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
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