As far as we know, election interference means flipping votes, or stuffing ballot boxes, or even voter intimidation at the polls (which does occur). One has to prove objective causality - as in: so many votes were flipped, and it caused a change in the outcome.
But this argument of AOC is subjective: election interference cannot be blamed on airing someone's opinion in public on the internet. After all, a voter must still decide for themselves and nothing can change that dynamic, no matter what. So the link between someone's opinion on the internet, and the act of voting, is tenuous, given that it is a decison made in someone's head without violence. So, the argument is that people are influenced by what they have been reading stuff the internet, on 'unauthorized' channels. One would hope that voting is serious enough for a person to read some stuff about the election before voting. And there should be no warning labels on what they are reading, either.
The feature of social media is that one can choose to read anything, and one can choose to ignore anything. So, if Social media companies can be accused of interfering, then all media must be. The issue is that she is accusing Twitter/X of 'changing the algorithm'. If anything, the code was cleaned from bots and some people had their account re-instated - which is arguably good for dememmmocracy. Also, the old algoritm was giving an appearance of left-leaning. But, that still did not change the political mood, even in 2016, or 2020. All that the censorship and bot affirmation was doing was turning people away to other platforms in disgust. In the end, just about any opinion cannot be censored, in any kind of open internet. But that is the point: they did censor and try for an appearance of Democrat dominance, and now they are butt-hurt because they lost their hypnotic grip, once consumers switched, and even more so, when the users discovered that Twitter was ass-hoe.
AOC is thick as a brick, and I doubt that any appearance of coherence is her own doing. She is told what to say.
So, they are attempting to shape a greater narrative.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am trying to separate the objective (hard) evidence, which can be used in court, for example, from the subjective, circumstantial and often useless (soft) evidence that AOC is employing.
What I am saying is that an opinion on the internet, no matter how viral, cannot be construed as 'interference', because it is not violent to express an opinion, especially if it is simply shared from another source: For that matter, an opinion, or meme, may be shared with any intention (for example, one may disagree with a link one is sharing, as in: The left can't meme), which makes it even more subjective, as evidence.
Censorship, on the other hand, IS interference, as it objectively messes with freedom of speech. It may not be violent, but it is meddling with (shaping) public opinion, and it is against the constitution.
Originally, It is two opinions expressed on the interent, The decision to believe one of them and not the other is up to the reader.
However, amplification of one over the other is pretty sus. But how does one prove that? I suppose the noise from the censored became so loud that X has gone some distance to discard stupid algos that put dampers on, but in the end, how does one prove that one's reach is limited by any social media account?
One can suspect it is going on, and one can cover bases by using multiple social media companies. That has been the modus operandi for a lot of content creators.
I suppose that this is why some people are butthurt at TicToc, because oddly, that company aren't censoring pro-palestinian content. So the fury at them is a matter of TicToc not censoring in favor of the mainstream narrative.
Also, misinformation tictocs provide endless fodder for people to debunk, so
As far as we know, election interference means flipping votes, or stuffing ballot boxes, or even voter intimidation at the polls (which does occur). One has to prove objective causality - as in: so many votes were flipped, and it caused a change in the outcome.
But this argument of AOC is subjective: election interference cannot be blamed on airing someone's opinion in public on the internet. After all, a voter must still decide for themselves and nothing can change that dynamic, no matter what. So the link between someone's opinion on the internet, and the act of voting, is tenuous, given that it is a decison made in someone's head without violence. So, the argument is that people are influenced by what they have been reading stuff the internet, on 'unauthorized' channels. One would hope that voting is serious enough for a person to read some stuff about the election before voting. And there should be no warning labels on what they are reading, either.
The feature of social media is that one can choose to read anything, and one can choose to ignore anything. So, if Social media companies can be accused of interfering, then all media must be. The issue is that she is accusing Twitter/X of 'changing the algorithm'. If anything, the code was cleaned from bots and some people had their account re-instated - which is arguably good for dememmmocracy. Also, the old algoritm was giving an appearance of left-leaning. But, that still did not change the political mood, even in 2016, or 2020. All that the censorship and bot affirmation was doing was turning people away to other platforms in disgust. In the end, just about any opinion cannot be censored, in any kind of open internet. But that is the point: they did censor and try for an appearance of Democrat dominance, and now they are butt-hurt because they lost their hypnotic grip, once consumers switched, and even more so, when the users discovered that Twitter was ass-hoe.
AOC is thick as a brick, and I doubt that any appearance of coherence is her own doing. She is told what to say.
So, they are attempting to shape a greater narrative.
By your definition of election interference, Facebook is also innocent?
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. I am trying to separate the objective (hard) evidence, which can be used in court, for example, from the subjective, circumstantial and often useless (soft) evidence that AOC is employing.
What I am saying is that an opinion on the internet, no matter how viral, cannot be construed as 'interference', because it is not violent to express an opinion, especially if it is simply shared from another source: For that matter, an opinion, or meme, may be shared with any intention (for example, one may disagree with a link one is sharing, as in: The left can't meme), which makes it even more subjective, as evidence.
Censorship, on the other hand, IS interference, as it objectively messes with freedom of speech. It may not be violent, but it is meddling with (shaping) public opinion, and it is against the constitution.
So, no, FB is not innocent.
Gotcha, thanks for clarifying.
So under your definition would amplifying one opinion over an opposing opinion constitute censoring the latter?
Originally, It is two opinions expressed on the interent, The decision to believe one of them and not the other is up to the reader.
However, amplification of one over the other is pretty sus. But how does one prove that? I suppose the noise from the censored became so loud that X has gone some distance to discard stupid algos that put dampers on, but in the end, how does one prove that one's reach is limited by any social media account?
One can suspect it is going on, and one can cover bases by using multiple social media companies. That has been the modus operandi for a lot of content creators.
I suppose that this is why some people are butthurt at TicToc, because oddly, that company aren't censoring pro-palestinian content. So the fury at them is a matter of TicToc not censoring in favor of the mainstream narrative.
Also, misinformation tictocs provide endless fodder for people to debunk, so