"a bit more" lol
See this link if you're wondering what "a bit more" looks like: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
See this link if you're wondering what "a bit more" looks like: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10
1. Dan Bongino
2. Dan Bongino
3. Breitbart
4. Fox News
5. Robert Reich
6. NPR
7. Ben Shapiro
8. Dan Bongino
9. Mark Levin
10. Bernie Sanders
This is curated by https://twitter.com/kevinroose
I had to look up most of those names but if you're wondering, looking back a couple weeks it's usually 9/10 or 10/10 right-wing talk hosts/sources.
It appears FB is essentially a right-wing mouth piece, idk if that is a controversial opinion, but the data appears that way, I think.
Given that the common narrative around Facebook is that it, along with all other social media, is engaged in a leftist conspiracy to purge all conservative and right-wing speech from the internet, I'd say it would be.
I mean, mouthpiece can't possibly be the right term. Does anyone think they should forbid Fox News articles from being shared? If you don't want them moderating it away, and they aren't themselves recommending it, their role is pretty minor. The idea of Facebook is that when you post things some people you know see it. How do you show people what they want and avoid results similar to this?
The problem isn't Fox News though (they are bad enough), its that fake news stories (generally right leaning) are easily crafted and shared at a significant pace on Facebook that is seemingly having a deep impact on the American electorate and government.
I mean...yeah
They could also take efforts to fact-check political ads, or prohibit them entirely as others have done.
The reality is that Facebook is afraid of a reckoning. They're pretty sure that they're going to be under investigation, and likely regulated or broken up, if the democrats win. If the republicans win, they get to continue to be the incredibly profitable right-wing disinformation distribution hub they have been for a while. This gives them little incentive to clean up their act, since that might leave them vulnerable to the consequences of their actions (or inactions).
It's not just about letting people post lies and disinformation from Fox News, it's about Facebook actively herding whoever they can into groups that radicalize people in order to increase their engagement by driving them down a conspiracy theory rabbit hole.
Only one I didn't recognize is Bongino.
I would be very curious in the age demographics of FB users. My understanding is that initially the user base was young and now it's older, specifically boomer age range. I could be completely wrong, I've never had an account and am just going off the people I know personally and what I've noticed being online.
Just because the majority of a population support a given policy abstract doesn't mean that the gamut of their potential demands doesn't span the entirety of the political spectrum.
Not really. The reform that most Americans want is premised on the belief that racism and violence against African Americans are systemic issues in policing which need drastic measures to solve at best, or a complete dismantling of the system at worst.
The right either refuses to accept that such problems exist, dismissing them as fabrications by the left, or justifies them on the basis that African Americans are endemically violent and lawless, and deserve the brutal treatment and suspicion they receive.
The only 'reforms' the right wants are to give the police more guns and for them to not be held back against certain "problem" demographics by "political correctness," but the reform most Americans want is entirely leftist in its assumptions and goals.
Large elements of the right often refuse to accept systemic racism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its own critiques against policing that make the abstract statement 'I support police reform' valid for them.
Outside the left and the far right, although moderate liberals acknowledge the existence of systemic biases in policing, I've heard proposals ranging from 'remove qualified immunity', to 'more training', to 'expand social services', but typically with the caveat that 'my poufs Dept is fine', or 'I don't want social workers to replace any of the police, I just want them in addition to the police'. There's usually a big fat asterisk alongside the suggestion that requires a positive sum outcome where nothing really changes in their lives, but everything is abstractly better.