It’s not unfounded, and NYU risks serious damage to their reputation and credibility with editorial garbage like this.
It’s OK though, right wingers are leaving the lefty-liberal-commusocial big tech censor-sphere at record rates. Every ideology can have its own platform, ideally on the darknet.
EDIT: no need to provide muh sources or counter academic narrative when de platform ink of conservatives is already a well known and acknowledged issue. Academics can’t declare the sky to be green without serious repercussions, and they can’t claim de platform ink of right wingers isn’t a thing without a loss of face and a blow to their credibility either.
It’s too late, damage control should have been done at the head end, now people are checking out of social media, especially right wingers. Those who haven’t been canceled already, that is.
I don’t suppose you read the report did you? Or have any links to credible studies that support your claims? I think you’ll have a hard time; the researchers in the article tried and can’t find any.
I think I just filled out my techno-utopian libertarian buzzword bingo card from this one comment.
I seriously doubt NYU will have it's reputation damaged by this. The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study and I garuntee you that this will be cited ad-nauseum in every censorship or manipulation debate for years to come. It doesn't matter how flawed or biased the arguments in the study are because it's conclusion is exactly what people on the left want to hear.
>The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study...
At the risk of breaking a rule, I would like to point out that OP claimed this 28-page report was "editorial garbage" a mere 4 minutes after it was posted.
Perhaps either of you would be able to highlight what, in this, is flawed, biased or garbage?
Sure, but I will absolutely mention that the PDF of this study has a snazzy but hard to read layout. So I'm not done reading the whole thing. But there's certainly a lot I noticed that seemed 'off' about it.
Namely, this quote "This drumbeat of accusation has had consequences." You'll notice that most of the paper revolves around linking conservative voices to misinformation and justifying removal based on that fact. I definitely get the sense that the paper is setting up an argument that censorship of conservatives actually makes sense and is justified because they spread so much dangerous misinformation. But it's also asserting that censorship isn't going on because of how many people are following conservative voices on social media.
To be clear, this is my interpretation. It's the sentiment I get from reading this as an average person. I have no doubt a conservative person would feel even more strongly than I do that this is a biased paper. I do not have the ability to present anyone here with a scholarly analysis or some kind of academic-grade proof that this is a biased work.
I see no counter-evidence in your reply, just invective. So this is not very convincing. Meanwhile Facebook's Joel Kaplan has been running interference for entities like Breitbart[1].
This article gives no basis for it's opinion except for other articles and studies done by heavily anti-conservative media outlets and heavily liberal colleges. It's citations include Vice, Vox, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, NBC News, Politico, NPR, Medium, The Verge, Media Matters, Gizmodo, Wired and there are some 'independent' outlets. It states that because Trump and main stream conservative outlets still received likes and ratings that that means conservatives aren't censored. And, because YouTube video watch time is close on some larger main stream channels that again this means there is no censorship. Why should there be equal watch time? An imbalance does not mean there is not censorship, it could also mean watch time could have been 90% in one direction without censorship, via lower recommendations, direct banning, or demonetization (people stop making videos when they don't make money). There is already proof that videos from mainstream media outlets get on the trending list with much fewer views than youtubers. This article goes on to say "Conservatives do get suspended or banned for violating Twitter’s rules" as if those rules are not in themselves anti-conservative. One blatantly obvious rule that directly opposes conservative values is twitter's rule against mis-gendering, which many conservatives believe is impossible because someone doesn't choose their gender, and if they did why should it bother someone to be called the wrong one? When you rule directly against a conservative value, then is that still not censoring conservatives? The article continues that even though lawsuits have been brought that all have been dismissed and despite it clarifying that these were dismissed because of section 230, it still uses that as evidence that there is not censorship. It basically says every time a conservative is banned it is justified and even in many cases says data is not available on bans, but somehow the final conclusion is "And as much as they condemn supposed social media favoritism, conservatives appear to relish wielding the bias-claim cudgel, even though it’s based on distortions and falsehoods." Again, they provides little to no data on bans whatsoever, but uses these alternative metrics that supposedly should reflect censorship. It is outlandish that anyone would not see what happens to conservatives on these websites. Hell just visit any of the supposed right leaning alternatives like Parler, Gab, and Rumble see how the conversation is as mild mannered politics and not at all filled with 'white supremacists' and 'nazis.' In fact you would be hard pressed to find those figures on those websites even if you sought them out. Everyone knows that like on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook you just don't follow people that you don't like and especially 'nazis.'
Conservatives (Like Richard Spencer) have issues with Race and immigration. Disavowing their "issues" is not censorship. I wish whinging "conservatives" would stop pretending they are being censored when in reality its just that no one has to platform their "issues". Period.
Unfortunately, I think, "conservative" has become nearly synonymous with bad faith arguments, blatant lies, racism, libel, violence, and other bad things no one really complains about being "censored" unless it's framed as a conservative ideal, or said by a self-proclaimed conservative.
I personally know plenty of people that are conservative that can have intriguing discussion about small government, personal freedoms, right to bear arms, etc, without even hinting at any of the bad things. But, at least lately, I don't see many (any?) conservative politicians, "leaders", or pundits that don't lean on those bad things rather heavily.
The problem with building a personal identity on words is that words have different meaning in peoples minds based on event and actions that happen in the name of those words, doesn't matter what it says in Merriam-Webster.
So, I think, if you identify as any label, reality requires that you immediately and strongly denounce the things done in it's name that you think shouldn't be. Not only do I not see much denouncing of those things going on in self-proclaimed conservative circles, I see them being actively excused and even doubled down on.
Seems a bit late to turn the word back around, if that's actually what "conservatives" want, probably time to find a new word and protect it's meaning a strongly as possible.
In the great controversies, only the simplest of minds can believe one side is wrong. If you think the word 'conservative' or 'liberal' is synonymous with bad arguments, then you've spent too much time in echo chambers. There are very good and interesting arguments to be made for and against each side and plenty of terrible people on both sides who can be held up as bad examples. Neither side has a monopoly on the truth.
So, in short, I'm stupid, you're smart, and "both sides".
Terrible is a very broad word. Who's terrible? Why are they terrible? How are their terrible actions addressed by their own? Are they held personally accountable, or handed a position of power?
Truth doesn't have a side, it's objective. It's not always completely knowable, but there are some great tools for knowing when you're nowhere near it, or someone is attempting to prevent you from heading towards it. I apply those tools often and one side has proven semi-reliable, the other not only completely unreliable, but an active hindrance.
How do you know truth is objective? Without a doubt it's true in hard science, e.g. chemistry and biology.
But by the time you get to social science, economics, politics, and ethics I think we're closer to the dark ages than we like to admit. In the dark ages religion was taken as objective truth, but in the present that doesn't work because people think religion exists to "trick" them or gain political power.
It's possible that we extend the authority that science has in the fundamental sciences to areas where it is not as effective without justification. The free marketeers always touted their view of objective science as dispassionate, objective science. Similarly, everything from the marshmellow test to the left-vs-right brain (creative vs logical) has been debunked, or at the very least been called into serious question due to a reproducibility crises in psychology and similar disciplines.
We really live in a HP lovecraft-esque world, where we understand almost nothing, and are controlled by powers beyond human understanding and control. This idea is something that naturally repels the human mind, and those who profess such a view are treated as being deficient if not mentally ill (external locus of control, anxious/depressive).
The reason Nietzsche is so revered but Schopenhauer is not, is that Nietzsche offers a hopeful "way out" of this crisis with his nonsense idea of the overman, while Schopenhauer is more disciplined and stops at pessimism. The latter is attacked as bourgeois, and as being a hypocrite, while the male chauvinism and other negative character traits of Nietzsche are overlooked.
Truth: The body of real things, events, and facts.
This is me immediately and strongly denounce the things done in the name of "truth" that I think shouldn't be. I said "It's not always completely knowable".
You're turning the conversation towards fringe cases of "truth" when I'm talking about simple shit like claiming the sky is falling when I can just look out the window and clearly see that it is, in fact, not.
21 comments
[ 6.3 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] threadIt’s OK though, right wingers are leaving the lefty-liberal-commusocial big tech censor-sphere at record rates. Every ideology can have its own platform, ideally on the darknet.
EDIT: no need to provide muh sources or counter academic narrative when de platform ink of conservatives is already a well known and acknowledged issue. Academics can’t declare the sky to be green without serious repercussions, and they can’t claim de platform ink of right wingers isn’t a thing without a loss of face and a blow to their credibility either.
It’s too late, damage control should have been done at the head end, now people are checking out of social media, especially right wingers. Those who haven’t been canceled already, that is.
I think I just filled out my techno-utopian libertarian buzzword bingo card from this one comment.
Academia has a serious leftism issue, they have very little credibility left among those to the right of Mao and Stalin.
At the risk of breaking a rule, I would like to point out that OP claimed this 28-page report was "editorial garbage" a mere 4 minutes after it was posted.
Perhaps either of you would be able to highlight what, in this, is flawed, biased or garbage?
Namely, this quote "This drumbeat of accusation has had consequences." You'll notice that most of the paper revolves around linking conservative voices to misinformation and justifying removal based on that fact. I definitely get the sense that the paper is setting up an argument that censorship of conservatives actually makes sense and is justified because they spread so much dangerous misinformation. But it's also asserting that censorship isn't going on because of how many people are following conservative voices on social media.
To be clear, this is my interpretation. It's the sentiment I get from reading this as an average person. I have no doubt a conservative person would feel even more strongly than I do that this is a biased paper. I do not have the ability to present anyone here with a scholarly analysis or some kind of academic-grade proof that this is a biased work.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21357663/facebook-removed-...
I personally know plenty of people that are conservative that can have intriguing discussion about small government, personal freedoms, right to bear arms, etc, without even hinting at any of the bad things. But, at least lately, I don't see many (any?) conservative politicians, "leaders", or pundits that don't lean on those bad things rather heavily.
The problem with building a personal identity on words is that words have different meaning in peoples minds based on event and actions that happen in the name of those words, doesn't matter what it says in Merriam-Webster.
So, I think, if you identify as any label, reality requires that you immediately and strongly denounce the things done in it's name that you think shouldn't be. Not only do I not see much denouncing of those things going on in self-proclaimed conservative circles, I see them being actively excused and even doubled down on.
Seems a bit late to turn the word back around, if that's actually what "conservatives" want, probably time to find a new word and protect it's meaning a strongly as possible.
Terrible is a very broad word. Who's terrible? Why are they terrible? How are their terrible actions addressed by their own? Are they held personally accountable, or handed a position of power?
Truth doesn't have a side, it's objective. It's not always completely knowable, but there are some great tools for knowing when you're nowhere near it, or someone is attempting to prevent you from heading towards it. I apply those tools often and one side has proven semi-reliable, the other not only completely unreliable, but an active hindrance.
But by the time you get to social science, economics, politics, and ethics I think we're closer to the dark ages than we like to admit. In the dark ages religion was taken as objective truth, but in the present that doesn't work because people think religion exists to "trick" them or gain political power.
It's possible that we extend the authority that science has in the fundamental sciences to areas where it is not as effective without justification. The free marketeers always touted their view of objective science as dispassionate, objective science. Similarly, everything from the marshmellow test to the left-vs-right brain (creative vs logical) has been debunked, or at the very least been called into serious question due to a reproducibility crises in psychology and similar disciplines.
We really live in a HP lovecraft-esque world, where we understand almost nothing, and are controlled by powers beyond human understanding and control. This idea is something that naturally repels the human mind, and those who profess such a view are treated as being deficient if not mentally ill (external locus of control, anxious/depressive).
The reason Nietzsche is so revered but Schopenhauer is not, is that Nietzsche offers a hopeful "way out" of this crisis with his nonsense idea of the overman, while Schopenhauer is more disciplined and stops at pessimism. The latter is attacked as bourgeois, and as being a hypocrite, while the male chauvinism and other negative character traits of Nietzsche are overlooked.
This is me immediately and strongly denounce the things done in the name of "truth" that I think shouldn't be. I said "It's not always completely knowable".
You're turning the conversation towards fringe cases of "truth" when I'm talking about simple shit like claiming the sky is falling when I can just look out the window and clearly see that it is, in fact, not.