Another analysis - with a lot of useful links - of the way social platforms managed the NYPost story, and what it tells us "about the status of social media companies’ reform efforts, and [how]... they are still failing to safeguard the democratic process?"
First some facts:
Some hypocrisy: Twitter's reason for blocking the story would also cover investigatory journalism like the Pentagon Papers and so is "enormously threatening to press freedom".
The platforms have favoured right-wing sources for years, simply because of the noise their followers and advocates make, so resetting the algorithms will always enrage "the powerful people who have thrived under the old system.”
But is this change strategic/consistent (nope!), haphazard (yep), or political, "to look busy because of a possible change in political power" (quite probable)?
Article concludes with a "who's fault is this?" debate between platforms' moderation vs. domestic disinfo. No Russians mentioned.
More Stuff I Like
More Stuff tagged social media , facebook , democracy , twitter , censorship , disinformation
See also: Content Strategy , Online Strategy , Social Media Strategy , Content Creation & Marketing , Social Web , Media , Politics
MyHub.ai saves very few cookies onto your device: we need some to monitor site traffic using Google Analytics, while another protects you from a cross-site request forgeries. Nevertheless, you can disable the usage of cookies by changing the settings of your browser. By browsing our website without changing the browser settings, you grant us permission to store that information on your device. More details in our Privacy Policy.