You’ve probably noticed media bias on a personal level. When turning on your favorite network, they seem to skip or gloss over facts necessary to the stories they’re covering. Not only bias, but scripted media has been a hot topic. Media outlets have been individually recorded and played over each other, and the scripted material is unreal. Several videos online show media outlets saying the same thing over each other as if each anchor was handed the same script. Whether or not the hoax idea is genuine, giant tech corporations use the same techniques in their algorithms to block alternative viewpoints.
Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, and Google in hopes of getting reinstated on the platforms, revoke section 230 (explained later) and get punitive damages.
There’s no doubt that Trump was censored on all platforms. He constantly contended with them as posts were taken down.
Twitter has censored New York Post’s articles in the past as well. New York Post posted an article about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and it got taken down by Twitter. Before the 2020 Election, Hunter Biden’s father, Joe Biden, was running for president. New information concerning the laptop’s contents continues to emerge, but no enforcement action has been taken as of yet.
Association of Mature American Citizens ran an article where Brent Bozell, president and founder of Media Research Center, stated that according to a poll, “A full 36% of Democrats knew nothing about the Hunter Biden story.” Bozell continued, “Further 4.6% of Democrats said they would not have voted for Joe Biden had they known this story.”
Bozell said that when he applied the 4.6% to the election landscape, “Joe Biden wouldn’t have carried Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the Trump lead would have been definitive in North Carolina. Meaning what? Meaning that Donald Trump would have won 289 electoral votes and would be the re-elected president of the United States.”
The intentional act cost Trump the election. And those not polled would have likely shown a more significant number.
Section 230 “enables online platforms to engage in content moderation to decide what type of content they want to allow, leave up, and takedown. With a few exceptions, they claim that platforms are not liable for the content that their users publish or the judgments they make regarding content moderation.” according to Jennifer Huddleston, Director of Technology and Innovation Policy at the American Action Forum.
While this sounds good and all, take into account discriminatory practices that have been going on recently. How many Covid-19 posts have been taken down regardless of the accuracy of the seat? How many people and groups have had their accounts taken down because a computer algorithm has viewed a post out of context? Comment sections in groups such as the former “Drinkin’ Bros” Facebook group were flagged and removed because friends were discussing and cursing at each other. They were joking, and a pre-programmed system flagged them for bullying. It isn’t the content moderation that is necessary for a free society to move forward. Content moderation should be non-bias and promote free-thinking discussions.
We hope that Trump can make some fundamental changes in the way content moderation is utilized. Personal bias doesn’t belong on social media sites. The public discourse of intelligent thought will open up minds to the world of possible opinions and viewpoints. After all, well-thought-out public discourse will change the nature in which we communicate. We, as users, must keep this in mind and respect the people to whom we are responding.