Why the double standard?

[Revoltingest]

Another post gaslighting me.
Thank you, dear for your gaslighting me.

"Gaslighting" means to convince someone that
their reality is wrong, & that they're crazy.
Sometimes it would actually be healthy for
people to make this discovery.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Another post gaslighting me.
Thank you, dear for your gaslighting me.

If you wish to call it that when people point out to you that you can't manage to reply to a post while staying on topic of the post you reply to.


To recapitulate: the post in question concerned the fact that digital newsfeeds are composed by algorithms based on a user's online activity and interests, instead of (like you claimed) by conspiratory directive of "the democratic party" or "elitist bankers" or what not............................................

 

[Tony B]

You're acting out and engaging in rather ridiculous conspiracy.
"the democratic party" doesn't compose digital newsfeeds of facebook or whatever other digital platform. Algorithms do, based on online activity of the user in question.

Who writes the algorithms? Democratic/Labour funded and backed organisations, you only have to look at the bias of any 'news' outlet to understand who backs them. Of course this swings both ways, but 'left leaning' organisations are far greater in number and this pretty much covers the majority of mainstream media these days.

It's the same reason why you are served with russian and right wing propaganda 24/7 most likely and are kept in that right wing fake news bubble by whatever digital medium you consume.

RT News are blocked in my country, and there's very little in the way of 'right wing' mainstream media. I don't consider myself right or left leaning, those are simply labels used to divide us. There is the state/mainstream narrative and then there's the rest, if you disagree with this narrative you will be automatically labelled as some kind of 'denier' or 'fascist'.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Oh yes we are funding the killing of Ukrainians by sending trillions of dollars worth of weapons over there to keep this proxy war with Russia going where Ukrainian people are caught in the suffering.



“Watch Columbia University Jeffrey Sachs’s presentation of the basic facts and timeline of how the U.S. government recklessly discarded James Baker’s promise to Gorbachev in 1991.

Since then, the U.S. has pursued policies that have sown fear in Moscow, ultimately baiting Moscow to take military action in Ukraine to prevent the CIA and NATO from further establishing their power in that country whose northeast border lies only 350 miles from Moscow.”

Summary of How U.S. Provoked War in Ukraine

Professor Jeffrey Sachs presents events and timeline since 1991.

petermcculloughmd.substack.com

So tell me, how does NATO, a DEFENSIVE treaty threaten Russia? If NATO had eyes on attacking Russia, why haven't they done it in the past before Russia developed nukes?

 

[Estro Felino]

If you wish to call it that when people point out to you that you can't manage to reply to a post while staying on topic of the post you reply to.


To recapitulate: the post in question concerned the fact that digital newsfeeds are composed by algorithms based on a user's online activity and interests, instead of (like you claimed) by conspiratory directive of "the democratic party" or "elitist bankers" or what not............................................

The OP topic is: why is there a double standards situation?
That is, Gazans' lives are incredibly under scrutiny, whereas nobody couldn't care less about how many Ukrainian soldiers die in this war?

Have you answered?
No...it means you do anything not to address the topic of a thread.

 

[Estro Felino]

"Gaslighting" means to convince someone that
their reality is wrong, & that they're crazy.
Sometimes it would actually be healthy for
people to make this discovery.

Thank you for acknowledging that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thank you for acknowledging that.

Having seen the light, will you now abandon
all these loopy pro-Putin conspiracy theories?

 

[Nakosis]

Every single day I get updates how many people have died in Gaza or Lebanon. Every day. Many articles in my feed.

I don't think I've ever gotten an article in my feed telling me of casualties in Ukraine. Certainly not multiple articles every day.

I know why *I* think there is this double standard, but I'm curious why you all think so.

I suspect racial conflicts have more entertainment value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who writes the algorithms?

The companies that own the platforms.

Democratic/Labour funded and backed organisations, you only have to look at the bias of any 'news' outlet to understand who backs them. Of course this swings both ways, but 'left leaning' organisations are far greater in number and this pretty much covers the majority of mainstream media these days.

You are talking about news outlets who have their own reporters and publish their own articles.
If it concerns facebook, x, youtube, or some other such platform then they don't have their own reporters publishing their own stories. Their stories come from the community of users who post them. It doesn't matter who backs those platforms - they have no control over the published content.

RT News are blocked in my country, and there's very little in the way of 'right wing' mainstream media. I don't consider myself right or left leaning, those are simply labels used to divide us. There is the state/mainstream narrative and then there's the rest, if you disagree with this narrative you will be automatically labelled as some kind of 'denier' or 'fascist'.

You are once again talking about news outlets.
On "social media" platforms, anybody can post. And the algorithms will push narratives to you based on what you trained it concerning your interests. And you trained it through your browsing history as well as based on the clicks you give on the articles in your feed. If you click open anything it feeds you about Russia, it is only going to feed you more and more about Russia.

They do this because they want to trigger your interest and get views and clicks from you.
If it constantly notifies you with things you don't care about, you'll use the service less and less and eventually might even delete it.
They want your eyes pinned to the screen. They don't care what makes you look at their screen, as long as you're looking. Because every "view" means ad income.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The OP topic is: why is there a double standards situation?

And the answer is: there likely isn't. There is only the algorithm that you trained to serve you with stories about Gaza/Israel instead of Russia/Ukraine

That is, Gazans' lives are incredibly under scrutiny, whereas nobody couldn't care less about how many Ukrainian soldiers die in this war?

Have you answered?

I did answer. Digital newsfeeds are composed based on interest of the target, not based on what goes on in the world or what is most significant or important.

No...it means you do anything not to address the topic of a thread.

I addressed it directly, head on.
There is no double standard.
The OP assumes the newsfeed deliberately ignores Ukraine and focusses on Israel, regardless of the target.
This is not true. The newsfeed is composed based on the interests of the addressee, derived from the user's posting / viewing / browsing / searching / click history.

She gets news about Israel, because she trained the algorithm to give her news about Israel. Not because of some conspiratory "double standard".


For example, when I open my edge browser, I see a newsfeed from MSN. Easily 30 % of it is tennis news because lately I have been reading a lot about tennis equipment (because I have been tuning my rackets with additional weights) and following up on the ATP masters.
I don't see tennis news because msn thinks I should know about tennis. It's because msn knows that tennis interests me.

 

[Revoltingest]

And the answer is: there likely isn't. There is only the algorithm that you trained to serve you with stories about Gaza/Israel instead of Russia/Ukraine



I did answer. Digital newsfeeds are composed based on interest of the target, not based on what goes on in the world or what is most significant or important.



I addressed it directly, head on.
There is no double standard.
The OP assumes the newsfeed deliberately ignores Ukraine and focusses on Israel, regardless of the target.
This is not true. The newsfeed is composed based on the interests of the addressee, derived from the user's posting / viewing / browsing / searching / click history.

She gets news about Israel, because she trained the algorithm to give her news about Israel. Not because of some conspiratory "double standard".


For example, when I open my edge browser, I see a newsfeed from MSN. Easily 30 % of it is tennis news because lately I have been reading a lot about tennis equipment (because I have been tuning my rackets with additional weights) and following up on the ATP masters.
I don't see tennis news because msn thinks I should know about tennis. It's because msn knows that tennis interests me.

To this we can add that people tend to more
strongly remember news that confirms a bias
or inflames.

 

[Yerda]

Every single day I get updates how many people have died in Gaza or Lebanon. Every day. Many articles in my feed.

I don't think I've ever gotten an article in my feed telling me of casualties in Ukraine. Certainly not multiple articles every day.

I know why *I* think there is this double standard, but I'm curious why you all think so.

Here we are folks. Don't look at the evil Israel is doing or you're an antisemite.

 

[Tony B]

The companies that own the platforms.



You are talking about news outlets who have their own reporters and publish their own articles.
If it concerns facebook, x, youtube, or some other such platform then they don't have their own reporters publishing their own stories. Their stories come from the community of users who post them. It doesn't matter who backs those platforms - they have no control over the published content.

Seriously? you're oblivious to shadow banning and censorship then?

You are once again talking about news outlets.
On "social media" platforms, anybody can post. And the algorithms will push narratives to you based on what you trained it concerning your interests. And you trained it through your browsing history as well as based on the clicks you give on the articles in your feed. If you click open anything it feeds you about Russia, it is only going to feed you more and more about Russia.

They do this because they want to trigger your interest and get views and clicks from you.
If it constantly notifies you with things you don't care about, you'll use the service less and less and eventually might even delete it.
They want your eyes pinned to the screen. They don't care what makes you look at their screen, as long as you're looking. Because every "view" means ad income.

I did leave pretty much all social media exactly for the reasons you claim don't exist, such as shadow banning and censorship. There are other reasons, such as data mining and privacy concerns, and the fact that they have military fingerprints all over them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Seriously? you're oblivious to shadow banning and censorship then?

I'm a software engineer. I know how these things work.
I also know for a fact that there is no "steering" going on by any governments and it is purely based on user activity.

You can do the test yourself.
Spend 2 weeks not clicking articles concerning gaza / israel and instead actively search for, click, view, read stuff concerning russia / ukraine.
I'll bet you a thousand bucks that the algorithms will shift and start feeding you news about russia / ukraine.



Sure, there will also be some censorship and banning based on clear hatespeech and whatever, like islamist recruitement and alike. But those are the exception rather then the rule. And it has nothing to do with how algorithms compose newsfeeds or order search results.

 

[icehorse]

who are the “islamists” you are talking about? Are you talking about all Muslims? All Palestinians? Who?

This has been answered many times, and it's also easily searchable, but okay: Islamists are those Muslims who want to spread Sharia. So for example. many Muslims immigrate to the west. Some are very happy to live in secular society, great. But others want to convert the country they immigrated to, to Sharia. Not so great, and those Muslims are called Islamists. Politcal Islam.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

This has been answered many times, and it's also easily searchable, but okay: Islamists are those Muslims who want to spread Sharia. So for example. many Muslims immigrate to the west. Some are very happy to live in secular society, great. But others want to convert the country they immigrated to, to Sharia. Not so great, and those Muslims are called Islamists. Politcal Islam.

Noted

 

[Tony B]

This has been answered many times, and it's also easily searchable, but okay: Islamists are those Muslims who want to spread Sharia. So for example. many Muslims immigrate to the west. Some are very happy to live in secular society, great. But others want to convert the country they immigrated to, to Sharia. Not so great, and those Muslims are called Islamists. Politcal Islam.

It's been answered incorrectly, there is no Islam and political Islam, all Islam is political, it's a religion designed to be political and the supporting documents are not just the Quran. Unfortunately many Muslims themselves do not understand this because what they are told of Islam only comes from their Imams, and deception is positively encouraged in Islam if it furthers it. If you listen to what Anjem Choudary says then you will hear about the real Islam, despite what the media would have you believe. The term 'Islamist' was invented to hide the truth and convince people there is a 'peaceful' version of Islam, there isn't, history shows us this time and time again.

This doesn't mean that there aren't peaceful Muslims, these are simply Muslims who do not really know what Islam truly is. Interestingly there is a very large underground movement to convert to Christianity in Iran, and of course these people are persecuted and punished severely, for the reasons I have said, they have come to understand what Islam really is.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What feed are you talking about?

I use Google news.

And while I appreciate your point about their algorithm, I assure you that Ukraine is a huge interest of mine. I click on almost every link. So even with the effects of the algorithm, if the medea WERE actually covering how many deaths occurred in the Ukraine with each new bombing, such reports WOULD end up on my screen.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I get updates on the European invasion by Russia.

Really? Reports which list how many causalities with every new attack?

 

[Altfish]

Really? Reports which list how many causalities with every new attack?

I certainly get casualty numbers of the Russian attacks