Conservative media?

[BugI02]

While largely agreeing with Hohn and Twangbanger, they are off a little in the current situation, and I want to point some things out.

So called country club republicans are nearing extinction with most left in the senate. The nearly 40 republican house members retired from the house including Paul Ryan because they could not deliver what they had promised for years when Trump came to deliver it. That mass retirement of RINO's was the main reason Pelosi is speaker. Paul Ryan could have delivered and kept the gavel, but a cush job at FOX News board awaited. The senate with its 6 year terms will change slowly for that reason. At the moment Trump controls the RNC, though if he loses the fight will be on for a good while.

Most of Wall Street is globalists and now have flipped to the democratic side and are playing woke right along with them.

To the OP, Social media was sold as a way for people to connect, no conservative version will be able to succeed with out the traffic. The systems used by most of the social media are owned and no one could legally copy them. FB and Google account for the vast majority of ad revenue out there. We need to revoke the 230 protections and make them choose, conduit or publisher? Not both with protection.

Several attempts have been made to start conservative entertainment but one must look at the funding structure of entertainment. The biggest pot by far is the retransmission fees from cable and satellite subscribers, that is what keep CNN, ESPN, TCM, and even the broadcast networks rolling in the dough. Until that cartel is broken it is just impossible to get on the roster and keep the lights on. As for movies I expect that to a place where as Hollywood continues to drive off the rails for the international audience, (think China) smaller studios can offer Americans entertainment competitively...

I think they've gotten so big that, while they wouldn't give up 230 protections voluntarily, they couldn't be brought to heel over any inconveniences revocation might cause them. Who can really afford to sue Google or FB?

I would think a better tack would be like what was done to telephone and cable monopolies. Force them to carry competitors on their backbone. Competitors would have to develop their own app, but you could have Conservative FB or Libertarian FB or Right of Center Youtube and each would have to attract its own audience and be responsible for its content

 

[HoosierLife]

I use social media almost exclusively for business. I know I can run an ad on Facebook, Google, Instagram or YouTube and hit my perfect target market based on age, income, geo and 1000s of other overlapping likes and interests.

Nothing out there comes close.

The audience and tracking individual proclivities is what made these guys rich. But only because advertisers can market much more effectively with that data.

Not too long ago, energy was the most valuable commodity. Today, data reigns supreme.

Between Google and Facebook, you have more data on more people than all the intelligence agencies worldwide.

They’re in control now.

They control what you see, hear, and think. I run a Facebook group with 7000 insurance agents. (I recruit and sell advertising and marketing services to insurance agents.)

You know what I do if a competitor comes in and tries to sell their wares in my group? I delete their comments and ban them from the group.

My reasoning is that I spent years building this, contributing my blood, sweat and tears to make it is what it is today. I’m going to be the main person to profit from it.

I imagine Zuckerberg and the Google execs think the same way. Just along a more ideological direction. They don’t care about money anymore.

Now they want to change the world. For the better, in their eyes.

 

[Ingomike]

I think they've gotten so big that, while they wouldn't give up 230 protections voluntarily, they couldn't be brought to heel over any inconveniences revocation might cause them. Who can really afford to sue Google or FB?

I would think a better tack would be like what was done to telephone and cable monopolies. Force them to carry competitors on their backbone. Competitors would have to develop their own app, but you could have Conservative FB or Libertarian FB or Right of Center Youtube and each would have to attract its own audience and be responsible for its content

Hey! Stop stealing my ideas! Or maybe great minds think alike. I have long advocated a similar approach on the same precedent. Anyone could share accross the different apps on the backbone. On the FB side the ad revenue would go to the displaying app and ad content would be controlled by the displaying app.

The other concern is how to break up Google, or technically Alphabet. I would break them back up, we never should have let them buy all they have including YouTube and Waze. They have too much power both to control search and the advertising revenue in this country.

 

[Ingomike]

I use social media almost exclusively for business. I know I can run an ad on Facebook, Google, Instagram or YouTube and hit my perfect target market based on age, income, geo and 1000s of other overlapping likes and interests.

Nothing out there comes close.

The audience and tracking individual proclivities is what made these guys rich. But only because advertisers can market much more effectively with that data.

Not too long ago, energy was the most valuable commodity. Today, data reigns supreme.

Between Google and Facebook, you have more data on more people than all the intelligence agencies worldwide.

They’re in control now.

They control what you see, hear, and think. I run a Facebook group with 7000 insurance agents. (I recruit and sell advertising and marketing services to insurance agents.)

You know what I do if a competitor comes in and tries to sell their wares in my group? I delete their comments and ban them from the group.

My reasoning is that I spent years building this, contributing my blood, sweat and tears to make it is what it is today. I’m going to be the main person to profit from it.

I imagine Zuckerberg and the Google execs think the same way. Just along a more ideological direction. They don’t care about money anymore.

Now they want to change the world. For the better, in their eyes.

When you are a monopoly I will vote to have you broken up too...

 

[BugI02]

Hey! Stop stealing my ideas! Or maybe great minds think alike. I have long advocated a similar approach on the same precedent. Anyone could share accross the different apps on the backbone. On the FB side the ad revenue would go to the displaying app and ad content would be controlled by the displaying app.

[Perhaps like the Apple appstore model, where the host gets a fixed percentage]

The other concern is how to break up Google, or technically Alphabet. I would break them back up, we never should have let them buy all they have including YouTube and Waze. They have too much power both to control search and the advertising revenue in this country.

I wouldn't want to hinder innovation in search, because they have really done an excellent job, so IMO have them spin off Youtube, Waze and the other services that piggyback on search. With FB simultaneously taken down a peg or two, they may have less of a reason to be so competition driven and if forced to concentrate on core business they may revert to being driven by excellence. To keep them from meddling in politics, encourage congress to pass regulations that dilute or eviscerate Citizen's United

 

[JettaKnight]

I think they've gotten so big that, while they wouldn't give up 230 protections voluntarily, they couldn't be brought to heel over any inconveniences revocation might cause them. Who can really afford to sue Google or FB?

I would think a better tack would be like what was done to telephone and cable monopolies. Force them to carry competitors on their backbone. Competitors would have to develop their own app, but you could have Conservative FB or Libertarian FB or Right of Center Youtube and each would have to attract its own audience and be responsible for its content

Thus furthering the echo chambers?


Have Twitter/Google/FB/YouTube become de facto utilities worthy of *gulp* regulation?

 

[Ingomike]

Thus furthering the echo chambers?


Have Twitter/Google/FB/YouTube become de facto utilities worthy of *gulp* regulation?

Do you think the behavior they exhibit is just fine, so have them carry on as they wish?

 

[Ingomike]

I wouldn't want to hinder innovation in search, because they have really done an excellent job, so IMO have them spin off Youtube, Waze and the other services that piggyback on search. With FB simultaneously taken down a peg or two, they may have less of a reason to be so competition driven and if forced to concentrate on core business they may revert to being driven by excellence. To keep them from meddling in politics, encourage congress to pass regulations that dilute or eviscerate Citizen's United

My struggle is with the search manipulation by Google that has really been identified in the past few years. Their results are no longer the best results for many searches, but the results they want you to see, particularly in current events and politics.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

My struggle is with the search manipulation by Google that has really been identified in the past few years. Their results are no longer the best results for many searches, but the results they want you to see, particularly in current events and politics.

"The Medium is the Massage" - Marshall McLuhan

Concerning the title, McLuhan wrote:

The title "The Medium Is the Massage" is a teaser—a way of getting attention. There's a wonderful sign hanging in a Toronto junkyard which reads, 'Help Beautify Junkyards. Throw Something Lovely Away Today.' This is a very effective way of getting people to notice a lot of things. And so the title is intended to draw attention to the fact that a medium is not something neutral—it does something to people. It takes hold of them. It rubs them off, it massages them and bumps them around, chiropractically, as it were, and the general roughing up that any new society gets from a medium, especially a new medium, is what is intended in that title"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

 

[BugI02]

My struggle is with the search manipulation by Google that has really been identified in the past few years. Their results are no longer the best results for many searches, but the results they want you to see, particularly in current events and politics.

I was thinking more of how much headway they have madde in allowing plain text for search

Referencing my discussions with Sheepdog4life, think about how sophisticated search has become in that it can accept a search term of 'what is tokyo's per capita covid infection rate' or 'when did Bermuda institute mandatory masking' and return a meaningful, useful result

 

[Kdf101]

I’m not giving up hope. I don’t have the technology background to compete with the ideas you guys have floated. I do believe however, that something big will eventually break the system, and that is where we will have an opportunity.

 

[Route 45]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/online-censorship-conservative-big-tech

 

[Hohn]

I think they've gotten so big that, while they wouldn't give up 230 protections voluntarily, they couldn't be brought to heel over any inconveniences revocation might cause them. Who can really afford to sue Google or FB?

I would think a better tack would be like what was done to telephone and cable monopolies. Force them to carry competitors on their backbone. Competitors would have to develop their own app, but you could have Conservative FB or Libertarian FB or Right of Center Youtube and each would have to attract its own audience and be responsible for its content

You mean like the “fairness doctrine” they want to foist on conservative talk radio? No thanks.

 

[jamil]

You mean like the “fairness doctrine” they want to foist on conservative talk radio? No thanks.

Talk radio is the predecessor to social media in terms of manipulation. It's less interactive, but still has a behavior-modifying characteristic. If you weren't radical before listening to it, you're highly likely to be so after having listened to it for a long time.

I think the fairness doctrine should make a return to news shows. Not to talk/opinion shows that don't claim to report hard news. So your Rush Limbaugh show would still be the far right ideologue show you love and expect. The fairness doctrine required FCC Licensees to present controversial topics in a fair and balanced way. So we wouldn't want to hold Rush to that standard.

 

[NKBJ]

Wondering everyone’s thoughts on this. The reason the left is winning the “social war” so to speak, is because everything is ran by liberals. Sports, Colleges, Hollywood, Music industry, etc all the way down to elementary schools now. Conservatives don’t even fight with the same tools they use. If someone in sports comes out conservative, they eventually back down and give in, usually.

The problem is, imo, the left controls 99% of media. All the main tv networks are ran by the left. Facebook and twitter are ran by the left. Why aren’t conservatives starting to do this? We have conservative outlets, like ingo, but nothing mainstream... so all these people read the saaaaaaame bs on 10 different sources and believe it. We have Fox News, and they’re starting to cave. Conservatives have plenty of people with wealth that could invest in this battle, why aren’t they? Why are they content with watching the country be taken over by corrupt FBI agents, a media that covers for them, and colleges and platforms censoring conservative views?

Why aren’t conservatives starting mainstream media outlets, making movies, music, etc? They’re out there, they’re just afraid to fight, but if media was 50/50 they wouldn’t have to fight, they’d have the support to come out and not be bullied and assaulted.

This outfit recently release a video production "Sacrificing Liberty" about President Johnson working to get a war going with Egypt and how they tried to destroy the USS Liberty to justify it.
A link to yesterday's news show:
https://www.trunews.com/stream/post...s-mix-coronavirus-global-governance-and-peace

They're just about as conservative as you'll find and brazenly outspoken in their beliefs.
Years ago they established their own production and broadcast capabilities in anticipation of media platforms being denied to voices countering the drive towards the globalist one world religion and government.

A word of caution, they aren't left or right. They just go where the evidence leads, present it and tell you what they think about it. That means your ox is gonna get gored no matter who you are.

 

[jamil]

Okay. Let me get this straight. They are "just about as conservative as you'll find" AND "they aren't left or right". At the same time. Yeah.

 

[Ingomike]

Okay. Let me get this straight. They are "just about as conservative as you'll find" AND "they aren't left or right". At the same time. Yeah.

So one of high conviction on issues cannot do a fair analysis and "gore" everyone's ox?

 

[jamil]

So one of high conviction on issues cannot do a fair analysis and "gore" everyone's ox?

If they really do a fair analysis you shouldn't be able to figure out they're left or right.

 

[Ingomike]

If they really do a fair analysis you shouldn't be able to figure out they're left or right.

Probably something we disagree on, there are no neutral humans, maybe indecisive, but not neutral...

 

[jamil]

Tim Russert. He was a Democrat but you couldn't tell by his reporting. I saw him take some Democrats to the woodshed on many occasions.