[Politics] Jack Dorsey - Twitter CEO. Likely subpoena to appear before congress next Friday.

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

Interesting article, albeit with the incorrect claim that the steele dossier sparked the Mueller report. I hadn't realised the Republicans first paid for
Fusion GPS to investigate Trump before they uncovered the links with Russia, and the DNC then started to pay for the investigation.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...-russia-investigation-steele-dossier.amp.html

The FBI used the Steele Dossier as the pretext for FISA warrants. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-trail-of-fbi-abuse-11575938300 - All of the abuse of power begins with the Steele Dossier that was split between Clinton and DNC. No one credible refutes these facts.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

"Do the research" = watch utter bollocks videos on YouTube.

It's the modern day equivalent of listening to the drunk bloke in the pub who shouts at trees, and calling it RESEARCH.

**** me.

++++ me if you can't discern between tin foil conspiracy nutjobs and credible reporting on bias. My hats off to [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] for publishing those videos on Twitter's efforts to suppress free speech. Did you watch?

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

John Gable, the founder and CEO of Allsides, was a Republican activist. Do you think that may influence his organisation’s perspective of what constitutes the left/right leaning of the news outlets his company analyses?

“ Gable was previously a Republican operative, working for three Senate majority leaders (Howard Baker, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell), the Republican National Committee and George H.W. Bush.”

https://www.ted.com/speakers/john_gable

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-stone-7575b34a/

Do you know who this fella is? He is the one responsible for Facebook censorship. Any perceived bias you think?

 

[Mellotron]

++++ me if you can't discern between tin foil conspiracy nutjobs and credible reporting on bias. My hats off to [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] for publishing those videos on Twitter's efforts to suppress free speech. Did you watch?

Ah, "Project Veritas". Yes, I'm fully aware of them.

And no, they're not credible reporters. Not even close. As you probably well know.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

Ah, "Project Veritas". Yes, I'm fully aware of them.

And no, they're not credible reporters. Not even close. As you probably well know.

Oh, so the fake Twitter engineers, were paid to make up fake stories? Is that your contention? So Twitter doesn't choose to suppress content it deems to be harmful? Do I have that right?

 

[Mellotron]

Oh, so the fake Twitter engineers, were paid to make up fake stories? Is that your contention? So Twitter doesn't choose to suppress content it deems to be harmful? Do I have that right?

Great deflection there - what strawman will you bring up next?

The topic - for anyone following along at home - is far right conspiracy activist group Project Veritas' credibility, or lack thereof. Close allies of The Proud Boys, a violent white supremacist group.

 

[Swansman]

Most people believe that credible source equals a source echoing whatever is stated by the Ministry of Truth.

Its a sad development. At one point in history it was seen as perfectly sane and reasonable to question the official narrative and solution to the JFK murder, if the same thing happened today you would be considered a nutjob.

The increased trust in authorities and their army of "credible sources" will one day **** royally **** everyone over.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

Great deflection there - what strawman will you bring up next?

The topic - for anyone following along at home - is far right conspiracy activist group Project Veritas' credibility, or lack thereof. Close allies of The Proud Boys, a violent white supremacist group.

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1263749566744100864

This tweet still up. Twitter apparently has a policy about not allowing users to promote violence. Hmmmm

 

[Goldstone1976]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/andy-stone-7575b34a/

Do you know who this fella is? He is the one responsible for Facebook censorship. Any perceived bias you think?

For sure.

Nice bit of whataboutery though.

1. Do you think that John Gable wasn't the things listed on his TED talk profile?
2. If so, do you think that his prior jobs may have influenced how his company partitions news outlets as left/right?

I've answered your question in my first two words - how about you answer mine?

Bet you don't.

 

[dingodan]

++++ me if you can't discern between tin foil conspiracy nutjobs and credible reporting on bias. My hats off to [MENTION=18559]dingodan[/MENTION] for publishing those videos on Twitter's efforts to suppress free speech. Did you watch?

What you are not accounting for is that media bias + Silicon Valley bias have predictable consequences.

Bias in the general population.

It's no surprise that on NSC, for example, there is a consensus that people on the right/conservatives are evil bigots and people on the left/liberals are the good guys.

The question is, if you ever come to accept that there is a bias which pervades all of the news and information you are likely to be exposed to, then how do you know that your own prejudices are not actually, at least in part, a product of that bias? If there is a bias, then your attempts to check if there is, by referring to "trusted" sources of information will only "confirm" that there isn't. If the bias is in your favor, then it isn't bias, it's just "the truth".

Really, people should want to know whether the information they recieve and the way it's presented are manipulated in some way in order to push a particular point of view. Unfortunately, if those pushing a particular point of view are also the guardians of news and information, it's very hard to break through and realize what you are being subjected to. Once you have "bought in" it becomes a circular problem. Everyone you trust says there is no bias, everyone you (have been encouraged to) mistrust, says there is.

To put it another way, if there were a bias against conservative viewpoints, for example, who would point it out? Conservatives. But conservatives can't be trusted, that's what we've learned. So there is no bias, the suggestion of bias must be a lie.

People are very resistent to questioning their own perceptions, which is why someone said they refuse to watch the video you posted for example. It's also why, usually when I enter into discussion with someone on here about something it usually ends in dismissive attacks on my character and the use of logical fallacies. People can no longer think straight, they are possessed by ideology, and in many ways resemble the mindset of the people of the old Soviet Union.

I am not the biggest fan of Trump, but I watched the video you posted, the guy makes some good points. Unfortunately nobody on here is likely to watch it because, quite naturally, people aren't very inclined to listen to something which challenges their existing views. They should though. You can be on much firmer ground as to where you stand on things if you listen to views you don't agree with. As long as you choose the most formidable expressions of those views, not just the extreme views which you know you can shoot down easily. The well reasoned and well articulated arguments against what you currently believe, which do actually exist on both sides of the political spectrum. In fact I would say if you don't believe that well reasoned and well articulated arguments exist on the other side of the political spectrum, that's your biggest clue that you have embraced ideology instead of reason. How many on here would argue that there are not any well reasoned and well articulated views in support of conservatism or the political right? Quite a few I would imagine.

 

[Doc Lynam]

What you are not accounting for is that media bias + Silicon Valley bias have predictable consequences.

Bias in the general population.

It's no surprise that on NSC, for example, there is a consensus that people on the right/conservatives are evil bigots and people on the left/liberals are the good guys.

The question is, if you ever come to accept that there is a bias which pervades all of the news and information you are likely to be exposed to, then how do you know that your own prejudices are not actually, at least in part, a product of that bias? If there is a bias, then your attempts to check if there is, by referring to "trusted" sources of information will only "confirm" that there isn't. If the bias is in your favor, then it isn't bias, it's just "the truth".

Really, people should want to know whether the information they recieve and the way it's presented are manipulated in some way in order to push a particular point of view. Unfortunately, if those pushing a particular point of view are also the guardians of news and information, it's very hard to break through and realize what you are being subjected to. Once you have "bought in" it becomes a circular problem. Everyone you trust says there is no bias, everyone you (have been encouraged to) mistrust, says there is.

To put it another way, if there were a bias against conservative viewpoints, for example, who would point it out? Conservatives. But conservatives can't be trusted, that's what we've learned. So there is no bias, the suggestion of bias must be a lie.

People are very resistent to questioning their own perceptions, which is why someone said they refuse to watch the video you posted for example. It's also why, usually when I enter into discussion with someone on here about something it usually ends in dismissive attacks on my character and the use of logical fallacies. People can no longer think straight, they are possessed by ideology, and in many ways resemble the mindset of the people of the old Soviet Union.

I am not the biggest fan of Trump, but I watched the video you posted, the guy makes some good points. Unfortunately nobody on here is likely to watch it because, quite naturally, people aren't very inclined to listen to something which challenges their existing views. They should though. You can be on much firmer ground as to where you stand on things if you listen to views you don't agree with. As long as you choose the most formidable expressions of those views, not just the extreme views which you know you can shoot down easily. The well reasoned and well articulated arguments against what you currently believe, which do actually exist on both sides of the political spectrum. In fact I would say if you don't believe that well reasoned and well articulated arguments exist on the other side of the political spectrum, that's your biggest clue that you have embraced ideology instead of reason. How many on here would argue that there are not any well reasoned and well articulated views in support of conservatism or the political right? Quite a few I would imagine.

I think you points are valid but miss the main point that most people are just sick of Donald Trump's lies and corruption as will be reflected in November.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

For sure.

Nice bit of whataboutery though.

1. Do you think that John Gable wasn't the things listed on his TED talk profile?
2. If so, do you think that his prior jobs may have influenced how his company partitions news outlets as left/right?

I've answered your question in my first two words - how about you answer mine?

Bet you don't.

John Gable had a spectrum of outlets and placed them into a Far Left, Center and Far Right bias. From my eyes, it fell logically where I would map them, so therefore I find it credible. There are other sources that map closely. Have you seen those?

Here is an article from Harvard. It is from 2004 - predates Social Media. Credible?

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

 

[dingodan]

I think you points are valid but miss the main point that most people are just sick of Donald Trump's lies and corruption as will be reflected in November.

This get's back around to the point I was trying to make.

Are you sick of Trump's lies and corruption because he is a corrupt liar? Or are you sick of Trump's lies and corruption because what you think is an objective assessment of Donald Trump (basically most things you read, watch and listen to) are infact not objective at all?

I'm sure you will tell me that he is just a corrupt liar. He is certainly bombastic and at times comes across as obnoxious. But as to whether he is a corrupt liar, well if the points I make are valid like you say, then the question becomes, how would you know?

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

About as neutral as Mouldy Boots.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2/

Here is another analysis by a different widely accepted and quoted source. Outcome = The Same.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

I think you points are valid but miss the main point that most people are just sick of Donald Trump's lies and corruption as will be reflected in November.

That's the original tone of this thread. Unless voters have a neutral way to access all credible information they aren't participating in a democratic process. Their views are being manipulated to an outcome that Silicon Valley prefers. Silicon Valley can create a narrative, suppress objections to the narrative and shape public opinion. The main point of this thread (I thought) was about media bias. It exists most assuredly and "people" are being dangerously manipulated.

 

[Goldstone1976]

John Gable had a spectrum of outlets and placed them into a Far Left, Center and Far Right bias. From my eyes, it fell logically where I would map them, so therefore I find it credible. There are other sources that map closely. Have you seen those?

Here is an article from Harvard. It is from 2004 - predates Social Media. Credible?

https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/barro/files/04_0614_liberalmedia_bw.pdf

I asked two questions - both answerable with yes or no. You answered neither. As I predicted. I’m out.

 

[KeithDublin]

That's the original tone of this thread. Unless voters have a neutral way to access all credible information they aren't participating in a democratic process. Their views are being manipulated to an outcome that Silicon Valley prefers. Silicon Valley can create a narrative, suppress objections to the narrative and shape public opinion. The main point of this thread (I thought) was about media bias. It exists most assuredly and "people" are being dangerously manipulated.

Can I ask you a question? Do you think Biden is left wing?

 

[Doc Lynam]

This get's back around to the point I was trying to make.

Are you sick of Trump's lies and corruption because he is a corrupt liar? Or are you sick of Trump's lies and corruption because what you think is an objective assessment of Donald Trump (basically most things you read, watch and listen to) are infact not objective at all?

I'm sure you will tell me that he is just a corrupt liar. He is certainly bombastic and at times comes across as obnoxious. But as to whether he is a corrupt liar, well if the points I make are valid like you say, then the question becomes, how would you know?

Yes he is a lair, corrupt and also a racist, adulterer and sexual assaulter (in his very own words) anyone who's supporting him is backing those issues but I would suggest that's just stating the obvious.

You seem like an energised fella look online through documents he's been caught a few times in court, but usually pays outside when cornered.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

Can I ask you a question? Do you think Biden is left wing?

He is the progressive candidate of the Democratic Party, so if you know what a Zebra looks like, it has black and white stripes. What other conclusion could you make? He is unashamedly left leaning and there isn't anything wrong with that. He has embraced policies put forth by Bernie Sanders and AOC. Again, whatever, that's what democracy is about.

 

[Marlton and Hove Albion]

I asked two questions - both answerable with yes or no. You answered neither. As I predicted. I’m out.

Are you the VAR for political conversations? BTW - You predicted I wouldn't respond.

Let's pretend John Gable sadistically kills Hamsters for fun. Everything he ever espoused is evil, biased and not credible. OK. I posted a link from an entirely different source on media bias.

Result? = The Same.