this post was submitted on 30 May 2024
249 points (97.0% liked)

Asklemmy

43940 readers
457 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Should we stop supporting them with our eyes for taking sponsorships from shady companies?

Edit: I took my first step and unsubscribed from the channel and I will continue to withhold my viewership to those that don’t take better care of the viewers.

Likely doesn’t matter, but I’m on a roll of not giving my money to companies that are immoral so why not do the same with my eyes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, but why aren't they marking all the news sources that implicitly push the idea that gender exists as biased in that way? Why do they ignore certain biases and not others? The answer is that they're conflating bias with controversy. If something is uncontroversial, they're saying it's unbiased. That's bad.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I guess they level a political narrative over that of social narratives. As someone who's not LGBT (but obviously will always vote for the rights of others), it's the political one I care about most to read, and I'm guessing a majority of their readers too.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's not an LGBT thing. I'm using gender as an example of a thing we can all agree is a social construct so I can make my point about bias without having to get any more controversial with it. But if you really want a political example, here is the same point but more political:

Every news source that refers to the existence of the United States of America is biased. The USA is a social construct, it doesn't have objective existence. And many groups have objected to its existence, as it's a genocidal state illegally occupying stolen land. Any news article which refers to the USA as though it were a thing that exists is implicitly pushing settler colonial narratives. This is a clear bias. Ground news should be labelling any article which refers to the USA as biased.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Anything, if you examine it, is just a social construct. The news sometimes wield these constructs to create false narratives to constrict our views/rights, but more often than not, the news is simply trying to convey a set of events from its perspective using a shared grammar that the majority of its audience will understand.

We cant push the frontier without having a base.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah, now you're starting to get it. Everything is a social construct and all news is biased in favour of certain constructs. What Ground News does in judging some sources as less biased is dangerous nonsense.

Course, antirealists don't believe in a reality, so I'd say they're the only group which is capable of less bias than the human norm. And they're all anarcho communists.