He’s deleting accounts just like the last guys. For now you agree with who it’s happening to and allow it. Soon it will affect you too. Twitter and all entities like it must be destroyed. It’s pure poison in its current form
Tucker Carlson
- Thread starter other1
- Start date
Where would you suggest people get news from in the United States? MSM is in the tank for the dem party. How many countless hours of undeniable Trump/Russia collusion were there? How many of them (hint- It was all of them) were sounding the alarm that the Hunter laptop story was fake in order to influence the election in favor of their party? Thee are countless examples of the obvious bias for all the msm networks.
To be clear, I am not saying fox news is some beacon of truth, but neither is any other news outlet I can name here. Honestly, BBC is probably the most unbiased source for American news at this point.
The press has become a complete abomination as a whole. There is no such thing as journalistic integrity anymore- on either side.
We know the weasel Paul Ryan was neck deep in this.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
FOX Corp Board Member Paul Ryan Urged FOX News to "Move on from Trump" - Was Likely Involved in Tucker Carlson's Separation from Channel | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Former House Speaker and current FOX News Board member Paul Ryan Former Speaker and unabashed Trump-hater Paul Ryan pushed FOX News owners Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch to refrain from reporting on allegations of election fraud following the 2020 election.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Outraged patriots cancel Fox Nation subscriptions in droves in wake of Tucker news... here's how to cancel yours... - Revolver News
Is Fox News already getting the "Bud Light" treatment?
www.revolver.news
You hate Freedom and I don’t.
You can’t stand that people are allowed to speak the truth.
There has always been a terms of service. The terms are the most free and fair of any social media service (since open sourcing) and you can’t stand it!
Last edited:
He is irrelevant.We know the weasel Paul Ryan was neck deep in this.
FOX Corp Board Member Paul Ryan Urged FOX News to "Move on from Trump" - Was Likely Involved in Tucker Carlson's Separation from Channel | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
Former House Speaker and current FOX News Board member Paul Ryan Former Speaker and unabashed Trump-hater Paul Ryan pushed FOX News owners Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch to refrain from reporting on allegations of election fraud following the 2020 election.
The only reputable place for information is NewsNation and BBC. How anyone watches MSNBC CNN or Fox is beyond me. Literally no different than the National Enquirer 90% of the time.
CNN is now allowing their decent journalists to actually speak their minds since Zucker was booted. I did not say good, I’m saying people like Dana Bash and John King aren’t terrible.
Long time BBC viewer and NewsNation has the attitude to truly be a neutral platform. I hate the word neutral…. Honest factual platform.
Cuomo Vittert Abrams are damn good. Chris was a SHILL but that was old CNN putting in the guardrails.
Last edited:
In other words, confirmation bias will determine which news stories are reported. That will be great!
Honestly, he likely doesn't understand at all the issue with that.
So there is no bias at the NYTimes, CNN, MSNDC, or Fox?
Twitter gives you an alternative type of bias. Some will find it better some will not. But MSM (deep state) no longer holds a monopoly on “the truth”
Twitter is the most open and transparent with their bias as they open sourced their algorithm and it can be tested and verified.
For anyone who wants to relive the glorious moment Jon Stewart got Tucker's first cable show canceled.
Has Twitter discovered a better way of correcting online falsehoods?
The strength of the platform’s Community Notes feature is that it works through consensus
@yoshi121374
I think I might have let out an audible groan in November when I saw Elon Musk proclaiming that his mission was to make Twitter “by far the most accurate source of information about the world”. This is a man, after all, who has not in the past shown a particularly ardent commitment to the truth. In 2018, in a now infamous tweet, Musk said he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private (a deal that never materialised). And in 2020, he tweeted that children were “essentially immune” from Covid-19 (this turned out to be false). Yet there is a feature of the social media platform that Musk seems genuinely excited about, and which is changing the game when it comes to internet-based fact-checking: Community Notes. Community Notes is a feature that allows users to “add context” below other people’s tweets if they think they contain false or misleading information. Its origins predate Musk’s acquisition of Twitter — it was first piloted in the US in January 2021, though until November was called “Birdwatch” (a name that Musk said gave him “the creeps”) — but it has been expanded since the Tesla co-founder took the helm. You can think of the feature as a bit like a crowdsourced misinformation-fighting system: a contributor can add a note when they feel a tweet is false or needing additional context, and other contributors are then asked to vote on whether this note is “helpful” or not. If enough contributors decide that it is, the note will appear underneath the original tweet (even in tweets that are embedded on other sites — a feature that was announced last week). If it’s not, other Twitter users will never see it. Community Notes differs from traditional fact-checking — which I believe can be valuable but has too often been used as a political weapon — in several important ways. First, and most obviously, the fact that it is done via consensus rather than by one person reduces both the likelihood and the influence of individual error or bias. Second, the feature does not actually call itself a “fact check”; rather, we are told that “readers added context”. This is an important difference — it’s an approach that treats facts as complex and contested and evolving, rather than imagining that they are always straightforward, undisputed and established. Finally, unlike not just regular fact-checking sites but also the rest of Twitter, Community Notes are totally anonymous, meaning there isn’t the normal incentive to virtue-signal or score points. It’s not a perfect system. Twitter says that it’s only once enough contributors “from different points of view” rate a note that it earns the status of “helpful”. It says it assesses not by gathering information such as gender or political affiliation, but by looking at how people have rated notes in the past. This all sounds sensible, but it is difficult to ensure that the pool of contributors is diverse enough to start with. Just how different are these different points of view, and is the median one in the centre or is it some way off to the side? Furthermore, how to ensure balance in terms of which tweets get context added to them? It’s unclear. Most of the tweets that I have seen getting “Community Noted” (yes, it’s already a verb) are from people on the left — like MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan last week, after a claim he made about rates of intraracial violence. Hasan responded to what was, in my view, fair and warranted added context by saying the Community Notes feature “has become another weapon of the right on Musk’s Twitter”. This could end up being a self-fulfilling issue: if left-leaning users do not engage as much as others, Community Notes will become skewed towards the right. Molly White, a contributor who joined while it was still called Birdwatch, who is also a Wikipedia editor and who describes herself as a “leftist”, tells me that she has largely stopped contributing to the system since Musk’s takeover. “I was never particularly interested in providing labour for free for Twitter even under its previous ownership, but especially not now under Elon Musk,” she says. But imperfect though it might be, Twitter is providing a model for a fairer, more transparent way to correct untruths and provide missing context on the internet. The company has even taken the quite radical step of allowing adverts to be Community Noted (a win for consumers, surely, though advertisers might not feel the same way). Donald Trump is currently given 5/2 odds of winning next year’s US presidential election; being able to quickly correct false and misleading information before it spreads online is more important than ever. Musk might not always practise what he preaches. But that doesn’t mean his gospel is always wrong.
Last edited:
Has Twitter discovered a better way of correcting online falsehoods?
The strength of the platform’s Community Notes feature is that it works through consensuswww.ft.com
@yoshi121374
I think I might have let out an audible groan in November when I saw Elon Musk proclaiming that his mission was to make Twitter “by far the most accurate source of information about the world”. This is a man, after all, who has not in the past shown a particularly ardent commitment to the truth. In 2018, in a now infamous tweet, Musk said he had “funding secured” to take Tesla private (a deal that never materialised). And in 2020, he tweeted that children were “essentially immune” from Covid-19 (this turned out to be false). Yet there is a feature of the social media platform that Musk seems genuinely excited about, and which is changing the game when it comes to internet-based fact-checking: Community Notes. Community Notes is a feature that allows users to “add context” below other people’s tweets if they think they contain false or misleading information. Its origins predate Musk’s acquisition of Twitter — it was first piloted in the US in January 2021, though until November was called “Birdwatch” (a name that Musk said gave him “the creeps”) — but it has been expanded since the Tesla co-founder took the helm. You can think of the feature as a bit like a crowdsourced misinformation-fighting system: a contributor can add a note when they feel a tweet is false or needing additional context, and other contributors are then asked to vote on whether this note is “helpful” or not. If enough contributors decide that it is, the note will appear underneath the original tweet (even in tweets that are embedded on other sites — a feature that was announced last week). If it’s not, other Twitter users will never see it. Community Notes differs from traditional fact-checking — which I believe can be valuable but has too often been used as a political weapon — in several important ways. First, and most obviously, the fact that it is done via consensus rather than by one person reduces both the likelihood and the influence of individual error or bias. Second, the feature does not actually call itself a “fact check”; rather, we are told that “readers added context”. This is an important difference — it’s an approach that treats facts as complex and contested and evolving, rather than imagining that they are always straightforward, undisputed and established. Finally, unlike not just regular fact-checking sites but also the rest of Twitter, Community Notes are totally anonymous, meaning there isn’t the normal incentive to virtue-signal or score points. It’s not a perfect system. Twitter says that it’s only once enough contributors “from different points of view” rate a note that it earns the status of “helpful”. It says it assesses not by gathering information such as gender or political affiliation, but by looking at how people have rated notes in the past. This all sounds sensible, but it is difficult to ensure that the pool of contributors is diverse enough to start with. Just how different are these different points of view, and is the median one in the centre or is it some way off to the side? Furthermore, how to ensure balance in terms of which tweets get context added to them? It’s unclear. Most of the tweets that I have seen getting “Community Noted” (yes, it’s already a verb) are from people on the left — like MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan last week, after a claim he made about rates of intraracial violence. Hasan responded to what was, in my view, fair and warranted added context by saying the Community Notes feature “has become another weapon of the right on Musk’s Twitter”. This could end up being a self-fulfilling issue: if left-leaning users do not engage as much as others, Community Notes will become skewed towards the right. Molly White, a contributor who joined while it was still called Birdwatch, who is also a Wikipedia editor and who describes herself as a “leftist”, tells me that she has largely stopped contributing to the system since Musk’s takeover. “I was never particularly interested in providing labour for free for Twitter even under its previous ownership, but especially not now under Elon Musk,” she says. But imperfect though it might be, Twitter is providing a model for a fairer, more transparent way to correct untruths and provide missing context on the internet. The company has even taken the quite radical step of allowing adverts to be Community Noted (a win for consumers, surely, though advertisers might not feel the same way). Donald Trump is currently given 5/2 odds of winning next year’s US presidential election; being able to quickly correct false and misleading information before it spreads online is more important than ever. Musk might not always practise what he preaches. But that doesn’t mean his gospel is always wrong.
I love how this author says "Donald Trump is currently given 5/2 odds of winning next year’s US presidential election; being able to quickly correct false and misleading information before it spreads online is more important than ever" yet ignores all the false hoods coming out of the Biden administration. Russian Collusion, 50 intelligence agents, tried to re-open schools blah blah blah. 🤡
It blows my mind how consistently wrong you are on literally every topic.
But is so passionately certain he is right. Also, he is so happy about an open source algorithm. He can't explain it,but he knows that it's gonna be great!
Community notes is a game changer!
Except the participants all run under aliases which promotes false information being passed along as truth. What happens when Russian troll farms start focusing community notes to influence public opinion?
Here is some help figuring out what open source means in relation to Twitter. Not sure why you are having such a hard time with it.
I'm not having a hard time with it, ai just know it's not what you think it is. It will be easily manipulated by this parties as suggested about by @WapPride
It is not easily manipulated. If you read the article, which you obviously didn't, you would notice that the author appears to be neutral to left leaning and she makes the claim that it can't be easily manipulated. She points out that diversity in certain areas (race, gender, political ideology) can't be guaranteed
That being said, I'm not aware of any other major social media site that has a better way of getting to the truth.
What methods do you support for finding the truth? Do you support fact-checkers? Do you support some kind of board that will determine truth? I hear you complain and act elite and pretend i don't understand but lets hear some of your thoughts and suggestions.
Yep. As anyone can tell you, there's MAYBE an hour or two worth of news that really matters in a day. When you have stations that are 24 hour news, by definition you have 22-23 hours of either repeats or stuff that's not news.
I would agree with this... MSNBC is a TERRIBLE source. Very nearly as bad as thegatewaypundit.
12 million views in the first 2 hours. lol
Legacy media has competition!
Legacy media has competition!
Last edited:
Again, when your best source is someone called "Catturd" you have surely arrived.
You can check for yourself if that makes you feel better. 65 million views and counting in less than 24 hours. Bye Bye legacy media.
Similar threads
