[ethagknight]

Manufactured consensus is literally the name of the game for the big news networks. News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story. That is Manufactured Consensus. Some countries do a better job making the news seem like a separate arm from the government. The entire point is to direct the populace. That is not the core focus of X, even though it is entirely susceptible to it, and will be encountered on any such platform. yes Reddit is horrible, but I would say Wikipedia is even more dangerous because it presents as basic facts. Reddit at least you know it's some obscene username giving geopolitical strategy rants.

Important to note, I first saw this specific chart and claim of Musk's heavy handed influence via X. Also, I see plenty of dissenting opinions (in a general sense on Trump, Tariffs, Musk, DOGE, etc) on X. Alternative views definitely have reach.

Also important to note, my posts, where I am very knowledgeable in my domain and will spend an unreasonable amount of time authoring posts to make various points, will garner mere double digit views, so when someone cries about no longer have millions of views for their uneducated hot takes... spare the tears.

[seadan83]

Outside of PBS, do you have evidence for this claim: "News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story"?

> Alternative views definitely have reach.

Yes, but are we in a 1984 situation where that reach is managed behind the scenes. Reach, but perhaps not too much reach. With respect to the chart, how do we know that Twitter users are not largely partitioned? How representative is the fact you saw something compared to other "communities" on X?

All the while, even if you saw a 'dissenting' chart, the fact the chart exists is direct evidence to the power of a subtle shadow-ban effect. It's not about tears and whining, it's that a single act by 'powerful' accounts can control who gets visibility, and who does not. The point is that it is not you, the community that controls what is popular, but it is the powerful accounts that do. That is the issue.

[alabastervlog]

> Outside of PBS, do you have evidence for this claim: "News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story"?

Yeah, they wouldn't have to rely so much on Madison Avenue if they were just paying the news agencies to report whatever they want.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I'd characterize even PBS' government funding as "vast sums", either absolutely or relatively (to the rest of their funding).

[DFHippie]

> Outside of PBS

How much influence do you imagine PBS wields and how much money do you suppose is in these vast sums they are paid?

PBS is mostly known for Sesame Street and nature documentaries. Their government funding has been whittled down to almost nothing over years of relentless attack from the Republicans.

Here's some discussion from PBS itself on the topic:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/a-look-at-the-history-of-p...

A pull quote:

"The U.S. is almost literally off the chart for how little we allocate towards our public media. At the federal level, it comes out to a little over $1.50 per person per year. Compare that to the Brits, who spend roughly $100 per person per year for the BBC. Northern European countries spend well over $100 per person per year."

[the_optimist]

Reddit mgmt itself has significant concerns, according to anonymous sources. You heard it here first.

[ethagknight]

I get and agree that 'super accounts' like Musk or Taylor Swift or Barack Obama can have an outsized impact that is too powerful.

Strongly argue that TODAY has far more diversity of thought being communicated on various media than 2024. Disagree on being "in 1984 situation," the whole "Biden is sharp as a tack" -> replaced without primary "Campaign of Joy" is as 1984 is you can get. Very clear evidence of syndication occurring across various news outlets, and those syndicated stories don't happen for free. The hard evidence you request is thoroughly concealed and hard to follow as it gets washed through non profits and NGOs. USASpending shows $2mm direct in 2024 to NYT as an example, but it's no stretch to assert indirect sources as well.

[seadan83]

> Disagree on being "in 1984 situation,"

We are not on the same page. I was not referring to a 1984 situation in the sense that government now currently has control over all information and strictly controls it. If anything, we're more in a "Brave New World" situation than 1984.

I was referring to instead just a tactic used in 1984 where the dissenting opposition is controlled rather than suppressed. The dissent is allowed to exist, but it's in a controlled manner. I'm also only referring to within Twitter/X as well, not about US society.

> The hard evidence you request is thoroughly concealed and hard to follow as it gets washed through non profits and NGOs.

In contrast, 'soft' evidence sounds like the stuff of unsubstantiated claims - which is not evidence. So, we can probably just simply talk about evidence, the distinction of 'hard' vs 'soft' seems meaningless to me (soft evidence is simply not evidence). My question - how is someone to distinguish between evidence that is thoroughly concealed vs evidence that does not exist? If you can't distinguish between the two, then is it fair to say that evidence that was destroyed is simply no longer there? Can you show evidence of this destruction?

> USASpending shows $2mm direct in 2024 to NYT

Where can I see that?

Checking 'USASpending.gov", searching for 'recipients' and then NYT, it shows a total awarded amount of "$322,716" [1].

Though, giving you all of the benefit of the argument and let's say the $2mm direct is true. A quick google search shows annual 2024 revenue for NYT was $2.6B (which surprises me it is that much). $2mm is less than 0.1% of revenues. Seems like NYT would hardly miss it if it were gone.

[1] https://www.usaspending.gov/recipient/f05659be-52e5-38ef-461...

[jandrese]

> News is/was paid vast sums by the government to tell a certain story.

In the US it is not the government paying these sums, it is the billionaires who bought the media outlets. When you look for editorial bias in the US it's not pro-government, it's pro-wealth. Or more specifically pro-wealthy people.

> I would say Wikipedia is even more dangerous because it presents as basic facts.

Can you give some examples of political bias in Wikipedia articles?

[smallmancontrov]

Musk didn't just put a thumb on the scale in favor of far-right content, he sat his entire pre-ozempic ass on the scale.