Probably because
a. The source is a notorious tabloid site
and
b. The contents of the story itself hardly qualify as intellectually stimulating
Maybe if there was a more complete, objective breakdown of what happened (or a technical explaination) people would be willing to discuss it at length. Nobody here owes you upvotes though, certainly not for the sort of content that doesn't really hit the frontpage in the first place anyways. Maybe Reddit would be a better place to drop this one?
Good grief. We're talking about the suppression by tech companies of a true story of quite considerable significance in the context of the US election. If the story had not been suppressed, it is very possible that the election would have gone the other way. And you think that's not worthy of discussing because it's not "intellectually stimulating"???
More evidence section 230 of the United States Communications Decency Act needs to be either rewritten or clarified such that oligopoly media (FB, T) who wantonly censor or maybe even use _any_ sort of algorithmic amplification are not covered by this provision.
NYT or other activist media are free to ignore / interpret as they see fit.
But the wanton and overtly partisan censorship by the massive amplification engine that is FB/T/G needs to be properly reconciled with the definition of "publisher".
If you control views / engagement and in effect distribution but choose to moderate this channel in accordance with a policy that is over and above what is legally mandated, and aligned with your personal whims, it seems you are in effect a publisher and should be held to the same standard.
In this case as the author points out it is plausible the actions of FB/T/G swung a close election without the obligation to justify, in a court of law, why / how / what / when / where those actions were taken which if in place may have led to a more fair and balanced treatment of the 'laptop from hell' story.
Current law does not seem to account for the massive influence suppression or cancelling of distribution has on the influence of the public. It is an act of speech in effect. Nevermind holding the executives of these companies accountable for personal statements that have the same effect.
7 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 24.3 ms ] threadMaybe if there was a more complete, objective breakdown of what happened (or a technical explaination) people would be willing to discuss it at length. Nobody here owes you upvotes though, certainly not for the sort of content that doesn't really hit the frontpage in the first place anyways. Maybe Reddit would be a better place to drop this one?
I suppose we should stick to the sources that hide the truth from us, like good little citizens. /s
NYT or other activist media are free to ignore / interpret as they see fit.
But the wanton and overtly partisan censorship by the massive amplification engine that is FB/T/G needs to be properly reconciled with the definition of "publisher".
If you control views / engagement and in effect distribution but choose to moderate this channel in accordance with a policy that is over and above what is legally mandated, and aligned with your personal whims, it seems you are in effect a publisher and should be held to the same standard.
In this case as the author points out it is plausible the actions of FB/T/G swung a close election without the obligation to justify, in a court of law, why / how / what / when / where those actions were taken which if in place may have led to a more fair and balanced treatment of the 'laptop from hell' story.
Current law does not seem to account for the massive influence suppression or cancelling of distribution has on the influence of the public. It is an act of speech in effect. Nevermind holding the executives of these companies accountable for personal statements that have the same effect.