Bari Weiss should be given a listen to

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Still not sure why Jim in the right are so fixated on Twitter the Hunter Biden laptop story And this magical suppression

No one can Explain why the FBI would only look to censor Twitter and FB but not the New York post or any other Print or online media outlets

It ran all over the Internet and print news through the entire world..

They only reason I can conclude it fits the rights narrative of not liking big technology, because big tec doesn’t give them money like they give Democratic’s they’re the same with Unions they hate them for the same reason

Many rightfully question the source of the material due to the chain of custody and Rudy Giuliani clearly not a trustworthy source

"Still not sure why Jim in the right are so fixated on Twitter the Hunter Biden laptop story"

Because you can't comprehend why anyone would be interested in a story that doesn't help democrats.

"No one can Explain why the FBI would only look to censor Twitter and FB but not the New York post "

Huh? How would the FBI convince the NY Post to censor their own story, which they knew to be factual? Do you not understand what took place? The NY Post knew it was a legit story at the time they reported on it. Why would they censor themselves?

"No one" can explain that to you? Probably because no one considered the possibility that something that obvious would need to be explained.

The circulation of the NY post is nothing compared to how many people are on FB and Twitter and Instagram.

Wayne, you guys go on and on about Foxnews. On a good night, 1% of the country is watching Foxnews. One percent. That's nothing compared to who controls big tech. And it's fine if Big tech wants to have a political slant, it's a free country. But let's not deny it just because it makes your life easier.

I don't think you understand what happened. They called a legit story "russian disinformation", and they did so with absolutely zero evidence. They banned it when it might have hurt Biden, then they all admitted they had no legit reason to ban it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you guys go on and on about Foxnews. On a good night 1% of the country is watching Foxnews. One percent. That's nothing compared to who controls big tech. And it's fine if Big tech wants to have a political slant, it's a free country. But let's not deny it just because it makes your life easier.

I don't think you understand what happened. They called a legit story "russian disinformation", and they did so with absolutely zero evidence.

There’s plenty of evidence

As far as your number two hit of Faux News having only a small share of the market

CNN, Fox News Top List of Main Sources

Overall, when respondents are asked what outlet they turn to most often for news about government and politics, the most frequent mentions are two cable networks: CNN (named by 16%) and Fox News (14%). But wide ideological differences exist both in the sources that top the list for those on the left and right and in the degree to which there is reliance on a single source.

Those with consistently conservative political values are oriented around a single outlet—Fox News—to a much greater degree than those in any other ideological group: Nearly half (47%) of those who are consistently conservative name Fox News as their main source for government and political news. Far fewer choose any other single source: Local radio ranks second, named by 11%, with no other individual source named by more than 5% of consistent conservatives. Those with mostly conservative views also gravitate strongly toward Fox News – 31% name it as their main source, several times the share who name the next most popular sources, including CNN (9%), local television (6%) and radio (6%) and Yahoo News (6%).

On the left of the political spectrum, no single outlet predominates. Among consistent liberals, CNN (15%), NPR (13%), MSNBC (12%) and the New York Times (10%) all rank near the top of the list. CNN is named by just 20% of those with mostly liberal views, but still tops their list, followed by local television (11%) and NPR (9%). Both MSNBC and Fox News are mentioned by 5% of those who are mostly liberal. Those in other ideological groups name the New York Times, NPR and MSNBC less frequently as top news sources.

Respondents with a roughly equal mix of liberal and conservative values also have a diffuse mix of news providers. CNN (20%) and local television (16%) are the most frequently-named top sources, with a long list of other news sources named by fewer than one-in-ten. Fox News (8%) is among the most-named sources in this “long tail,” along with Yahoo News (7%) and Google News (6%), both of which primarily aggregate and highlight news produced by other outlets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s plenty of evidence

As far as your number two hit of Faux News having only a small share of the market

CNN, Fox News Top List of Main Sources

Overall, when respondents are asked what outlet they turn to most often for news about government and politics, the most frequent mentions are two cable networks: CNN (named by 16%) and Fox News (14%). But wide ideological differences exist both in the sources that top the list for those on the left and right and in the degree to which there is reliance on a single source.

Those with consistently conservative political values are oriented around a single outlet—Fox News—to a much greater degree than those in any other ideological group: Nearly half (47%) of those who are consistently conservative name Fox News as their main source for government and political news. Far fewer choose any other single source: Local radio ranks second, named by 11%, with no other individual source named by more than 5% of consistent conservatives. Those with mostly conservative views also gravitate strongly toward Fox News – 31% name it as their main source, several times the share who name the next most popular sources, including CNN (9%), local television (6%) and radio (6%) and Yahoo News (6%).

On the left of the political spectrum, no single outlet predominates. Among consistent liberals, CNN (15%), NPR (13%), MSNBC (12%) and the New York Times (10%) all rank near the top of the list. CNN is named by just 20% of those with mostly liberal views, but still tops their list, followed by local television (11%) and NPR (9%). Both MSNBC and Fox News are mentioned by 5% of those who are mostly liberal. Those in other ideological groups name the New York Times, NPR and MSNBC less frequently as top news sources.

Respondents with a roughly equal mix of liberal and conservative values also have a diffuse mix of news providers. CNN (20%) and local television (16%) are the most frequently-named top sources, with a long list of other news sources named by fewer than one-in-ten. Fox News (8%) is among the most-named sources in this “long tail,” along with Yahoo News (7%) and Google News (6%), both of which primarily aggregate and highlight news produced by other outlets.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if there is “plenty” of evidence it was russian disinformation, why is everyone now denying that claim?

my numbers were right. a good show for fox gets 3m viewers, which is 1% of the US population.

Numbers on FB, twitter, and instagram, dwarf that.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if there is “plenty” of evidence it was russian disinformation, why is everyone now denying that claim?

my numbers were right. a good show for fox gets 3m viewers, which is 1% of the US population.

Numbers on FB, twitter, and instagram, dwarf that.

People - including you as the very worst perpetrator of misinformation - very rarely say false facts. Instead, they say true things without enough context. But nobody will ever agree what context is necessary and which context is redundant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

People - including you as the very worst perpetrator of misinformation - very rarely say false facts. Instead, they say true things without enough context. But nobody will ever agree what context is necessary and which context is redundant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

foxnews can’t influence those who don’t watch. Is that true or is it false?

1% of the country watches foxnews. according to pew research, 70% of americans use big social media.

the reason why fox has a big market share among conservatives, is a lack of competition. every other tv station is liberal, so all the rest are splitting the liberal viewership. that doesn’t mean that more than 1% watch fox at any one time.

context is indeed important. nothing i said was misleading. it’s way way more powerful to control big social media than foxnews. o comparison. not even close.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet.../social-media/

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

foxnews can’t influence those who don’t watch. Is that true or is it false?

1% of the country watches foxnews. according to pew research, 70% of americans use big social media.

the reason why fox has a big market share among conservatives, is a lack of competition. every other tv station is liberal, so all the rest are splitting the liberal viewership. that doesn’t mean that more than 1% watch fox at any one time.

context is indeed important. nothing i said was misleading. it’s way way more powerful to control big social media than foxnews. o comparison. not even close.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet.../social-media/

Maybe you should pay more attention to American news, instead of Russian
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

foxnews can’t influence those who don’t watch. Is that true or is it false?

False. You are exhibit A.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

False. You are exhibit A.

we don’t know what that means.

spence, how many americans watch fox regularly, and how many use FB, twitter, and instagram regularly, do you suppose?

pew research says 70% of adult americans are in those big social
media platforms. How many do you suppose are watching foxnews?

instead of lobbing vague insults like always, how about giving me some tangible information to suggest i’m wrong?

obviously more than 1% listen to what fox has to say as you don’t haven’t watch it to seee what those hosts are saying. but the numbers are nowhere near what the big social media platforms get. Fox is a tiny fraction, according to more research.

You know more than Pew research? please share, madam.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Still not sure why Jim in the right are so fixated on Twitter the Hunter Biden laptop story"

Because you can't comprehend why anyone would be interested in a story that doesn't help democrats.

"No one can Explain why the FBI would only look to censor Twitter and FB but not the New York post "

Huh? How would the FBI convince the NY Post to censor their own story, which they knew to be factual? Do you not understand what took place? The NY Post knew it was a legit story at the time they reported on it. Why would they censor themselves?

"No one" can explain that to you? Probably because no one considered the possibility that something that obvious would need to be explained.

The circulation of the NY post is nothing compared to how many people are on FB and Twitter and Instagram.

Wayne, you guys go on and on about Foxnews. On a good night, 1% of the country is watching Foxnews. One percent. That's nothing compared to who controls big tech. And it's fine if Big tech wants to have a political slant, it's a free country. But let's not deny it just because it makes your life easier.

I don't think you understand what happened. They called a legit story "russian disinformation", and they did so with absolutely zero evidence. They banned it when it might have hurt Biden, then they all admitted they had no legit reason to ban it.

The truth finally come out it!

They banned it when it might have hurt Biden

It all comes back to looking for excuses why Trump lost

Even with the story running in the NY post print and online version
And covered by hundreds and hundreds of other sources of all political persuasions your excuse is circulation of the NY post is nothing compared to how many people are on FB and Twitter and Instagram.

That’s flawed logic it assumes because you’re on any of those platforms. You were denied information and couldn’t or it wasn’t the individual responsibility to seek other sources

Many people have FB Twitter and Instagram and tic toc Read the NYpost NY times the Washington Post. Watch CNN or Fox. And their local news sources it wasn’t a hard story to find

So people looked for the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter and couldn’t find it.
Just gave up? And looked no place Else

It all comes back to the GOP Narrative of Big tech is mean to us

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The truth finally come out it!

They banned it when it might have hurt Biden

It all comes back to looking for excuses why Trump lost

Even with the story running in the NY post print and online version
And covered by hundreds and hundreds of other sources of all political persuasions your excuse is circulation of the NY post is nothing compared to how many people are on FB and Twitter and Instagram.

That’s flawed logic it assumes because you’re on any of those platforms. You were denied information and couldn’t or it wasn’t the individual responsibility to seek other sources

Did the FBI saying the hunter laptop story was, or was probably, Russian disinformation have any influence at all on how you viewed it?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The truth finally come out it!

They banned it when it might have hurt Biden

It all comes back to looking for excuses why Trump lost

Even with the story running in the NY post print and online version
And covered by hundreds and hundreds of other sources of all political persuasions your excuse is circulation of the NY post is nothing compared to how many people are on FB and Twitter and Instagram.

That’s flawed logic it assumes because you’re on any of those platforms. You were denied information and couldn’t or it wasn’t the individual responsibility to seek other sources

Many people have FB Twitter and Instagram and tic toc Read the NYpost NY times the Washington Post. Watch CNN or Fox. And their local news sources it wasn’t a hard story to find

So people looked for the Hunter Biden laptop story on Twitter and couldn’t find it.
Just gave up? And looked no place Else

It all comes back to the GOP Narrative of Big tech is mean to us

"They banned it when it might have hurt Biden

It all comes back to looking for excuses why Trump lost "

I said very explicitly, it likely didn't effect the outcome since Trump got creamed. Why are you lying?

Detbuch posted that Twitters head of content security, was tipped off specifically by the FBI, about the laptop being Russian disinformation. But the FBI had the laptop, therefore they knew it wasn't Russian disinformation.

So instead of insulting those who bring it up, why not tell us what you think happened here?

"Many people have FB Twitter and Instagram and tic toc Read the NYpost NY times the Washington Post. Watch CNN or Fox. And their local news sources it wasn’t a hard story to find "

Fact: 1% of the US population watches Foxnews. And according to Pew Research, 70% of Americans are on the big social media.

I don't know how good you are at math. But do you understand the difference in magnitude between 1% of the population, and 70%?

Advertising revenue is surging at big tech, and drying up everywhere else, because that's where the people are.

Again, why are you lying?