Social Media Bias Just Got Even More Orwellian
Social Media Bias Just Got Even More Orwellian
AP Photo/Jeff Roberson, File)
A study by the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, titled “False Allegation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Censors Conservatives,” is downright chilling—and it tells you everything you need to know about the dishonesty of those who purport to be arbiters of truth in modern American society.
The researchers didn’t waste any time getting to the crux of their preposterous charges. The report declares at the outset: “The claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy largescale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests.”
Not only are we accused of lying on social media anytime we have the audacity to share an opinion that does not conform to left-wing orthodoxy but now they say we are lying about being lied about! This nonsense is why it was essential to launch PJ Media’s VIP membership program last year. More on that later.
You would think such a bold claim would be backed up by reams of data to prove their thesis. Alas, the researchers proffer no such proof. You have to scroll all the way down to page 20 of the report to learn that:
The question of whether social media companies harbor an anti-conservative bias can’t be answered conclusively because the data available to academic and civil society researchers aren’t sufficiently detailed. Existing periodic enforcement disclosures by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube are helpful but not granular enough to allow for thorough analysis by outsiders.” [Emphasis added.]
So, the question “can’t be answered” because there is not enough available data to support a conclusion one way or another. Nevertheless, the researchers felt confident declaring that charges of bias are based in “falsehood” or “disinformation.”
If this NYU report is any indication—and I have no doubt that it will be used far and wide as justification to further silence us—we will henceforth be accused of trading in “disinformation” any time we dare to complain about anti-conservative media bias—based on the flimsiest of arguments and data that the researchers admit is inconclusive and not “granular” enough.
It would be laughable if it weren’t so diabolical. Not only do we have to deal with media bias—where a small group of “official” “fact-checkers” determine what’s true and what’s not, in accordance with their own biases—but now we’re not even allowed to speak above a whisper about the biases. The Ministry of Truth sees and hears all. And don’t even think about believing your lying eyes when they tell you what the actual words of the report say or mean:
By many measures, conservative voices —including that of the ex-president, until he was banished from Twitter and Facebook—often are dominant in online political debates. Compare user engagement with Trump’s Facebook page versus Joe Biden’s page during the peak of last year’s presidential campaign, from September 3, 2020, to Election Day. The total number of likes, comments, and shares was 307 million.
The “researchers” from NYU are admitting, right out in the open, that President Trump “was banished” from the two largest social media platforms, yet they strenuously insist that there is no bias. Nothing to see here. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia and two plus two does indeed equal five.
As Winston’s co-worker Syme told him in George Orwell’s 1984, “Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.”
The range of thought on social media grows narrower by the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment