Some people seem to like the Chinese or Russian state censorship model, at least when they think it is working in their favor.
Pro tip @Malasang88 they don’t care about political affiliation. That’s something you care about. The time will come when causes you care about but not in the establishments interests that they too will be censored.
Of course it is. It’s actively keeping it away from large numbers of eyeballs. It’s actively manipulating the flow of information.
Both sides do this. Of course I’m not surprised that you can only see conservatives doing it.
Where stuff is blocked completely? Yeah that is not happening here but nice non sequitur.
Pro tip- when you bitch about something offer a solution. Once you do that maybe you’ll realize your criticism is full of shit. Should rank everything the same? Everything randomly? No algorithms at all?
We can speak in relative terms. It is a strategy for right wing pundits, politicians. Fear mongering and victim hood is necessary when you are a minority party and dependent on high voter turnout to maintain power. Makes total sense.
See my pro tip to Mick.
Seems you are testy today, I would refer to your first amendment, it’s one thing for a private company to censor whatever they please, but I think there’s a rule prohibiting government telling the press to censor stories.
I wonder who else in government get’s to tell Twitter/Facebook/Google to censor? The CDC I bet, DOJ? CIA? The White House? I wonder how often they do it, can they tell them to ban individuals? I suspect they can and do.
Pro tip: only those with an inferior product fear the free marketplace of information — and with good reason.
They feared Democrats being too fickle and ignorant to (edit:take apart ( my ignorance is apparent)) the information in order to make an informed decision.
We don’t agree that it is censorship. Seems you didn’t understand or read my response. Should they rank everything the same so it’s fair? No algorithm at all? Random ranking? Clearly lowering a ranking while information can be verified by a 3rd party based on a warning of misinformation from the FBI seems prudent in this case, just based on what he said.
Oh so now the FBI told them exactly what to? Remember when I pointed out you have a tendency to immediately jump to conspiracy despite a lack of evidence.
I for one prefer Truth Social. Vastly superior and doesn’t block or censor any content!
Based on rates of education, I’d say you’ve got the wrong demographic.
That’s a telling statement right there.
Exactly. Stats are tough.
And you don’t see the FBI warning that the story was misinformation when they clearly knew that it wasn’t as a problem?
I think the fact the FBI had been sitting on the laptop for nearly a year doesn’t seem to be something he thought about.
Exactly. Wait until you’re on the wrong side of the “deplorables” who, statistically, own the guns.
That you are too short-sighted to see where this leads is alarming.
Did they warn about a specific story or was it a general warning? Being told to be vigilant about a dump sounds like a more general warning.
So now you’re threatening me? People having guns is not going to change my mind about their politics.
Warning is not threatening. Liberals don’t agree with you.
Yes every single liberal doesn’t agree with me and every Republican has a gun. Is that your point?
I don’t think we should accept bad policies from fear of being shot. Should we let idiots run the country and not speak up? Yeah sorry not going to do that no matter who agrees with me or not.
I think it’s 55/45 R/D gun ownership. So, no.
On the right track.
I don’t see evidence that you have.
Evidence proves the opposite.
Hunter Biden’s laptop, if it was a non-starter, should have been discussed before the election of 2020. Get it out of the way. That the FBI worked to suppress it’s exposure is telling about what someone, somewhere, thought might be damning. Use that education you are proud of.
I sort of have to disagree here. I mean, yes, it isn’t censorship, but in a way that’s worse. If it had passed some threshold of proven (?) misinformation, then there’d be an argument for censoring it – albeit not one I’m sure I’d agree with.
But it doesn’t feel right to me that Facebook (and the rest) are promoting or demoting content on the basis of supposed accuracy when it hasn’t actually been vetted either way, and it certainly doesn’t seem like the FBI’s job to tell them to do so.