Has Twitter become better or worse since Musk controlled it?

[Ziggy Stardust]

We can see the game plan clearly now

We? You and Jimmy?

 

[Estebonrober]

We? You and Jimmy?

the only thing Jimmy sees is dollar signs and suckers all around

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

the only thing Jimmy sees is dollar signs and suckers all around

He has a game plan we can clearly see.

 

[Modder_Mode]

No it isn't. It's an amalgamation of a bunch of editors differing ideological viewpoints to the extent that edit wars happen on a daily basis. There have been studies done on this, and viewed through the extremely-Overton-shifted window that is US politics (where both parties would in most other countries be classified as some form of right-wing governance), there's still not a huge amount of lean.

I get it, you read an article on the NY Post (Wiki link, so please feel free to ignore it and just use the references from that page as direct sources) that Wikipedia's co-founder railed against the site's apparent left-view bias (as that's the only reliable Google result for evidence of left-wing bias within Wikipedia). I am assuming you're on about Sanger's claims, of course. But even if you have some other source, that doesn't mean Wikipedia is an example of "mainstream left leaning legacy media", as per your original claim (goalposts, moving, etc).

Yes the study is titled Do Experts or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu.

There was also some reporting done by Conservatives in which they tried to add information (not change or delete information) so that the articles would be more balanced and have additional useful information so readers could make a more informed decision but continuously had the added information with citations/references deleted from the Wikipedia pages by editors.

The problem with the assertion that the greater the number of people who edit Wikipedia articles the less bias the articles are is that there are a lot of particular articles on Wikipedia that can only be edited by a "super moderator", that is someone that has special privileges on Wikipedia, it is fair to say the vast majority of these super moderators are left leaning as per the reporting.

When it comes to citing sources Wikipedia has a blacklist of news sources you cannot cite as a reference in articles, the blacklist heavily favors left leaning news sources, even ones that fall equally on the left/right spectrum on the widely used/cited media bias chart by Ad Fontes Media, the right leaning sources are blacklisted whilst the left leaning sources are acceptable to Wikipedia.
Blacklisting biased/unreliable news sources isn't actually a bad thing, but it needs to be on a fair level playing field.

The lesson to learn from this is that censorship has happened and will always happen in any form of regulated society. We prohibit murder, which is the expression of a view held by its owner. The problem isn't the view itself so much as how it is expressed. If someone wants me dead and doesn't do anything about it, that's not something anyone would necessarily know about. If someone wants me dead and tried to express that in some fashion, that's when it becomes a problem. An expression isn't limited to something that cannot cause harm. People can express their views in any number of harmful ways.

This is why even gaming fansites have rules. Because, inherently, it is a good idea to have some level of "censorship" baked into a community because otherwise bad faith actors would turn it upside-down. I'm fine if you want to argue the level to which things should be censored, or if you want to point out times censorship has absolutely gone too far. But to say "you should never do it" expresses at best an absolute naivety in how people work at a very basic level.

I'm talking about unbalanced censorship hence my original post. I'm not talking about a call to action view where someone is openly threatening someone with physical harm.

It's true. The fact that big tech websites promote righ wing views means going private won't change much.

https://mashable.com/article/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-conservative-pages

https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-right-wing-echo-chamber-data-executive-pushback-2021-7

https://www.them.us/story/facebook-algorithm-favors-right-wing-pages-trans-issues/amp

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...hm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets

All the whilst banning and striking conservative pages, often without any explanation or reference to the alleged infringement?

 

[Kyriakos]

He has a game plan we can clearly see.

Haven't watched him in months, but I recall that he is a comedian (stand up) and (just like everyone else) has a job to do for some income. Obviously he doesn't take in massive amounts of money, unlike many other people in public discussion, and he has his niche which he cannot give up.
Besides, he is on the self-deprecating side and not the proud type. For that, I don't see why he has to be hated ^_^

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He doesn't have to be hated. It's just that the lesser lights who take his lies for granted deserve to be ridiculed.

Btw, he does have a gameplan which is clear to see. That was my statement you reacted to.

 

[Kyriakos]

His gameplan is to survive/make enough money. My own point is that he doesn't take in millions so hatred is not very rational ^_^
Besides, he's not young either, so he couldn't just switch to doing something entirely different. And unlike most of the other commentators, he seems aware of his role and limitations (not that this is good for business, mind).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He did switch at the start of the pandemic when he saw how many views conspiracy videos got.

So he's been cutting sources and interviews to spread disinformation to pander to the conspiracy nutjobs, and it worked. The nutjobs are in his comment section telling him how brave he is for telling them truths. While he knows he's talking bollocks. His viewcount has increased greatly.

He saw a crapshow, which is profitable, and dove straight in.

It's not just survival. He's making a lot more money selling nonsense, since on youtube there's a lot of takers. All for those sweet sweet cultist views.

 

[Kyriakos]

Tbh, that's the point of youtube: to make money out of people who (for whatever reason) like your content. It's not like those supporting any antithetical side are honest all the time

It's why I prefer troll/bizarre channels; they don't sell their real view so can't become apes to oversell it either.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Jimmy Dore and money:

https://us.youtubers.me/the-jimmy-dore-show/youtube-estimated-earnings

I do not know what other sources of money he has though.

 

[Kyriakos]

Jimmy Dore and money:

https://us.youtubers.me/the-jimmy-dore-show/youtube-estimated-earnings

I do not know what other sources of money he has though.

Is this a good estimate? If he takes in (on average) 6K/month, it's a very decent income, and obviously not a superstar/diva income. Closer to the "surviving" end of things, though good when compared to non-web work.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I just googles JD income and it was one of the results.

 

[GenMarshall]

Jimmy’s Law: The longer an online discussion persist, the greater chances Jimmy Dore is brought up.

 

[Lexicus]

are left leaning

This is similar to saying they aren't idiots. What exactly is your point? That people who edit wikipedia are less-likely to be mouth-breathing knucklewalkers who think Trump actually won the election? big deal.

 

[NovaKart]

This is similar to saying they aren't idiots. What exactly is your point? That people who edit wikipedia are less-likely to be mouth-breathing knucklewalkers who think Trump actually won the election? big deal.

Everyone who isn’t left leaning is an idiot and therefore bias doesn’t matter?

 

[Kyriakos]

Plenty of "left-leaning" hacks, crooks, egomaniacs and other parasites. And most of them are only pretending to be left-wing (eg wouldn't vote for Bern or AOC, but would for Biden).
There are hacks gaming the system, regardless of what they (nominally or really) support.

 

[NovaKart]

To be fair I’m pretty sure he doesn’t mean bias in general but a left/right wing bias. Still, I can’t stand this kind of dogma that everything has to be in line with the proper left-wing or right-wing position, that people can’t just think for themselves.

 

[Lexicus]

Everyone who isn’t left leaning is an idiot and therefore bias doesn’t matter?

"Left-leaning" is an extremely vague term. It could cover everyone from me to Barack Obama. Me and Barack Obama do not share very many political opinions.

 

[Gorbles]

There was also some reporting done by Conservatives in which they tried to add information (not change or delete information) so that the articles would be more balanced and have additional useful information so readers could make a more informed decision but continuously had the added information with citations/references deleted from the Wikipedia pages by editors.

Which I'm sure you have a link, or links to, right? I feel like these would be useful, otherwise we're circling back to me saying "left-wing means anything left of cranks selling nonsense in FOX News".

When it comes to citing sources Wikipedia has a blacklist of news sources you cannot cite as a reference in articles, the blacklist heavily favors left leaning news sources, even ones that fall equally on the left/right spectrum on the widely used/cited media bias chart by Ad Fontes Media, the right leaning sources are blacklisted whilst the left leaning sources are acceptable to Wikipedia.
Blacklisting biased/unreliable news sources isn't actually a bad thing, but it needs to be on a fair level playing field.

Have you ever considered that these blacklists are founded upon actual, concrete criticism of the sources in question?

I'm talking about unbalanced censorship hence my original post. I'm not talking about a call to action view where someone is openly threatening someone with physical harm.

You were talking about censorship, period. If you wish to change the argument, feel free to make a new one, but my previous answers aren't necessarily going to be the same, are they?

As a longtime forum moderator (not of CFC), "unbalanced censorship" to me (personally) on a web forum always implies a degree of subjectivity. Often a large helping of it.

In real-world terms, I see leftist policy, advocacy, and general politics stonewalled by those to the centre and further right on a daily basis. The problem here is you seem to assume that because censorship happens to the right, it happens only to the right (or overwhelmingly such to the extent that it might as well only happen to the right). The statistics provided so far don't really seem to support that claim, insofar as we're talking about censorship of something relevant. Much like how forums have forum rules (which I can tell you are distinctly not politicised in a wide variety of cases), my argument was simply "censorship exists and will always exist, and to remove it completely is to open the floodgates to bad faith actors". You're now shifting the goalposts to "unbalanced censorship". What's the definition of unbalanced censorship, to you? Are you basing this purely on "5 counts of censorship for me, 7 counts of censorship for you", or are you actually putting in the work to evaluate what is actually being "censored"?

 

[NovaKart]

"Left-leaning" is an extremely vague term. It could cover everyone from me to Barack Obama. Me and Barack Obama do not share very many political opinions.

So is “not left leaning.”