Poll on tech stocks and politics

[nightfighter]

Do you think that the Silicon Valley based high tech industry stocks are playing political games with their content? I am talking about the FAANG stocks as a class, though not exclusively. Are they exercising censorship over their content? Yes or no?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Do you think that the Silicon Valley based high tech industry stocks are playing political games with their content? I am talking about the FAANG stocks as a class, though not exclusively. Are they exercising censorship over their content? Yes or no?

Clearly.

Some censorship is necessary, obviously you want to prevent child trafficking. But like in the media, there's an obvious political bias.

[Pete F.]

No, and be careful what you wish for.
Each one of those companies has a user agreement that allows you to post and if you violate their terms you get kicked out, etc.
Perhaps some think that government should be able to tell businesses who to bake a cake for, or not?



Perhaps this is fake news from Fox

"It’s true that some right-of-center users have been suspended or banned from Twitter, put in “Facebook jail,” or had their videos or channels pulled from YouTube. However, in fairness, it’s also true that liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has had some of her content pulled from Facebook and that the company inadvertently labeled every ad with LGBT in it as political, whether it was or not."

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But like in the media, there's an obvious political bias.

Says Jim and Trump with zero evidence. Moth to the flame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Media has been playing political games with their content since the invention of the printing press, probably since the days of the town crier. To think that all of sudden since its digital that they have stopped, is rather naive.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No, and be careful what you wish for.
Each one of those companies has a user agreement that allows you to post and if you violate their terms you get kicked out, etc.
Perhaps some think that government should be able to tell businesses who to bake a cake for, or not?



Perhaps this is fake news from Fox

"It’s true that some right-of-center users have been suspended or banned from Twitter, put in “Facebook jail,” or had their videos or channels pulled from YouTube. However, in fairness, it’s also true that liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has had some of her content pulled from Facebook and that the company inadvertently labeled every ad with LGBT in it as political, whether it was or not."

so if liz warren got suspended, that means there’s no bias? that's as stupid as me saying obama was potus, therefore there’s no such thing as racism.

to determine bias, you have to look at everything, not one persons experience.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Says Jim and Trump with zero evidence. Moth to the flame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah that's me i never question what trump says.

Spence, is there a liberal
bias in academia and the mainstream media? i offer
no proof, yet i claim there is. Do you deny that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Says Jim and Trump with zero evidence. Moth to the flame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you search online, you’ll see plenty of evidence.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-...ervative-bias/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if liz warren got suspended, that means there’s no bias? that's as stupid as me saying obama was potus, therefore there’s no such thing as racism.

to determine bias, you have to look at everything, not one persons experience.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, call Fox if you think they are reporting fake news, I already know they do.

Actually, any search engine ‘bias’ is not down to conscious decisions by the search engine - it’s simply due to the way they all work.

They rank pages based on what real people find useful and what other, real websites link to. Their evil goal is to make money for their shareholders by showing the most useful results, thus increasing their market share and their ad revenues.

They use a math equation to rank the entire volume of content it has indexed, which is pretty much the entire world wide web. Math equations do not have political opinions.

There is no algorithm at Google or Bing that takes politics into account. If you see what you deem to be biased results, it is due to authoritative sites linking to websites which pushes them higher up search.

Authoritative websites are places like Universities (which tend to favour evidence-based research) and media organisations. Most of the rest of what puts a site at the top of a search engine is how users interact with it - do they find the result useful? This could show a bias because people have opinions - more people might click on one result that they agree with more than the other.

Autocomplete is not bias either. It is based on what people actually search - search engines do not just decide what goes in the autocomplete list arbitrarily.

So, in a sense search engines are unintentionally biased towards what the majority think, because this is what powers their results. There is no conspiracy, however

Now, if you think there is a demand for right-biased search engines, support one like Searchconservative.com , they derate anything that might be liberal, it will give you the answers you want to hear. They have one add or they are owned by Judicial Watch. Better send them money.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Hey, call Fox if you think they are reporting fake news, I already know they do.

Actually, any search engine ‘bias’ is not down to conscious decisions by the search engine - it’s simply due to the way they all work.

They rank pages based on what real people find useful and what other, real websites link to. Their evil goal is to make money for their shareholders by showing the most useful results, thus increasing their market share and their ad revenues.

They use a math equation to rank the entire volume of content it has indexed, which is pretty much the entire world wide web. Math equations do not have political opinions.

There is no algorithm at Google or Bing that takes politics into account. If you see what you deem to be biased results, it is due to authoritative sites linking to websites which pushes them higher up search.

Authoritative websites are places like Universities (which tend to favour evidence-based research) and media organisations. Most of the rest of what puts a site at the top of a search engine is how users interact with it - do they find the result useful? This could show a bias because people have opinions - more people might click on one result that they agree with more than the other.

Autocomplete is not bias either. It is based on what people actually search - search engines do not just decide what goes in the autocomplete list arbitrarily.

So, in a sense search engines are unintentionally biased towards what the majority think, because this is what powers their results. There is no conspiracy, however

Now, if you think there is a demand for right-biased search engines, support one like Searchconservative.com , they derate anything that might be liberal, it will give you the answers you want to hear. They have one add or they are owned by Judicial Watch. Better send them money.

hannity reports all kinds of fake news. he’s an outlier. at cnn and msnbc, arent they all like
hannity?

again, you can’t disprove bias by pointing to one example of unbiased censorship. that’s not how logic works.

If you don’t think there’s liberal
bias anywhere, you are entitled to that opinion.

the op asked about google
and facebook. there’s clear evidence of bias, and god knows how many stories of employees admitting the bias.

as tdf said, the
media has been biased for years, they lost most of their credibility during the Bush and Obama
years. So it’s natural that digital
media would
be equally biased.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

hannity reports all kinds of fake news. he’s an outlier. at cnn and msnbc, arent they all like
hannity? ALL, like Hannity?

again, you can’t disprove bias by pointing to one example of unbiased censorship. that’s not how logic works.



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

First of all, the original poster asked specifically about FAANG, which is Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google.
None of which are news reporting organizations that TDF brought into the thread.
Citing one source that is quite biased and that obviously has no idea how a search engine works or how SEO works is hardly unbiased.

https://www.polemicdigital.com/googl...gle-algorithm/

Barry Adams who wrote that is a Brit and doesn't have a horse in this race, though he might be among the 90% of Brits who don't like Trump. He does explain how bias does creep into search engines and there is nothing diabolical about it.

But keep believing Jim, the fake media is lying and all Trump says is true. Just ask him about the secret Mexican deal, it's so secret even the Mexicans don't know about it.

[scottw]

Pete...you remind me of Hannity

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you search online, you’ll see plenty of evidence.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/google-...ervative-bias/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can’t believe you seriously posted this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

pete, look at msnbcs prime time lineup - chris hayes, rachael maddow, lawrence o’donnell. which one of them, isn’t every bit as biased, as sean hannity?

every night, tucker carlson will
criticize the gop over something, and admit the democrats are right about something. every night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

First of all, the original poster asked specifically about FAANG, which is Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google.
None of which are news reporting organizations that TDF brought into the thread.

I included a couple of links in case you want to stay informed.

https://news.google.com/?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

https://www.apple.com/apple-news/

I keep forgetting you don't watch TV
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Fish; meet barrel
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I included a couple of links in case you want to stay informed.

https://news.google.com/?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

https://www.apple.com/apple-news/

I keep forgetting you don't watch TV
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What reporter works for them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

pete, look at msnbcs prime time lineup - chris hayes, rachael maddow, lawrence o’donnell. which one of them, isn’t every bit as biased, as sean hannity?

every night, tucker carlson will
criticize the gop over something, and admit the democrats are right about something. every night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tucker Carlson is just another Hannity Maddow type clown.
Just as full of partisan BS, because you agree with him doesn’t make it true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What reporter works for them
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the business model is changing, try to keep up.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tflix-for-news

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/1...news-team-nyt/

I find it hard to believe Rachel Maddow/Tucker Carlson are pounding the streets for their next scoop too, all these "Journalists" you see on TV are just reporting their own little personal Op/Eds and calling them news.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

the business model is changing, try to keep up.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tflix-for-news

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/1...news-team-nyt/

I find it hard to believe Rachel Maddow/Tucker Carlson are pounding the streets for their next scoop too, all these "Journalists" you see on TV are just reporting their own little personal Op/Eds and calling them news.

And relying on the bitter partisans to feed them.

Remember it only matters that the other side's ox gets gored.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

the business model is changing, try to keep up.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...tflix-for-news

https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/1...news-team-nyt/

I find it hard to believe Rachel Maddow/Tucker Carlson are pounding the streets for their next scoop too, all these "Journalists" you see on TV are just reporting their own little personal Op/Eds and calling them news.

Don't confuse journalists with people who play reporters on TV

From your links: "Apple News isn’t a firsthand source of news, so the Cupertino technology giant tasked Kern with building a curation team to fight against algorithms and fake news, vet content providers and cut down on clickbait."

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Don't confuse journalists with people who play reporters on TV

Funny, I google "MSNBC Journalists" and I get this returned at the top of the results.

Could that qualify as Google playing with its content by telling the masses that these people, are in fact, journalists. You know, not the people playing reporters on TV

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Tucker Carlson is just another Hannity Maddow type clown.
Just as full of partisan BS, because you agree with him doesn’t make it true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wrong. have you ever watched him? he really doesn’t like trump, and he thinks the gop is wrong on many issues ( criticizes them all the time for being too friendly to big business at the expense of regular americans). you’re demonstrably wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

There's a reason the media has an issue with opinion pieces and classifying the people who do them as journalists, here is the difference between reporting and opining.

"Anchor Chris Wallace sat down with the Russian president and pressed him about his track record, the statements he made during the news conference with Trump, and why many of his critics often end up dead or near death.

Wallace was unrelenting, asking the questions many U.S. public officials had been clamoring for Trump to ask. It wasn’t easy, it wasn’t pretty, but it was responsible journalism. Most important, Wallace avoided becoming part of the commentary by following the journalistic process.

Conversely, Fox News’ Sean Hannity kicked off his post-Putin news conference interview with Trump by complimenting him: "You were very strong at the end of that press conference," Hannity stated.

While much of the rest of the world reacted in near universal outrage to Trump's performance in Helsinki, Hannity provided an interpretation of what happened through Trump-colored glasses. He didn’t press the president to explain why he sided with Putin on denying Russian interference in the 2016 election, when U.S. intelligence showed otherwise. Rather, Hannity stuck to talking points that supported the president’s agenda.

As the leader of the country’s largest association of broadcast and digital journalists, it is my job to protect and explain the role that responsible journalists play in facilitating the public’s right to know, and how they function as an important balance of power for those who serve on our behalf.

It is also my job to call out opinion media professionals like Sean Hannity. Do not be confused — Hannity is not a journalist. He is an analyst with an opinion. And he has a right to that opinion, but he does not have a right to claim he is reporting on stories that expose problems in our communities, or that he is transparent and unbiased.

Tucker Carlson also distinguished himself Tuesday night as a Trump sycophant with his softball questions and supportive analysis of the president's performance at the Helsinki news conference.

As journalists, our enemy isn’t the president who calls us out. Our enemy is the lack of public understanding about the important role we play.

We, as responsible journalists, must double down on transparency, inviting the public into our process of asking the hard questions and reporting the truth. We must also hold ourselves publicly accountable for any mistakes we may make, as any human being should.

To paraphrase Washington Post Editor Marty Baron: We're not at war ... we're at work."
Dan Shelley is the executive director of the Radio Television Digital News Association.

[Sea Dangles]

PeteF has a shovel, but the tide is still coming in.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There's a reason the media has an issue with opinion pieces and classifying the people who do them as journalists, here is the difference between reporting and opining.

Well aware of the difference

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There's a reason the media has an issue with opinion pieces and classifying the people who do them as journalists, here is the difference between reporting and opining.


The "media," not sure what that means anymore, and that is a huge part of the problem that the "media" has created. The "media" has re-classified various "classifications," such as extremism, racism, radicalism, lying, and a host of various words that used to mean other things than what the "media" now says they mean. The "media" gives tacit, and even open, approval (is that being a sycophant as Shelley classifies Tucker Carlson?) to things unproven without the skepticism that journalists are supposed to have in many social matters such as "Black Lives Matter" and transgender issues for example.

Shelley wants to make a distinction between reporting and opining. Trouble is, when the "reporting" consistently leaves things unreported which would shed a different light, that amounts to de facto opining.

"Anchor Chris Wallace sat down with the Russian president and pressed him about his track record, the statements he made during the news conference with Trump, and why many of his critics often end up dead or near death.

Wallace was unrelenting, asking the questions many U.S. public officials had been clamoring for Trump to ask. (Trump is not a journalist, and journalists don't negotiate with world leaders where journalistic tactics are not practical) It wasn’t easy, it wasn’t pretty, but it was responsible journalism. Most important, Wallace avoided becoming part of the commentary by following the journalistic process.

Conversely, Fox News’ Sean Hannity kicked off his post-Putin news conference interview with Trump by complimenting him: "You were very strong at the end of that press conference," Hannity stated.

If he indeed was strong at the end, would it be responsible for a "journalist" to point that out?

While much of the rest of the world reacted in near universal outrage to Trump's performance in Helsinki,

Are weasel words such as "much of the rest of the world" and "near universal outrage" language that responsible journalists should use. And referring to it as a "performance" is a slanting technique that responsible journalists would avoid.

Hannity provided an interpretation of what happened through Trump-colored glasses.

More negative slanting and framing. How about saying that Hannity said what he thought. Right . . . right, a sycophant isn't allowed a personal opinion.

He didn’t press the president to explain why he sided with Putin on denying Russian interference in the 2016 election, when U.S. intelligence showed otherwise.

Why is it framed as "siding" with Putin? Trump "sided" both ways at different times. Obviously, he wasn't siding, he was giving his opinion, which changed, back and forth. I suppose, by Shelley's view, Trump was siding with everybody.

Rather, Hannity stuck to talking points that supported the president’s agenda.

He seems to act as a passionate foil to Anti-Trump agendas. Oh . . . the horror!

As the leader of the country’s largest association of broadcast and digital journalists, it is my job to protect and explain the role that responsible journalists play in facilitating the public’s right to know, and how they function as an important balance of power for those who serve on our behalf.

Sometimes, phrases like "the country's largest association of broadcast and digital journalists", are scary. Seems like a huge conglomeration of influence peddling. And it seems that the "media" are a "balance of power" against those not on board with the Progressive agenda.

It is also my job to call out opinion media professionals like Sean Hannity. Do not be confused — Hannity is not a journalist. He is an analyst with an opinion. And he has a right to that opinion, but he does not have a right to claim he is reporting on stories that expose problems in our communities, or that he is transparent and unbiased.

It's scary when powerful media associations proclaim that someone not in their camp does not have the right to say he is reporting on something. And Hannity has investigative "reporters" who provide him for much of the information he comments on.

Has Hannity claimed that he is unbiased? And he seems quite transparent to me. Apparently, Shelley has a strong personal opinion on who Hannity is and what he is allowed to say. Not very journalistic.

Tucker Carlson also distinguished himself Tuesday night as a Trump sycophant with his softball questions and supportive analysis of the president's performance at the Helsinki news conference.

How dare he have a "supportive" analysis! Surely, he doesn't actually believe his own analysis, he is just supporting Trump. I wonder if Shelley ever has "supportive" analyses. Maybe only if he analyses "journalists" who support his agenda (which we are to assume he doesn't have).

As journalists, our enemy isn’t the president who calls us out. Our enemy is the lack of public understanding about the important role we play.

Perhaps, just maybe, the public doesn't understand the "important" role they play because Shelley's so-called journalists so often stray from that role and become advocates, and allow their personal hatreds to slant their reports and their analyses.

We, as responsible journalists, must double down on transparency, inviting the public into our process of asking the hard questions and reporting the truth. We must also hold ourselves publicly accountable for any mistakes we may make, as any human being should.

When has that happened?

To paraphrase Washington Post Editor Marty Baron: We're not at war ... we're at work."
Dan Shelley is the executive director of the Radio Television Digital News Association.

Oh goodie, he ends his nonsense with a nice sounding bromide. Tell it to the marines.

[Pete F.]

The "media," not sure what that means anymore, and that is a huge part of the problem that the "media" has created.

In the past fifty years the media environment has changed almost completely. The media did not create the internet and cable TV, technology, markets and money did.
Where the news cycle in 1960 was a week for political news, it is now minutes, very competitive and compensation is elusive.
I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think the media is the enemy of the people or that there is some deep state existing and plotting in the media.
I'm not interested in your typical tribal assessment of any thing that could be construed as anti-Trump.
Trump uses plenty of weasel words, and his reality presidential show is always a performance. Some people tell me they like reality TV shows.
Time will tell the Trump story, it looks like a horror show to me and heaven to you.
We'll see eventually.
Nixon's approval rating was almost 70% when he was reelected and less than 25% a year later.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The "media," not sure what that means anymore, and that is a huge part of the problem that the "media" has created.

In the past fifty years the media environment has changed almost completely. The media did not create the internet and cable TV, technology, markets and money did.
Where the news cycle in 1960 was a week for political news, it is now minutes, very competitive and compensation is elusive.
I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think the media is the enemy of the people or that there is some deep state existing and plotting in the media.

Apparently, you don't know what the "media" means anymore either.

I'm not interested in your typical tribal assessment of any thing that could be construed as anti-Trump.

Me neither. Don't even know what my tribal assessment is. I certainly don't comment on a lot of anti-Trump stuff like the gibberish that is so ridiculous that it needs no comment. I see a lot of that here.

Trump uses plenty of weasel words, and his reality presidential show is always a performance. Some people tell me they like reality TV shows.

Glad to see that you recognize that the "media's" performance uses similar tactics to Trump's show. Would that be responsible journalism, or journalistic hypocrisy?

Time will tell the Trump story, it looks like a horror show to me and heaven to you.
We'll see eventually.

You have an odd vision of "horror" and of "heaven." I don't even know if there is a heaven. If there is, my vision would not be influenced by the Trump "story." It would be more like the heaven on earth that Adam and Eve resided in before they began to act like journalists and investigated that which they had no right to question but were convinced to do so by an evil deep state snake.

Nixon's approval rating was almost 70% when he was reelected and less than 25% a year later.

It's nice that you can be comforted by such things. We all need something to hang on to in the midst of a horror show.