Media Manipulation

[dmahon]

A few weeks ago, the “lockdown critics” Talk Radio were banned from YouTube, probably due to pressure from the government behind the scenes.

Since they came back, it’s like the presenters were replaced with BBC issued robots. They look the same but have had personality transplants to toe the party line.

We also have the Trump and the Parler deplatforming and the big tech companies acting as arbiters of the truth this week.

I know not everyone agrees with these news sources and the opinions published on them, but I find it *very* concerning how we are being told what is acceptable to think, especially when there are such enormous consequences to what is the “approved” messaging of today.

When you mix this in with the fact that a lot of the media is paid for anyway, and the whole model is optimised to keep you clicking for ad revenue, it’s all a bit of a toxic charade.

I personally would love to disengage with it all if I can wean myself off it, but a media so tightly controlled by such a small group of politically correct people surely can’t be good for society?

Edited by dmahon on Sunday 10th January 04:37

[The Rotrex Kid]

Plenty of other threads covering this at the moment.

[Electro1980]

No one is being silenced. No one is being stopped from airing their (insane) views. There are private companies choosing who they do and don’t do business with. Isn’t that what the right want?

[voyds9]

Electro1980 said:

No one is being silenced. No one is being stopped from airing their (insane) views. There are private companies choosing who they do and don’t do business with. Isn’t that what the right want?

Absolutely, now if they are choosing which content they show then they are publishers (not platforms), agreed?

[Electro1980]

Firstly, I disagree with the platform or publisher concept and think it’s an old fashioned split based on laws and lawmakers that can’t keep up and trying to apply last century structures.

Secondly, the examples you give are not about controlling a message but about who uses the platform. All platforms have terms on what it can be used for. Are you claiming that BT are a publisher because they will remove or throttle people for abusing their services?

[Seventy]

dmahon said:

I know not everyone agrees with these news sources and the opinions published on them, but I find it *very* concerning how we are being told what is acceptable to think, especially when there are such enormous consequences to what is the “approved” messaging of today.

<snip>

So you want to control what a privately owned company can do but you don’t want to be controlled.
Riiight.

Nobody is telling you what to think, apart from your paranoia.

Their businesses, their T&C’s.

[Murph7355]

Electro1980 said:

Firstly, I disagree with the platform or publisher concept and think it’s an old fashioned split based on laws and lawmakers that can’t keep up and trying to apply last century structures.

Secondly, the examples you give are not about controlling a message but about who uses the platform. All platforms have terms on what it can be used for. Are you claiming that BT are a publisher because they will remove or throttle people for abusing their services?

How would you modernise the "publisher or platform" laws?

The BT argument is different and I think they are firmly in the "platform" space. Though if every single ISP refused to allow, say, Labour voters to access their platform, would that be right? (I appreciate this is somewhat extreme....but it's easy to agree with the sort of crack pots who use Parler being restricted, but where does that sort of restriction stop and who decides? If the "private" owners want to, then it's not unreasonable for them to take full responsibility for their "platform" IMO).

[Andeh1]

Im with OP on this one, makes me uneasy how easily media platforms can dictate & manage elected officials instead of the electorate. Of course they "can" as private companies & their t&cs but in the modern era of Facebook, YouTube and twitter monopolies it's a hugely powerful position they are in.

If the politicians behavior "unreasonably" (a point of opinion, based on personal beliefs), let the law, the political party and the electorate decide on their fate, not @Jack at Twitter who could sway an entire elections silencing a politician in the build up to an election.

I'm not sure, just makes me feel uneasy.

Edited by Andeh1 on Sunday 10th January 09:06

[Electro1980]

Murph7355 said:

Electro1980 said:

Firstly, I disagree with the platform or publisher concept and think it’s an old fashioned split based on laws and lawmakers that can’t keep up and trying to apply last century structures.

Secondly, the examples you give are not about controlling a message but about who uses the platform. All platforms have terms on what it can be used for. Are you claiming that BT are a publisher because they will remove or throttle people for abusing their services?

How would you modernise the "publisher or platform" laws?

The BT argument is different and I think they are firmly in the "platform" space. Though if every single ISP refused to allow, say, Labour voters to access their platform, would that be right? (I appreciate this is somewhat extreme....but it's easy to agree with the sort of crack pots who use Parler being restricted, but where does that sort of restriction stop and who decides? If the "private" owners want to, then it's not unreasonable for them to take full responsibility for their "platform" IMO).

Is anyone proposing that? No. This is about a platform owner stopping another business using their platform. This isn’t BT (an actual monopoly in the U.K.) stopping a whole group of mainstream people from doing something. This is about a single business refusing to supply another business, just as BT would do if that business were to abuse its T&Cs or use the service for illegal or dangerous activities.

[Electro1980]

Andeh1 said:

Im with OP on this one, makes me uneasy how easily media platforms can dictate & manage elected officials instead of the electorate. Of course they "can" as private companies & their t&cs but in the modern era of Facebook, YouTube and twitter monopolies it's a hugely powerful position they are in.

If the politicians behavior "unreasonably" (a point of opinion, based on personal beliefs), let the law, the political party and the electorate decide on their fate, not @Jack at Twitter who could sway an entire elections silencing a politician in the build up to an election.

I'm not sure, just makes me feel uneasy.

Edited by Andeh1 on Sunday 10th January 09:06

They are not monopolies. The barrier to entry is so trivial low that social media can’t be a monopoly. Yes, they are popular, but they get popular by giving their customers what they want. That’s capitalism.

[Camelot1971]

If the owner of a media publisher/platform is not allowed to decide what gets published, who does decide?

There are laws in place on what is allowed or not allowed to be published in the UK. Do the platforms/publishers have to let anything be published and then be taken to court before that material is taken down?

[Murph7355]

Electro1980 said:

Is anyone proposing that? No. This is about a platform owner stopping another business using their platform. This isn’t BT (an actual monopoly in the U.K.) stopping a whole group of mainstream people from doing something. This is about a single business refusing to supply another business, just as BT would do if that business were to abuse its T&Cs or use the service for illegal or dangerous activities.

It isn't though, is it?

It's both Google and Apple refusing to allow the Parler app on their platform.

It's akin to 99.9% of ISPs blocking something leaving the only avenue to be a non-mainstream outlet.

Was Parler doing anything "illegal" (I genuinely don't know).

"Dangerous" then becomes subjective and back to the "who decides" conundrum.

Regardless, Twitter isn't really comparable with an ISP. The Play/App stores are closer but again not the same. They are, in effect, making "editorial" decisions. That has responsibilities with it too, that these self same "platforms" have been very, very keen to body swerve to date. I'm perfectly OK with them taking the view they are doing if they also take the rough end of the stick too...

[Eric Mc]

And about time too.

[Oakey]

Murph7355 said:

Electro1980 said:

Firstly, I disagree with the platform or publisher concept and think it’s an old fashioned split based on laws and lawmakers that can’t keep up and trying to apply last century structures.

Secondly, the examples you give are not about controlling a message but about who uses the platform. All platforms have terms on what it can be used for. Are you claiming that BT are a publisher because they will remove or throttle people for abusing their services?

How would you modernise the "publisher or platform" laws?

The BT argument is different and I think they are firmly in the "platform" space. Though if every single ISP refused to allow, say, Labour voters to access their platform, would that be right? (I appreciate this is somewhat extreme....but it's easy to agree with the sort of crack pots who use Parler being restricted, but where does that sort of restriction stop and who decides? If the "private" owners want to, then it's not unreasonable for them to take full responsibility for their "platform" IMO).

I thought Godfrey vs Demon Internet already established these companies were liable for the content they host way back at the start of the millennium, or does that only apply to ISP's?

[bitchstewie]

Oakey said:

I thought Godfrey vs Demon Internet already established these companies were liable for the content they host way back at the start of the millennium, or does that only apply to ISP's?

I think (definitely not a lawyer) that it's more about the precedent which is why if you post something about a poster or person on here for example and that poster or person goes to PH and says "I'm going to take you to court for having that on your website" PH probably won't fight your corner too hard under "free speech" or "but we're just a platform".

[buggalugs]

The social media and tech companies have got awfully brave now our new democrat overlords have arrived.

The issue with them deciding who gets censored is that they're a practically unaccountable for-profit entity with nobodies interests but their own at heart.

[ChemicalChaos]

As an aside from the social media censorship debate...... As a neutral observer, it is quite amusing to watch the mental gymnastics happening on both sides to justify "their" protestors actions whilst condemning the others...

[Macroni18]

dmahon said:

A few weeks ago, the “lockdown critics” Talk Radio were banned from YouTube, probably due to pressure from the government behind the scenes.

Since they came back, it’s like the presenters were replaced with BBC issued robots. They look the same but have had personality transplants to toe the party line.

We also have the Trump and the Parler deplatforming and the big tech companies acting as arbiters of the truth this week.

I know not everyone agrees with these news sources and the opinions published on them, but I find it *very* concerning how we are being told what is acceptable to think, especially when there are such enormous consequences to what is the “approved” messaging of today.

When you mix this in with the fact that a lot of the media is paid for anyway, and the whole model is optimised to keep you clicking for ad revenue, it’s all a bit of a toxic charade.

I personally would love to disengage with it all if I can wean myself off it, but a media so tightly controlled by such a small group of politically correct people surely can’t be good for society?

Edited by dmahon on Sunday 10th January 04:37

Agree, it is very concerning.
Only state enabled propaganda is acceptable.

[pquinn]

Seventy said:

<snip>

So you want to control what a privately owned company can do but you don’t want to be controlled.
Riiight.

Nobody is telling you what to think, apart from your paranoia.

Their businesses, their T&C’s.

So where exactly do you draw the line for arbitary censorship of *legal* speech? Directly illegal content is easy to justify removal but why should someone arbitrarily be allowed to decide what goes?

What if their T&Cs forbid mention of Taiwan?
Or all French words?
Or anything positive about Israel?
Or banned all BAME people from posting?

All comes under 'their site their rules' but could you as easily argue for that as you could when they're just banning things you seem to not like?

[Not-The-Messiah]

What we have are a load of morons that are doing the same thing that as been done through human history by other morons. And that is they think if they just silence, remove, eliminate people they don't like or dissagree with everything will just wonderful.

It's never worked and won't now, and there is a grate danger it will escalate like it as done many times before. And that's why people with a brain understand censorship is a dangerous thing. It's starts with "let's just shut them up" and eventually ends up with. " That's not works so surely there must be so sort of final solution to this problem?".

The other way it goes wrong, which I think is actually more likely in this case. Is when it's not just a small minority voice being sliced but a large percentage of the population. That group start to become very angry and start play the stupid games the other side started and it's spirals out of control.

What these new media overlords need to realize though by playing this game they are taking control and because of that they are taking responsibility. If in a team effort if something goes wrong everyone goes "that didn't work let's try something else". When someone decides it's no longer a team effort and they know best it's on them if things go wrong they will rightfully get the blame.