sam Patten, Bijan Kian. Skim Alptekin.
And even if it was only one, why would only one guilty plea mean nothing happened?
Nobody has been convicted of anything election or trump-related
Paul Manafort still exists, despite your efforts to ignore him.
Also, trials take time. There's 25 Russian nationals, four corporations, Konstantin Kilimnik, Roger Stone, Gregory Craig, Vin Weber and Tony Podesta that have been indicted, but their trials aren't done yet.
Youve lost your troll indictments in court
Believe it or not, I'm not a US Attorney. Also, [Citation Required]. List the indictments that were "lost".
You immediately sealed your oligarch indictments and have never presented any of them to the Russian court system
You expect the US to try someone under US law in the Russian legal system? On what planet is that how it is supposed to work?
Its a sick joke that is destroying our republic
No, that would be the complete detachment from reality of 30-40% of our population.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a verifiable fact that left wingers are usually thrown off Facebook and Twitter for bogus ToS complaints
You just take the truth, swap "left" and "right", and hope no one calls you on it? Well, I'm calling you on it. You are entirely full of shit.
Re: "perceived foes" (Score:2)
The parent post is illegal in Singapore.
https://m.slashdot.org/story/3... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No one in their right mind should be paying attention to a post which is devoid of any argument except one that says anyone who thinks like the previous post is insane. You would have to be mad to do that. (recursion).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: economic liberalism (Score:2)
Faceboot engaged in anti-competitive behavior by buying up dozens of competitors. Thereby they established substantial monopoly power, albeit not a full monopoly, in the invasive surveillance / baitware / "advertising" marketplace. Together with Big Brother Google they have basically a duopoly on mass cyberstalking. They should be divested of their acquired companies in an antitrust enforcement action.
Orthogonally, both companies' business model is antithetical to American values and to the venerable Common
Re: (Score:2)
Can you even point out 10 pro-nazi groups on Facebook?
Progress, but... (Score:2)
...I'm still not comfortable with a private company having such a profound affect on public discourse. Mind you; I'm not advocating for governmental oversight over a private company. Rather I'm suggesting we need a social media alternative that's restricted by the 1st amendment.
No private entity could achieve that, I suspect. Their priorities necessarily can't align with that. But a government alternative could. Perhaps facebook/twitter/google should partner with the US government to create a political
I don't trust the administration to politically nu (Score:2)
> No private entity could achieve that, I suspect. Their priorities necessarily can't align with that. But a government alternative could.
Government projects are run by the executive branch. Which is headed by, an responsible to, the president.
I don't trust the administration to be politically neutral. I don't trust the Trump administration to be free from politics, and I wouldn't trust the Sanders administration to be free from politics. Since they are politicians, I trust they will ALWAYS be motivat
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Progress, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Rather I'm suggesting we need a social media alternative that's restricted by the 1st amendment.
Those already exist. The result of allowing anything is pretty typical: hordes of bigots converging, spouting hateful diatribes and driving off anyone who isn't an extremist. Simply put, nobody but extremists want to visit that kind of place because if they did you would have already joined up.
Does it really though (Score:2)
I'm still not comfortable with a private company having such a profound affect on public discourse.
I have seen absolutely ZERO proof that Facebook has anything like a "profound" impact on public discourse.
In fact I would say, the widespread and ongoing censorship of so many things conservative on Facebook and other social media platforms proves that Facebook does NOT have a dramatic effect on anything.
If you think about it rationally, why would it? Have you EVER seen a person on Facebook who would be inclu
Re: (Score:2)
lol this from the guy who refuses to acknowledge climate change... HILARIOUS
Re: (Score:2)
Oh lookee, SK learned how to check the Anonymous box on a post, what a sock-puppeting troll
Re:Progress, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is you now have a bunch of outlets doing the same bullshit. It is getting to the point where you cant believe anybody and I literally mean anybody. Everyone is getting caught stacking the deck and counting cards. Over the last six months I’ve been doing a study of all major media sites. The amount of propaganda coming out of major media is insane. Outlandish headlines, followed by two supporting paragraphs that don’t actually corroborate the headlines, then a more paragraphs that make it seem plausible, followed by two paragraphs that come as close to contradicting the headlines as possible. If you read the entire thing you’ll realize no point gets made and the headlines are flat out lying. However because they told the truth in the last two paragraphs it’s not libel. 95% of these stupid social idiots only read the headlines in one or two paragraphs and draw insane conclusions based on complete non-truths. Then the pit everybody against each other and want them to fight it out.
1984 was a instruction manual, not a novel.
How dare you say we are at war with EastAsia, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Re:Progress, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I look at the front page of CNN and half the time it's all opinion, calling itself news. Or speculation about what so-and-so "could do" or a move that "signals an intent to." This is not news, designed to inform you about what just happened or is happening. If the goal is to shape your opinion rather than to inform you of facts...that's propaganda, and that's 90% of all TV and newspaper "reporting." And that's all controlled by a handful of mega-corps, who all have similar values and interests. And then that's what sets the agenda for what the government does. See my .sig.
It's also important to remember that the people doing the reporting are not experts, and are not that smart. Journalism school is a not a rigorous, intellectually challenging endeavor. It's a bunch of not hideous looking people with 110 IQs pretending they can understand and explain the stuff 130+ IQ scientists, engineers, bankers and political manipulators are doing. With lots of phony trappings of authority, like fancy desks and suits, spinning globe computer animations, and pretentious names like "Guardian," "Intelligencer," "Observer" or "Standard," designed to present the image of omniscience. It's all a fraud, and you will generally come out of an hour of watching a TV news broadcast knowing more wrong things than you did before you started.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I look at the front page of CNN and half the time it's all opinion, calling itself news.
All opinion pieces on CNN's website are literally tagged with "Opinion:" as the first word in the headline. How is that disguising opinion as news?
Re: (Score:3)
Meanwhile in reality [youtube.com]
Lol. Of all the days you said this it's on the day where it comes out that the CNN leadership have been pushing anti-Trump crap because of a hatred against Trump. It's sad how bad CNN has gotten and you still think it's "unbiased". After everything that has occurred in the last 3 years you don't see propaganda because you agree with it.
You might want to reevaluate your assumptions after being wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
So. You can't refute what was recorded so you plug your ears and scream "my propaganda is right"?
Good optics.
Re: (Score:3)
Right... because video recordings is just a non-credible emotional response.
You have a wonderful mechanism for denying evidence that goes against your narrative. Quite fascinating. Normally, I only see this from the likes of anti-vaxx but you take it to a whole new level for very simple and mundane things. Why CNN is your mercury autism shots? If CNN is discredited, would you question other sources of your dogma?
Fascinating.
Re: (Score:3)
Fascinating
Project Veritas History [wikipedia.org]
It was founded in 2010 by James O'Keefe.
O'Keefe was sued for defamation by a man he wrongfully depicted as a "willing participant in an underage sex-trafficking scheme"; the suit led to a settlement in 2013, in which O'Keefe issued an apology and paid $100,000.
In 2017, it was caught in a failed attempt to trick the The Washington Post into posting a fabricated story about Roy Moore.
O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states beca
Re: (Score:2)
Over the last six months I’ve been doing a study of all major media sites.
Will you be publishing this study soon? What was your methodology? What was the cutoff before which something was not considered a "major" media site?
Re: (Score:2)
True. They should model themselves over bastions of reasonable, nonpartisan journalism like MSNBC or Huffington Post.
Seriously, I don't get the Fox thing. Sure, it's complete shit and caters to morons but people act like the liberal rags aren't the same thing, just opposite polarity.
Re:Progress, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because some company produces garbage and calls it "news" doesn't make it ok for another company to produce garbage and call it "news".
Re: (Score:3)
You of course have proof of your factual claims, right? You would never make a claim like that without facts to back it up, would you?
By the way, Fox is right-biased... but it is not the most biased network. And there are decades of professional, peer reviewed studies showing this.
Here's a quick sample.
A Measure of Media Bias [Groseclose, Milyo, 2004]
Media Bias and Reputation [Gentzkow, Shapiro, 2005]
Presidents and Front-page News - How America's Newspapers Cover the Bush Administration [Peake, 2007]
The P
Re: (Score:2)
Sure [politifact.com]
Old link, but still newer than any of the reports you reference.
Queue "but the fact checkers are biased" in 3... 2... 1...
Re: (Score:2)
Fox was the only major news network that didn't fall for the Russian collusion conspiracy theory. Leftist Intercept compiled a list of 20 (10 ranked and 10 honorable mentions) Fake Stories [theintercept.com] that had to be corrected, the list is dominated by left wing media outlets. And this was *before* the Muller report was released.
I suspect Fox has become more 'balanced' simply because of supply & demand - there was no longer a supply of news that appealed to moderates/centrists, so they moved to fill that void, and
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to the left, which had a monopoly in the media prior to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh lookee, we have a tuff guy on the internets _scarey_
Re: (Score:2)
Perceived? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bias against conservatives has been well documented. Conservatives have been repeatedly deplatformed, demonetized and consistently have their content reduced. If your a big enough voice and well enough known you can get someone to make enough noise about it. Facebook always says 'a mistake was made'. If your not a big name, forget it, your going to be suffer rampant discrimination.
Facebook content should be roughly one third liberal, one third independent and one third conservative. This should happen for the simple reason that this is how Americans self identify politically: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1... [gallup.com]
I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that the content coming out of Facebook or anywhere in Silicon Valley social media platforms is remotely close to one third liberal. There are only three ways this can happen.
* Make your platform hostile to anyone that isn't a liberal so that conservatives and a fair portion of independents aren't welcome (Jezebel etc.).
* Moderation to suppress voices that don't reflect management's party line (Reddit etc.)
* Programmatic suppression of opinions that don't reflect management's party line (Twitter, Google etc.)
People have repeatedly done experiments where they swap race, pronouns or other words to see how content is being filtered. What is tolerated for one is considered hate speech for another. Hate speech has become the dog whistle for conservative speech and an excuse for censorship and suppression of a significant portion of the population. I don't think it's fooling anyone anymore.
Follow the money (Score:2)
Fox News is fading away. Their viewership is ancient. When that viewership dies Fox News ceases to be a viable establishment/conservative propaganda tool.
The rich and powerful _always_ hedge their bets. So they're putting money in guys like Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have this documentation, then?
Re: (Score:2)
So yep, Republicans, as always, can only compete when the playing field is tilted to their advantage. In all other cases people see through the garbage that
Re: (Score:2)
Even from Here (Score:2)
I can hear the rustling of the money charging hands, the slurping sound of Zucks lips, and the occasional "Yeah baby, harder, give it to me harder" when the Zucks mouth is empty ...
No sympathy here (Score:3, Insightful)
These tech companies went out of their way to insult the political right, who should have been their natural allies. Instead, they cultivate the left, who hate them for being successful no matter how loudly they mouth the party line. Now they are surprised that they have no friends, anywhere. Maybe Zuckerberg has finally figured out which side his bread is buttered on.
Fantasy Novel (Score:2)
So, liberals, who run everything and have a conspiracy to protect Hillary from paying the price for her string of serial murders, hate rich people for succeeeding.
Super logical deduction from the facts that is not. If you don't want to pay taxes and support the US military, just go back to where your ancestors are from... right?
I already pay for other people's Medicare... why can I use them as my insurance company and pay them for that? B/c conservatives don't like me to be able to buy things at cost whic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)