Short term stock, and that term ended ten years ago. Initial demand, then the recession of 08... but as people started to have money again the flaw was identified; clean-up. Manufacturers were riding their success and didn't bother with a patch.
Alex Jones and Social Media Censorship
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
Short term stock, and that term ended ten years ago. Initial demand, then the recession of 08... but as people started to have money again the flaw was identified; clean-up. Manufacturers were riding their success and didn't bother with a patch.
i have no problem with social media companies excluding people like Jones from their platforms. They, post Christchurch are facing a raft of new laws that make them responsible for the content people post on their sites and I believe some have criminal consequences for directors. I've got no problem with this. Censorship through exclusion has been going on forever and will continue.
Journalism as a profession is dying, further as it contracts I think it has become less relevant and diverse, it consists of middle class types with University degrees in Media or Communication, who are fabulously ignorant and easily duped. They are careerists scumbags who move between media organisations and political parties (one and the same thing) or end up as PR boffins or spin doctors for corporations. Most of them are not a real journalists areshole.
Not to say their aren't decent journalists doing decent work, but they are fewer today than ever. As the pie gets smaller, the hacks who are willing to churn out politicians press releases as facts without checking them, who either never had the integrity to check or sold out their integrity for a pay check will take over. Real journalism costs money, which is increasingly harder to find. Unless some mining company is prepared to pay a fortune for favorable coverage, that becomes the future, paid advertising as comment and coverage.
Journalism as a profession is dying, further as it contracts I think it has become less relevant and diverse, it consists of middle class types with University degrees in Media or Communication, who are fabulously ignorant and easily duped. They are careerists scumbags who move between media organisations and political parties (one and the same thing) or end up as PR boffins or spin doctors for corporations. Most of them are not a real journalists areshole.
Not to say their aren't decent journalists doing decent work, but they are fewer today than ever. As the pie gets smaller, the hacks who are willing to churn out politicians press releases as facts without checking them, who either never had the integrity to check or sold out their integrity for a pay check will take over. Real journalism costs money, which is increasingly harder to find. Unless some mining company is prepared to pay a fortune for favorable coverage, that becomes the future, paid advertising as comment and coverage.
Is it more slippery for the owner(insert 'free market' for libertarians) to decide, or the government? Are we actually advocating for social justice?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Answer my question first
i don't think the amazon analogy is completely correct. Say i'm youtube and i sell advertising on my site to lets say Smith and Wesson and i charge them extra to advertise on some right wing gun loving nut jobs channel because i know that his consumers want that advertising and advertisers want to have their product in front of their market. When these right wing nut jobs incite others to violence I don't think I can really walk away with my hands up and say not my table when I profit from it.
Its the wrong question. Amazon does not sell content, it sells products. Youtube, facebook, et al sell content. And content in most parts of the world has in some way always been subject to some form of editorial limits and legal oversight.
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
Trust me, YouTube, Twitter, etc is a product and it's being sold.
yeah but their product is content, you know the **** that is on it. Amazon sells stuff, actual stuff, bought for a dollar sold for two. Social media is still media and is bought like any other media product, either via subscription or through advertising space, the significant difference between social and MSM is the absence of paid staff and editorial control.
Sure. Skin color and sexuality aren't a choice. This discrimination is always wrong.
Religion and political affiliation are a choice, but are constitutionally protected. Not wholly socially protected. Where you shouldn't discriminate because someone is Christian, maybe you should apply pressure when someone decides theocricide is their daddy in the sky given right. (Exodus 22:18)
In context of Reddit quarantining /r/the_donald/, I would agree that your analogy is more similar than my Amazon.
But it feels like Archie's coming at it from a different topographical level, a few floors above. In a binary world, he's a great point. Where do we draw the line? Who's to say where that line is? The consequences for crossing it? Is our silence from afar a fight we're not subjected to fighting?
I'm just a guy on the internet. What the hell do I know?
I thought you were a gorilla?