What's actually being censored: misinformation or the truth?

[mr_engineer]

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

@rnd would you say information from alternative sources is generally more reliable than mainstream sources? As in better researched, less biased etc

The alternative sources don't claim to be unbiased. But, the mainstream makes this claim. So, bias in the alternative-media is less hypocritical than bias in the mainstream. 

[Consept]

12 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The alternative sources don't claim to be unbiased. But, the mainstream makes this claim. So, bias in the alternative-media is less hypocritical than bias in the mainstream. 

So is it a better source of information then? As in more accurate, closer to the truth

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

So is it a better source of information then? 

It definitely shines light on details that the mainstream doesn't want to look at or sweeps under the rug. And that's very important, given that the mainstream is hypocritical about its 'objectivity'. It's good enough to prove that you shouldn't trust the mainstream. 

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

As in more accurate, closer to the truth

Their job is not to be 'accurate' or 'closer to the truth'. It's to represent the voice of the people on what the mainstream is doing. The mainstream, which is bought and paid for by the governments. They do not represent the people anymore and the people need their own media. The alternative serves that function. 

Now, what is 'the truth'?! Is it what the government says it is?! If that is the case, then no. It's not 'closer to the truth'. If that's what you're looking for, just listen to the mainstream! The alternative media is for people who need a voice. 

[Consept]

@mr_engineer

OK so to confirm are you saying that alternative media is a more reliable source of information than mainstream media? Just to be clear we are mainly talking about social media as alternative media as that's what most people consume

[mr_engineer]

Just now, Consept said:

@mr_engineer

OK so to confirm are you saying that alternative media is a more reliable source of information than mainstream media? Just to be clear we are mainly talking about social media as alternative media as that's what most people consume

The alternative-media is not a 'source of information'. They are simply shining light on the loopholes of the mainstream. When you compare them like this, you are comparing apples to oranges. Because the mainstream takes on the responsibility of defining 'the truth' and 'sharing information'. That's not what the alternative does. 

I think both have their place, as of now. 

[Consept]

1 minute ago, mr_engineer said:

The alternative-media is not a 'source of information'. They are simply shining light on the loopholes of the mainstream. When you compare them like this, you are comparing apples to oranges. Because the mainstream takes on the responsibility of defining 'the truth' and 'sharing information'. That's not what the alternative does. 

I think both have their place, as of now. 

Something like 51% of people use it as their main news source so it is used as a source of information. But I think your reluctance to say it is more reliable is because you know it isn't, if it is more reliable to you then you can still make the claim. 

If the mainstream is over stepping or over claiming or being highly biased then of course they should be called out. In general they're highly regulated and will get sued if they put out any provably false information. These restrictions are not put on alternative media in the same way. 

Everyone is biased in some way the only thing that really stops this is regulation, I'm sure you'd agree that you would want mainstream to have these regulations as it will keep them less biased. But then on the flip you would complain if alternative media is regulated, so if that's the case, what is there to stop alternative media from being biased?

[mr_engineer]

5 minutes ago, Consept said:

Something like 51% of people use it as their main news source so it is used as a source of information. But I think your reluctance to say it is more reliable is because you know it isn't, if it is more reliable to you then you can still make the claim. 

Most people don't want to be indoctrinated with 'the absolute truth'. They would rather consume media that challenge their perspective, their conditioning and that gives them an alternative point of view. 

This is a very relieving stat, by the way. 

The truth is that 'the absolute truth' cannot be ideologically defined. So, this endeavor that the mainstream has embarked on is a futile one. And it is much more realistic to say that there are different sources with their biases and to integrate these perspectives, these sources and to come up with one's own idea of 'objective truth'. And to then come together with other multi-perspectival Tier-2 people and discuss that point of view and see whether you agree on that or not. 

8 minutes ago, Consept said:

If the mainstream is over stepping or over claiming or being highly biased then of course they should be called out. In general they're highly regulated and will get sued if they put out any provably false information. These restrictions are not put on alternative media in the same way. 

Most truth/falsehood cannot be proven, though. The mainstream is not in the business of giving the truth, even though that is their claim. They stay within the limits of mainstream-science. Which is funded by corporations who want to get their way. 

The alternative-media is very banned. Very restricted. And yet, funny how people find ways to get to them!! 

10 minutes ago, Consept said:

Everyone is biased in some way the only thing that really stops this is regulation,

Regulation is also biased. 

10 minutes ago, Consept said:

I'm sure you'd agree that you would want mainstream to have these regulations as it will keep them less biased.

No, I want the mainstream to just be more open about their biases. If they did that, then paradoxically, their trustworthiness would go up a lot! Cuz they're telling the truth now. 

11 minutes ago, Consept said:

But then on the flip you would complain if alternative media is regulated, so if that's the case, what is there to stop alternative media from being biased?

Bias is not the issue. The false claims about 'being unbiased' or 'objectivity' are the issue. 

[Leo Gura]

23 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The alternative-media is not a 'source of information'. They are simply shining light on the loopholes of the mainstream. When you compare them like this, you are comparing apples to oranges. Because the mainstream takes on the responsibility of defining 'the truth' and 'sharing information'. That's not what the alternative does.

This is a seriously erroneous take.

Alt media absolutely is a source of information and they definitely define "the truth".

The only difference between mainstream media and alt-media is size, wealth, and power. Such that if you let the alt-media have the size, wealth, and power of mainstream media they would behave equally bad or worse.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

This is a seriously erroneous take.

Alt media absolutely is a source of information and they definitely define "the truth".

The only difference between mainstream media and alt-media is size, wealth, and power.

Yeah, but they don't define 'the absolute truth'. Their truth is a relative truth, and different from the mainstream. In disagreement with the mainstream on a lot of counts. 

The mainstream defines the 'absolute truth'. They are out for blood to define their idea of the absolute truth. It's way more fundamentalist than the alt-media. 

[mr_engineer]

Bias ceases to be a sin when you're admitting to the relativity of your truth.  

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Yeah, but they don't define 'the absolute truth'.

No mainstream media sources claims to be absolute truth. This is a silly smear against them.

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Their truth is a relative truth, and different from the mainstream.

Truth has nothing to do with mainstream or alternative sources.

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

The mainstream defines the 'absolute truth'. They are out for blood to define their idea of the absolute truth.

No, this is just your twisted projection.

3 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

It's way more fundamentalist than the alt-media. 

The opposite is true.

[mr_engineer]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No mainstream media sources claims to be absolute truth. This is a silly smear against them.

Why do they think they have the right to censor who they disagree with, then?! 

If this is not a crusade for their 'absolute truth', what is it?! 

Edited November 26, 2022 by mr_engineer

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Why do they think they have the right to censor who they disagree with, then?! 

If this is not a crusade for their 'absolute truth', what is it?! 

1) Most mainstream news does not censor anyone. Who does CNN censor?

2) If you're talking about giant social media platforms, they have a duty and responsibility to moderate hate speech, abuse, and exploitation of their platforms. As do all smaller alt-platforms. They are just smaller.

If you run a website, you have a duty and responsibility to block people from using your website for illegal and dangerous things. No matter how small your website is. You can't just sit back and allow people to use your website to plan terrorist attacks, for example.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Consept]

@mr_engineer

Alternative media is attempting to give an absolute truth, thats exactly what they claim to do. Mainstream specifically can not claim that. I'm from the UK and on TV they can't even say one political party is better than another, in fact they can't even say one car brand is better than another. So no mainstream doesn't claim to be an absolute truth. 

The reason why alternative gets banned is specifically because they claim truth. During covid for example when some alternative claimed that it wasn't real, they were claiming truth they weren't just criticising mainstream. If you have a platform and you want to inform people there is a huge responsibility and a lot of alternative media, probably most, does not live up to that responsibility. This is not to say mainstream doesn't have issues btw, it's just that bias with little regulations is obviously going to be worse than bias with a lot of regulations. 

[mr_engineer]

Just now, Leo Gura said:

1) Most mainstream news does not censor anyone. Who does CNN censor?

The mainstream lies by omission. They do not cover the big protests in Europe. This takes away the voices of people whose lives have been destroyed by the government-measures. 

You can have your justifications for the government-measures. But, the censorship is a sin. 

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

2) If you're talking about giant social media platforms, they have duty and responsiblity to moderate hate speech, abuse, and exploitation of their platforms.

Fine, then. Welcome to the alt-media, who explains why they're doing it! They have an alternative explanation for it. 

[Consept]

8 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

Bias ceases to be a sin when you're admitting to the relativity of your truth.  

By the way which alternative media makes a big thing of saying they're bias? Most of them will say this is the truth because of my research, ob both sides as well from vaush to candace owens. You can say that everyone knows which way they lean but that's the same for mainstream, everyone knows cnn is more democratic leaning and fox is republican leaning, like its not a secret. 

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Consept said:

By the way which alternative media makes a big thing of saying they're bias? Most of them will say this is the truth because of my research, ob both sides as well from vaush to candace owens. You can say that everyone knows which way they lean but that's the same for mainstream, everyone knows cnn is more democratic leaning and fox is republican leaning, like its not a secret. 

They don't have to say they're biased, because they're not lobbying to governments. So, they aren't taking on the responsibility that governments give them, which is to be 'objective'. 

But, the mainstream is backed by the government-systems. And, because people live under the government-systems (and they know that the mainstream is paid off by them), the mainstream is basically the mouthpiece of the government. So, their job is to be 'objective'. In which case, they have to admit to their failures in being 'objective'! 

[mr_engineer]

Now, why does the government care about an image of 'objectivity'?! 

Because if entity A is more 'objective' than them, then entity A gets more public support than them. And, government is all about public support and power. That's what politics is about. So, they have to maintain this image. Same applies to licensed news-sources. 

But, the alt-media is purely grassroots. And, the government 'objective' systems are going to have a problem with this. So, they'll censor them. 

[Consept]

15 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

They don't have to say they're biased, because they're not lobbying to governments. So, they aren't taking on the responsibility that governments give them, which is to be 'objective'. 

Bro one of your main points is that the alternative media doesnt claim to be unbiased. 

 

1 hour ago, mr_engineer said:

The alternative sources don't claim to be unbiased. But, the mainstream makes this claim. So, bias in the alternative-media is less hypocritical than bias in the mainstream. 

So to confirm youre saying the alternative media doesnt have to say theyre biased or unbiased and they have no responsibility to do either but then they are also more clearly defined as biased to people that consume that media than mainstream? 

21 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

the mainstream is basically the mouthpiece of the government.

How can it be the mouthpiece of the government when different mainstream sources can be for or against the current government? 

[mr_engineer]

2 minutes ago, Consept said:

Bro one of your main points is that the alternative media doesnt claim to be unbiased. 

Yeah, which is why when they fail to be unbiased, they don't have to answer for that. That's what I meant. But, if the mainstream claims to be 'unbiased', they should have to answer for that! And they should openly admit to their failures to do their job of 'being unbiased'. 

3 minutes ago, Consept said:

So to confirm youre saying the alternative media doesnt have to say theyre biased or unbiased and they have no responsibility to do either but then they are also more clearly defined as biased to people that consume that media than mainstream? 

If you ask people who consume alt-media whether alt-media is purely unbiased, they probably won't say 'yes'. But, if you ask people who consume mainstream-media whether it's purely unbiased or whether it's 'objective' enough for them, they probably will say 'yes'. 

These two media-niches meet different needs for different kinds of people. 

4 minutes ago, Consept said:

How can it be the mouthpiece of the government when different mainstream sources can be for or against the current government? 

They can definitely be partisan and for their favorite political parties. And, if you're dipping your finger in the pie of politics, that is essentially what you're doing. You're being the mouthpiece of that party.