How do I know? I'm from Russia. Authoritatism begins with tight control of news sources.
Someone told Clinton's campaign manager that there would be a question by a woman experiencing heath problems related to Flint's water supply. [1]
The debate was being held in Flint.
Do you think maybe everyone kind of knew that one was coming?
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/303556-emails-brazi...
Imagine if Obama reformed the criminal justice system, wasn't a war monger in Syria/Libya and presided over a record economic boom? He'd be made a saint or something.
Go figure.
Not all leaders do things the same way, and there might be more cause to criticize one over the others. It should be _possible_ to publish criticism for all; that doesn't mean there should be equal amounts of criticism.
Otherwise, you could have one administration that mishandles a lot of thing complain that they were treated unfairly, just because they're rightfully criticized for their shortcomings. (Which it looks like has been happening recently.)
The question is, though, what happens if one side keeps knowingly publishing baseless allegations to stir up fear and mistrust.
Your comparison is off.
I don't think this is accurate, unless you mean that most employees of big tech vote/contribute Democrat. However, it doesn't necessarily follow that bias exists on the platform.
Just because content on social media is negative towards Trump, doesn't mean the platform itself is.
In fact, Twitter has been incredibly lenient with Trump. Much of what he tweets (threats for example) contravene the TOS.
Note that the reasons for this are complicated, but the U.S. doesn't historically have to deal with monarchy, titles of nobility, vestigial aspects of governance left over from feudalism, a relatively recent postwar recovery period, or government implicated into churches. For instance, there's no American conservative impulse to support the monarchy because there's no American monarchy. The lack of that issue means other things are discussed instead.
Monarchism, a formal class system and state establishment of religion tend to be rejected by large swathes of both the American Left and Right.
We just had a summer in which armed gangs of self-identified Leftists roamed the streets of our major cities, set fire to buildings, harassed random passers-by and assaulted (and in a few cases, murdered) anyone they unilaterally labeled a "fascist" (i.e. anyone to the right of Mao). These Democrats you speak of were for three months ignoring the violence; when they occasionally admitted that violence had taken place, they claimed it was all perpetrated by right-wing agitators; when that didn't work (because who actually believes that right-wingers are spray-painting anarchy symbols, "BLM," "ACAB," and other slogans?), their propaganda mouthpieces calling it "mostly peaceful protest."
Do I think Biden is some hard leftist? No. But certainly his party feels extremely constrained in criticizing the hard left, and also feel that they must kowtow down to them.
> This also gives insight into the Republican style of pushing out falsities just for the sake of being in power.
This is a complete non-sequitur. The fact that US definitions of left and right (as mentioned in a sibling comment) differ from international ones "gives insight" into one particular political party lying? What?
Isn't the objective of every political party to obtain power, or at least influence? Don't all political parties "push[] out falsities" in order to obtain or retain power?
The one wrinkle here is that the Republicans (nor anyone on the Right - US definition) absolutely lack real political power, since they have no control over the bureaucracy, the media or the academe. Trump himself figured this out much too late, and wasted years appointing people who had no interest in carrying out his agenda. But in some ways, this is the exception that proves the rule.
Examine which side of the political spectrum is overwhelmingly running media businesses through YouTube.
It is not Democrats.
It might be helpful if you cited sources yourself.
News sources are always biased, even when they try to stay neutral. The trick is to learn to extract useful nuggets of information from a number of biased streams. Having these streams biased differently helps.
This is much like raw data in science: all data have noise and imperfections, but statistics help extract a signal if there is one.
I think anywhere that libel and slander are enforced. Any random person with any random agenda can write on facebook or make youtube videos advancing that agenda.
> News sources are always biased, even when they try to stay neutral. The trick is to learn to extract useful nuggets of information from a number of biased streams. Having these streams biased differently helps.
I'm not talking about bias, I'm talking about obvious made-up QAnon garbage.
> This is much like raw data in science: all data have noise and imperfections, but statistics help extract a signal if there is one.
I would argue that baseless data is not data at all.
I'd be fine with videos marked with something like "YouTube believes this video is untrue and spreads dangerous disinformation" put before or even over a video. But taking videos down is quite another matter.
The one thing different about trump is that he purposely provoked the media and responded to petty nonsense that previous presidents would have just ignored. Trump and the media have a symbiotic relationship because they both need the attention.
Let the process play out. He'll have his day in court and will either win or lose, just like Bush and Gore.
Trying to rush things would have the opposite effect of building faith in the system.
And we know she is good because all the news media say she is good.
And we know the news media is good because she tells us it is good.
Welcome to Hotel California, you can check out at any time, but you can never leave.
And Brutus is an honourable man.
That said, I think google are making a bad mistake here. They've crossed a line that they've been toeing.
Social media isn't just a mass media. Media is always edited. Editing isn't censorship. But social media is also a communication channel. Haphazard interference in a communication channel sits wrong. We have no frame of reference for it.
Meanwhile, there are credible claims that social media fallacies have caused horrible things (including possibly genocide in Myanmar) in other countries/languages. FB (in that case) has no knowledge of the language or interest in getting involved in that. How can you justify one without the other?
I mean it's one of those doublespeak terms that they themselves don't fully understand (apparently), but still.