According to legend, the media is a pillar of democracy. The free press informs the public objectively, without bias, “just the facts, ma’am.” They ardently defend freedom of expression; it is their bread and butter! Their fearless reporters expose high-level corruption, protecting the little guy from the abuses of the rich and powerful.
The reality today is almost the opposite. Worse, now they enthusiastically participate in censorship.
Jason Koebler, a Vice editor of Motherboard (their tech column), published “Deplatforming Works”, practically rejoicing.
It is true that Silicon Valley’s lethargy on the far right, aided by endless media coverage, has helped amplify their message and turn the far right into a truly powerful political force in the United States.
So he thinks the tech giants have been too slow to remove views he doesn’t like. Yet he worries about what happens when they switch to alternative platforms that respect free speech. Furthermore, he laments that the censorship of popular commentators generates publicity:
The deplatform works “best” when deplatformed people have no power to begin with.
It’s an unfiltered insight into media mentality. He denies that the censorship is ideologically motivated. Well, how often are leftists banned for “extremist” views, criticizing groups they don’t like or controversial views on history?
The New Ministry of Truth
Another whopper, co-authored by Jason Koebler and Joseph Cox, described how journalists serve as tattletales on social media:
In a recent interview at Facebook headquarters, a senior company executive told Motherboard that Facebook has somewhat formalized the process for responding to content moderation requests from journalists and has a dedicated system for escalating issues highlighted by journalists. This often puts content in front of those deciding whether or not to remove it faster than regular user-generated reports.
Thanks for the tip, man. I was wondering who was doing this sneaky thing behind the scenes. As I suspected, this goes much further than tricky “watchdog” outfits or social justice warriors orchestrating Tumblr mobbing campaigns.
So he cheekily admitted that Lügenpresse employees are colluding with social media companies, spreading content that they believe the public should not be allowed to see. (East that what college journalism departments are teaching kids these days?) Ever since the tech giants colluded with them created special pipelines to accelerate the snitchapparently it happens quite frequently.
Last month, when explaining why Twitter didn’t initially ban InfoWars from its platform, CEO Jack Dorsey said “it’s critical that journalists document, validate and refute [dis]information directly so that people can form their own opinion. This is what best serves the public conversation.
Given MSM’s history of bias, distortion and outright lies, their new side job of censoring dissenting views is like a fox guarding the henhouse. (Jack Dorsey’s statement is almost as outlandish as when Barbara Specter said, “But without that starring role and without that transformation [to multiculturalism]Europe will not survive. ”) This gets even more nauseating:
During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Wednesday, Dorsey again emphasized the role journalists play in countering the disinformation that is spread and incited on his platform.
“We have this incredible community of journalists around the world who use our service every day, and they often call in non-factual information with great speed,” Dorsey said.
Senate Intelligence Committee – well, isn’t it that special? If this “incredible riding” lives up to this daily, is that all really topical investigative research, or rather cyber-loafing?
Keep the echo chamber
While this article doesn’t seem to care about ethics or free speech, it does correctly explain that talking about social media posts for Silicon Valley billionaires is not the job they do. supposed To do. Journalists are paid to write stories. I will add that if they act like Glavlit informants during the clock they are steal their businesses, as if they were playing Warcrack.
To be clear, each platform has moderators or algorithms that detect the vast majority of content violations on a platform. Still, many of the most high-profile content moderation decisions seem to be made only after they’ve been advertised. For example, InfoWars was only banned from the platforms after a steady drumbeat of reporting surrounding disinformation and hate speech spread by Alex Jones.
Jones was simultaneously banned from four major platforms. Anyone who thinks the timing was a coincidence probably also believes in the Easter Bunny. Do esteemed members of the Fourth Estate still use transmission belts hidden from the public like Journalist?
Here’s how it rolls theirs the society:
At Motherboard, we’ve increasingly decided not to give specific examples to tech companies when approaching them for an article. Of course, if they really need an example so they have enough context to comment, if it’s just one specific video for example, it’s probably best to provide a link to the clip. And we’ll give them enough context about what the videos are and the issue so they can write a statement about why they think the content should or shouldn’t be removed. But for more general questions, or in particular public material that can be found with a simple search, companies don’t need to hold hands to find the videos: indeed, the fact is that they could have – and perhaps should have – found them. easily in the first place.
Facebook also told Motherboard that many other journalists stopped sharing links to specific pieces of content until the stories were published. Facebook believes it’s to everyone’s benefit that the company is able to remove infringing content as quickly as possible.
So their take basically looks like this:
- Journalists are tired of working so hard to censor other companies, instead of doing their real job.
- They want the tech giants to create better programs to robotically remove politically incorrect content.
- If they write a clickbait article about it, they are disappointed that the content is banned first.
No wonder people don’t trust the Lugenpresse. Same most liberals realize today that MSM is bullshit!
Why Dissenting Opinions Matter
The media have ideological positions. That’s okay, as long as these things stay in the editorials and the news is unbiased. According to legend, the diversity of opinion in the media will allow the public to sort things out for themselves. However, 90% of the American media belong to six gigantic conglomerates. Five are little more than propaganda factories for cultural Marxism. The one who essentially represents the controlled opposition does not stray too far from mainstream orthodoxy, nor does he touch on many vital issues.
The MSM is an oligopoly with vast powers to shape opinion. Therefore, dissenting voices free from interference are the only ones to break through the information blockade. It is the “deplorables” who now watch over the public, crying out for subversion sometimes reaching levels of betrayal when no one else dares call it betrayal.
Finally, Jason Koebler has written several articles on data mining abuse. It’s wonderful. Ironically, the MSM overlooks another problem with tech giants abusing their monopoly powers, often even aiding them. Not only do big social media companies get a free pass to censorship, but some journalists just wish there were more so they could stop working for them for free.
Don’t miss Beau’s catalog of books. Good product!
Read more: Confessions of a Corrupt Former Media Establishment Reporter