Media Bias

[L'Emmerdeur]

They like the Trumpist echo chamber, but they would prefer to be back on the big platform. Elon Musk to the rescue!

'Inside the unhinged midterm election conspiracy theories on Truth Social'

Ballot boxes being stuffed. “BlueAnon”. Men in underpants. Every Democratic candidate: a “complete weirdo psychopath”.

To dive into Truth Social, Donald Trump’s Twitter-but-for-conspiracy-theorists social media platform, is to enter a world where all of the above are real topics of debate, breathlessly discussed by Trump-backing Republicans and anonymous rightwing provocateurs.

Truth Social has always been a platform for lies and obfuscations; about the 2020 election, the Democratic party, vaccines, Hunter Biden. But with less than a week before the election, the platform and its users have become even more unhinged.

The site, formed as Trump’s alternative to Twitter after he was banned from that platform in the wake of the January 6 insurrection, is awash with false theories about how the Democratic party is attempting to manipulate the midterm vote, false claims about the attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, and false accusations about Democratic candidates themselves.

...

In recent days, despite users’ apparent satisfaction with Truth Social, the main interest has been Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter, and how it might impact the Democratic party in elections and beyond.

Musk’s vague promise to overturn Twitter bans has had people giddy with excitement, claiming it could open the door to a glorious era of Republican reign.

“Democrats are not going to be able to handle free speech and the corrupt Democratic Party will fall apart after hearing the truth,” one Truth Social user gravely intoned after Musk purchased Twitter.

Another posted: “3 PATRIOTS TRUMP, MUSK, & [Steve] BANNON,” above a photoshopped picture of the three men. Others “truthed” photos of Musk entering the Twitter HQ, and reveled in the departure of Twitter employees.

Troublingly for Trump and Truth Social, however, the most striking response from Truth Social users was the large number of them pleading with Musk to be allowed to return to Twitter.

For now, Truth Social might be the platform of choice for those loyal to Trump and his election lies, but it seems large numbers of the platform can’t wait to get away.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Andy Ngo heroically survived being roughed up by antifa and splashed with a milkshake. Now being consulted by Mr. Musk to determine which bad actors need to be purged from Twitter. Oh yeah, the shoe is now on the other foot.

'Evidence Grows of Left-Wing Twitter Purge Directed by Musk'

While claiming to have bought the social media giant in order to make it "an inclusive arena for free speech," multibillionaire Twitter owner Elon Musk is apparently overseeing what critics claim is a purge of anti-fascist voices, The Intercept reported Tuesday.

"Several prominent anti-fascist organizers and journalists have had their accounts suspended in the past week, after right-wing operatives appealed directly to Musk to ban them and far-right internet trolls flooded Twitter's complaints system with false reports about terms of service violations," The Intercept's Robert Mackey and Micah Lee wrote.

...

A common thread connects the aforementioned suspensions: All were flagged by far-right conspiracy theorist and social media influencer Andy Ngo, who, in a Twitter exchange was invited by Musk to identify accounts for possible suspension.

"Andy Ngo's bizarre vision of 'Antifa' seems to be the metric used to delete the accounts of journalists and publications, most of which engaged in verifiably good journalism and [have] done so completely above board and [terms of service] observant ways," tweeted Shane Burley, editor of the anthology ¡No Pasarán!: Anti-fascist Dispatches From a World in Crisis. "Paranoid delusions about Antifa are driving it."

In recent days, a list of thousands of purported "Antifa" Twitter accounts—including those of CNN, actor Danny DeVito, the World Health Organization, and a "professional dog rater"—has been circulating online.

[Brian Peacock]

Erm, how do you rate dogs professionally?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Dog show judges do it all the time. Not sure what this one is about though.

[JimC]

Erm, how do you rate dogs professionally?

I reckon that would be a bitch of a job...

[L'Emmerdeur]

Not to be forgetting that '"free-speech" is firmly on the right.' Nor that Mr. Musk is a self-proclaimed 'free speech absolutist.'

[Svartalf]

Free S>peech, that is to be free to listen to, and give platform only to what you agree with, correct?

[Brian Peacock]

Not to be forgetting that '"free-speech" is firmly on the right.' Nor that Mr. Musk is a self-proclaimed 'free speech absolutist.'

Yeah. We did that one to death with our erstwhile cannuk. For alt-right boobies freedom of speech is their right to be heard over yours; to have their ideas respected automatically, and to shut you up - by force if necessary. They're Karens all the way down I tell you.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Free Speech, that is to be free to listen to, and give platform only to what you agree with, correct?

That does seem to be the definition of free speech in certain quarters. The issue also revolves around concepts of hate speech (which is no such thing, depending on who you ask) and whether it is acceptable for any entity to try to suppress hate speech and disinformation.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Not to be forgetting that '"free-speech" is firmly on the right.' Nor that Mr. Musk is a self-proclaimed 'free speech absolutist.'

Yeah. We did that one to death with our erstwhile cannuk. For alt-right boobies freedom of speech is their right to be heard over yours; to have their ideas respected automatically, and to shut you up - by force if necessary. They're Karens all the way down I tell you.

Indeed. The first sentence in my post includes a direct quote from said northern Karen.

[Svartalf]

Free Speech, that is to be free to listen to, and give platform only to what you agree with, correct?

That does seem to be the definition of free speech in certain quarters. The issue also revolves around concepts of hate speech (which is no such thing, depending on who you ask) and whether it is acceptable for any entity to try to suppress hate speech and disinformation.

Since hate speech is liable to be downright illegal, I see no problem with suppressing it.
As for misinformation.... I wish we could, but it seems that 'fake news' is a notion that changes according to what platform you're on...

[L'Emmerdeur]

This site has been spared the continued bleating about Hunter Biden it would have otherwise entertained. However it is a legitimate story, regardless of the fixations of the swivel-eyed right wing. Latest yalping from that quarter would have us believe that Musk and his lapdog Taibbi have blown the lid off a hyuge scandal--the Biden crime family suppressing damaging information with the hobnailed boots of government (Musk claimed it was 'a violation of the Constitution's first amendment'). There are some problems with that narrative.

'No, You Do Not Have a Constitutional Right to Post Hunter Biden’s Dick Pic on Twitter'

While normal humans who denied Republicans their red wave were enjoying an epic sports weekend, an insular community of MAGA activists and online contrarians led by the world’s richest man (for now) were getting riled up about a cache of leaked emails revealing that the former actor James Woods and Chinese troll accounts were not allowed to post ill-gotten photos of Hunter Biden’s hog on a private company’s microblogging platform 25 months ago.

Now if you are one of the normals—someone who would never think about posting another person’s penis on your social media account; has no desire to see politicians’ kids’ penises when scrolling social media; doesn’t understand why there are other people out there who care one way or another about the moderation policies surrounding stolen penis photos; or can’t even figure out what it is that I’m talking about—then this might seem like a gratuitous matter for an article. Sadly, it is not.

...

The offending material that Taibbi revealed was removed by Twitter at the Biden campaign’s request turns out to have been a bunch of links to Hunter Biden in the buff.

There was a tweet from a Chinese account featuring a naked woman on top of Hunter Biden, as well as a family photo. Two pictures of Hunter Biden’s penis, one with another woman in the background. Taibbi’s next list of material was removed by Twitter after being flagged by the Democratic National Committee. They include a picture of Hunter Biden smoking crack and getting his feet rubbed and a link to a Hunter Biden sex tape.

And that’s the big hubbub. Social media company removes unwanted dick pics: News at 11.

...

As someone who once consulted for social media companies on content moderation issues, let me tell you, the amount of eggplant-related terms of service violations that these platforms review in a given year is so voluminous that we have not yet invented an artificial intelligence machine capable of counting them.

Yet Taibbi and Musk are trying to turn this mundane moderation matter into the story of the century by emphasizing a few misconceptions about how platforms work with political campaigns and what First Amendment obligations they do or do not have. To debunk a few of them:

1. Campaigns of all ideological stripes have direct lines into social media companies and make requests about offending content. There is nothing at all strange about what is shown in these emails. If Jeb’s kid’s grundle was posted by a Chinese troll, we surely would’ve flagged that for the company in the hopes they deleted it, and I suspect their internal correspondence on the matter would’ve been identical. This would not have been a “demand” or a “dictate” from our campaign, mind you. Companies can do what they want.

2. In this specific instance, the requests came from a campaign that has absolutely no government authority at all. At the time of the correspondence in question, Joe Biden was a private citizen running for office, while Donald Trump was the president. Taibbi acknowledges that Trump’s White House made requests that “were received and honored” and that “there’s no evidence—that I’ve seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story.” So if there are any First Amendment issues at play here—and I don’t believe there are since neither Musk nor Taibbi have demonstrated that the government made any mandates on Twitter—they would, in this case, only relate to the material that Trump wanted removed.

Republican members of the Federal Election Commission had determined a year ago that there was no corrupt election interference by Twitter when it suppressed the Hunter Biden story.

'GOP Officials Said Twitter’s Hunter Biden Ban Wasn’t Corrupt'

As conservatives re-up their criticism of Twitter for supposedly interfering in the 2020 election with its two-day ban on an unverified story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, it’s worth noting that Republican federal election officials already cleared the company of that specific charge.

Last Friday night, Twitter CEO Elon Musk released “the Twitter Files,” a behind-the-scenes account of the social media giant’s controversial decision in the run-up to the 2020 election to temporarily restrict circulation of the New York Post’s unconfirmed report about the contents of a laptop hard drive supposedly belonging to Hunter Biden.

...

The so-called “bombshell” landed with a thud. Multiple news and tech outlets—and even some Republicans—panned the story as overhyped and ultimately empty. And, it turns out, FEC Republicans would appear to agree.

Agency investigators, acting on a complaint from the Republican National Committee, took up the issue as it pertains to campaign finance law—whether Twitter’s actions constituted an unlawful in-kind contribution to the Biden campaign.

And while the commissioners often disagree on these matters, there was little conflict here. Last year, they voted 6-0 to dismiss the complaint, which the RNC had filed Oct. 16, 2020—two days after the laptop story broke, and the same day Twitter reversed its decision.

The agency exonerated Twitter, with two GOP commissioners releasing a statement saying that the company had not acted with “the purpose of influencing an election.”

A year later, Taibbi’s thread garnered much the same reaction. While the story was celebrated in some corners of the right, it was “not really the smoking gun” some were hoping for, as New York Post columnist Miranda Devine told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

[Brian Peacock]

"Republican members".

[Svartalf]

members, is that synonymous with bell ends?

[Tero]

It's like in the Zappa courtroom. The groupies were interested in the "members" of the group.