The Creepy Line

In watching this program, I became aware if three things: 1) Not everyone in it was as neutral as they would appear 2) Not all the information was inaccurate 3) Just because a correlation occurred, didn't mean it was a fact

Whether it was because I felt the undercurrent of the film and began questioning it's motivation or if the main speaker's slickster vibes reminded me of a greasy snake oil salesman, I began to ask myself questions-- Are these platforms truly any different than other media platforms? What is the actual complaint or message they wish to express? Is this any different than any other big conglomerate? How can this be morally incomprehensible if we allow other platforms to pick their messaging? Are there alternatives? Would a person HAVE to use these platforms or could they pick another? Is this fear mongering? Why is this a thing?

My conclusions were as follows: No, a person wouldn't have to use these formats. Yes, this is fear mongering. Cherry picking. Selective information release-- in hopes a person grabs on to the half answer or Skewed conclusion because part of the information given is possible. What difference is there between the Fox or CNN tilt and the one they say occurs in Facebook or Google in the sense that those who use the formats get what they 'want' due to how they choose to look at it? If I am a Fox news watcher, am I not swayed by those who are running this format to the views that are presented with the same amount of rose color in the glasses as are the CNN watchers or the Facebook users? Why assume the tilt is neutral? Why assume that there IS'NT a bias in ALL of it..? This flick serves as a reminder that MOST media has it's own agenda and that there are VERY few sources which are truly neutral. Facebook and Google are no different than ANY other -- though both might have a mathematical formula to narrow to the median view rather than a specific agenda when using the information-- making them categorically the same as other outlets. If a person spent 10 mins looking up the main cast of players in this flick, they would learn -- rather quickly-- that those with the biggest opinions tended to be those who had the most to gain from breaching trust between the viewer and these companies. Weird, eh? 😂 Serendipitous. This is a pretty insidious attempt to create friction with these companies. It's hard to take as even vaguely credible because of how radical they pretend it is for mass media to stir opinions-- like everyone out there is so 'fair and balanced' and these are the only sources attempting to disrupt the perfectly neutral and unbiased presentation of information that we currently have-- Bbawhahahahaha!! ( Big wink, big wink)

Watch it if you enjoy being treated like a mushroom. A stupid mushroom.

The concentration of power in Facebook and Google is dangerous. Both are controlled by Leftists who have abused their power.

Honestly, I was VERY surprised to see Amazon Prime had this. Very. They all all kind of in bed with each other, Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc...

This is a must watch doc. MUST WATCH. After finishing it, I feel like one of the mouses in a maze being told where to go and when.

We are all sheep right now.

Think for yourself. Dont blindly follow the mob.

Peace.

10/10 Must see.

I am not sure why so many seem to think this is so biased. The whole point of the documentary is to demonstrate how Google and Facebook are able to manipulate SOME people's opinion through their algorithms. It also shows how they sell information to various buyers through data collection. I am not sure how this falls into the 'conspiracy theory' but apparently it's too much for some viewers. Many of the supporting evidence has been corroborated by other news outlets. To believe that companies do not have agendas and are trying to be as profitable as possible is naive.

It may also inform you quite a bit. Some reviewers want to dismiss some of the info as "right wing conspiracy theory". I disagree.

More importantly, even if you do not believe that the tools have been used exactly as claimed, there is nothing that they claim is happening that CANNOT be done, and, as they point out, we have absolutely no method whatsoever, as users, to have any clue whether any of it is being done or not, and THAT is the problem.

You can dismiss the few points where you decide that they are "too conservative", and take the underlying possibilities as the real point.

And I suspect that they have barely scratched the surface.