[mike10010100]

> the same kinds of people who control Facebook also control the mainstream media

There's that conspiracy language again!

And then you go on to link a piece of "mainstream media" that writes extensively about it! Did you mean to prove yourself wrong?

[repolfx]

PC Mag is mainstream media, now? How many readers do you think it has compared to a national newspaper?

It's hardly a conspiracy - the worldviews of these people are formed in the same crucibles and result in the same outcomes. They want to manipulate the narrative to ensure the right outcomes, in their view.

[mike10010100]

> PC Mag is mainstream media, now? How many readers do you think it has compared to a national newspaper?

You're comparing apples to oranges. What's it's ranking among tech/PC websites?

How about the Guardian?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/14/facebook-bans-...

How about BBC?

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46746601

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43398417

How about Wired?

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-britain-first-far-r...

Is that mainstream enough for you?

> They want to manipulate the narrative to ensure the right outcomes, in their view.

Prove it.

[repolfx]

I said very little was said, not literally nothing. We see articles in these outlets decrying tech firms for not doing enough to combat 'extremism' nearly every day. How often do we see mention of political parties being banned? It's not discussed anywhere near as much.

Look, the original comment I was taking issue with said this:

"Journalists would be absolutely salivating at the thought of writing about Facebook's new policy [of de-platforming and banning any discussion praising, defending, or favoring a political party], especially if it was that blatant."

That clearly isn't the case because it's happened already and journalists didn't salivate over it - they reported the event once and then it was never brought up again.

[mike10010100]

> I said very little was said

Really? Because from the citations I've given, it looks like a lot was said.

> That clearly isn't the case because it's happened already and journalists didn't salivate over it - they reported the event once and then it was never brought up again.

Because it was uneventful. It was a universally reviled thing that got banned, and rightfully so. There doesn't have to be "another side" to a story when that "other side" is filled with nothing but hate.