Are you really so out of touch that you think Facebook is the social media network of choice for teenage girls? Maybe in 2007 it was
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jon Stewart Confirms Apple Canceled Show: 'They Didn't Want Me to Say Things That Might Get Me in Trouble'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe, maybe not. Though I'm hearing an increase in instances of shadow banning of video and podcast content from Apple, YouTube, and Facebook. This happened before the last election too; only that time, X was also doing it.
I think Jon Stewart is an idjit, but I don't want anybody to be shadow banned. Give me some agency and let me ban my own content options, lol!
Can you explain to me how "max deboosting" is different from shadow banning?
I'm not a user of X, Facebook, Truth Social, or any of the others, aside from watching a lot of educational and informational YT content. So I don't know anything about this "max deboosting" term.
Per my comment, I'M HEARING that shadow banning is on the rise, and this is from content makers. Many have also had their content (and in some cases, their WHOLE CHANNELS) demonitized; with some faux reason given with little to no proof.
The second part of my comment was my observation that shadow banning and demonetization BOTH rose in frequency in 2020, as we approached that year's Presidential election.
Again, it's my observation. But I believe it's happening all over again.
I will learn what "max deboosting" is, but right now I think it's a non-issue. Most of what we see is demonitization (can't make money on your content or whole channel) and shadow banning (your audience all of a sudden can't find you in a search...and in some cases can't find you even though they're already subscribed to you).
Just to be clear, I'm not denying that shadow banning is happening. I just don't think that X should be listed as an exception, especially since Musk supporters get higher priority in replies on X.
Imagine having a ostensibly neutral political discussion forum where donors to one of the major candidates get their posts shown above those of non-donors. Because X is pretty much a slightly less egregious version of that.
He was president at the time, of course Apple will talk to his team. He was trying to quickly shift production to the US, Apple would not be able to do it. That is the reason they talked so much.
But Tim and the top executives obviously have a bias towards the liberal hive.
X is way more fair them the others. There is no denying it.
I deny it.
You didn't address my criticism.
The owner of X is a prominent voice in the right wing twittersphere. People who pay him money get better placement in replies. Naturally, people who like him will be more willing to pay him money. That will have a major impact on the balance of discussions on the site.
You could say it's fair because anyone can pay the $8 if they are financially able to, but do you have no concern about how it changes the balance of discussion on the site?
And, BTW, there are social media sites with less strict moderation than Twitter. It's just that almost no one actually wants to use those sites.
So what's the difference between what Tim did with Trump and what you're calling Tim being biased and cozy with libeerals?
Seems like your definition of "fair" is if it has a bias toward you. Equal wouldn't be fair to you because you want more than true fairness
My definition of fair is letting everyone speak, even those you may consider as wrong or the news you consider fake or conspiracy theories. that is what community notes are for.
Old twitter was censoring information.
Twitter has community notes, and is not actively censoring left wing speakers. Simple.
The owner has right wing tendencies, but he believes in freedom of speech for both sites!
And about the premium, there is no reason to buy it!
You are still avoiding addressing my specific criticism. You claim it's "simple," but obviously it isn't simple when paying members get higher priority in replies, and people who admire the owner—who is very active on the platform—are more likely to be comfortable paying for a membership, which will skew the tone of the site. If your goal is seeing some sort of balance or proportional representation in political discussions, that policy is actively working against it.
Also, Twitter/X under Musk has censored posts of left-wing people that contain legal speech (as is his right, as the platform owner).
I think it's pretty clear you don't really care about freedom of speech and as long as you don't see any issues with your speech, you don't care about anyone else's. Same with Elon
If you want more exposure you pay, it's a business not a charity, if I need exposure on instagram, I would pay for it, even tough I hate Zuckerberg.
What left wing speech did he censor? I need examples. Because I haven't heard of censorship on X.
What left wing speech did he censor? I need examples. Because I haven't heard of censorship on X.
All media is owed by left wing leaning people. Why can't this one be owed by someone you don't like?
You are still free to post. If you want more exposure you pay, it's a business not a charity, if I need exposure on instagram, I would pay for it, even tough I hate Zuckerberg.
What about that is against free speech?
Media is owned by right wing billionaires.
Totally other (contradicting as usual) liberal melodies since musk took over…. Wait, ”it’s a privately owned platform” remember?
People are criticizing Musk based on his own claimed standards of free speech.
For example:
As the community note explains, he banned the account that he used as an example of free speech he would allow.
I completely support his right to ban that account. I don't even think it's unreasonable to have a policy not to give out the location of people. But he went against his own stated definition of free speech.
Yeah, MacRumors is a business too, and they don't promote paid member posts above non-member posts. I don't know of any forum or social media that does, even when it's a for-profit business. Other sites may give paid members a special badge, or a members-only forum, but paying for higher placement? I've only seen that on X. Anywhere else that you can pay for placement, it's called an ad.
So was all that "free speech absolutism" stuff just a lie? Conservatives were mad because they were being "silenced" and said the First Amendment should apply to Twitter, then they got control of Twitter and instead of leading by example, they just banned leftist and liberal speech
Which comes across as very hypocritical
Call it what you want, if you pay Facebook your posts will be suggested more. You literally pay for exposure.