Fascinating New Study Suggests (Again) That Twitter Moderation Is Biased Against Misinformation, Not Conservatives
from the if-you-don't-want-to-get-banned-stop-sharing-bullshit dept
Behold! An actually interesting academic study exploring whether or not Twitter moderation has an anti-conservative bias! This is something many of us have been asking for for a while, but it’s a very difficult thing to study in any meaningful way. The results of this study are actually really fascinating, but it’s important to dig into some of the background first.
I know, I know, it’s become a key part of “the narrative” that social media websites have an “anti-conservative bias” in how they moderate. As we’ve pointed out over and over again there remains little evidence to support this. Content moderation is impossible to do well at scale. Mistakes are always going to be made, and pointing to this or that anecdote, without context, isn’t proving anything regarding bias. Indeed, every single “example” I’ve seen people trot out as “evidence” of anti-conservative bias, upon looking more closely, falls apart.
Take, for example, the popular claim that Twitter blocking a NY Post tweet about Hunter Biden’s laptop is proof of bias. However, as we discussed at the time, Twitter very clearly had a policy forbidding the linking to “hacked” documents. And Twitter had actually used that same policy to shut down DDoSecrets’ account for… publishing documents that exposed law enforcement wrongdoing. So, here we have evidence that the same policy was used to block links to articles about police misconduct as well (which would generally be a key liberal talking point, less a conservative one) and the Biden laptop article.
Now, to be clear, we always thought this policy was stupid and were happy that Twitter changed its policy on this point soon after. But, the company did nothing to stop the actual discussions of Biden’s laptop (just links to that one story), and Twitter had already shown that it enforced that policy against publications that would be mostly seen as “left leaning” as well. That’s not proof of bias. Just bad policy.
There have been a few attempts to “study” whether or not anti-conservative bias actually is happening, but they all come up empty. I mean, there was one ridiculous and non-scientific study that said that Twitter’s decision to remove accounts like the American Nazi Party along with some noted white supremacists proved an anti-conservative bias, but when conservatives are self-identifying with the American Nazi Party, then your argument about bias already is going to have some issues.
There was another study looking at Facebook, performed by a subsidiary of Facebook (though, the data all seemed legit), that suggested at least on Facebook that the company was willing to promote Trumpist voices more than anti-Trump voices. But that still wasn’t proving very much.
There certainly have been other reports about what’s going on inside these companies, including how Mark Zuckerberg had Facebook change its rules to better protect Trumpists (again suggesting the opposite of anti-conservative bias). Or about how Twitter had to dial back an algorithmic change that would have suppressed white supremacists because that algorithm was having trouble distinguishing neo-Nazis from prominent Republicans (see the report above about the American Nazi Party).
Separately, there is an issue in that when conservatives (really Trump supporting conservatives) are suspended… they tend to yell more loudly about it. Over the weekend I saw a discussion in response to a very prominent investor saying that it was obvious that Twitter was biased against conservatives, where a few self-identifying conservatives said that they’d never heard of any non-conservative getting suspended from Twitter… while also admitting they didn’t follow any (without recognizing how this might bias their own views). The fact is that non-conservative users are frequently suspended as well — often for things like calling out racism or pushing back against homophobia. But those don’t get blasted all over Fox News.
Anyway, that finally takes us to this new study, done by four researchers from a variety of different universities (mainly MIT and Yale): Qi Yang, Mohsen Mosleh, Tauhid Zaman and David Rand. Now, it’s important to note that this study specifically looked at political speech (the area that people are most concerned about, even though the reality is that this is a tiny fraction of what most content moderation efforts deal with), and it did find that a noticeably larger number of Republicans had their accounts banned than Democrats in their study (with a decently large sample size). However, that did not mean that it showed bias. Indeed, the study is quite clever, in that it corrected for generally agreed upon false information sharers — and the conclusion is that Twitter’s content moderation is biased against agreed-upon misinformation rather than political bias. It’s just that Republicans were shown to be much, much, much more willing to share such misinformation.
Social media companies are often accused of anti-conservative bias, particularly in terms of which users they suspend. Here, we evaluate this possibility empirically. We begin with a survey of 4,900 Americans, which showed strong bi-partisan support for social media companies taking actions against online misinformation. We then investigated potential political bias in suspension patterns and identified a set of 9,000 politically engaged Twitter users, half Democratic and half Republican, in October 2020, and followed them through the six months after the U.S. 2020 election.
During that period, while only 7.7% of the Democratic users were suspended, 35.6% of the Republican users were suspended. The Republican users, however, shared substantially more news from misinformation sites –as judged by either fact-checkers or politically balanced crowds –than the Democratic users. Critically, we found that users’ misinformation sharing was as predictive of suspension as was their political orientation. Thus, the observation that Republicans were more likely to be suspended than Democrats provides no support for the claim that Twitter showed political bias in its suspension practices. Instead, the observed asymmetry could be explained entirely by the tendency of Republicans to share more misinformation. While support for action against misinformation is bipartisan, the sharing of misinformation –at least at this historical moment –is heavily asymmetric across parties. As a result, our study shows that it is inappropriate to make inferences about political bias from asymmetries in suspension rates.
Now, I know that some people are going to just rush to the results of this, and the differing number of Republican accounts suspended compared to Democratic accounts, but as the authors of this study make abundantly clear, that’s a mistake.
I suggest reading the study, where the methodology seems quite sound. The key finding is what best predicts whether an account will be suspended — and it’s not the political orientation or beliefs of the tweeter. It’s whether or not they’re sharing blatant misinformation. In fact, the study found that using toxic or offensive language was even less of a predictor. Twitter allows for vigorous and even angry debate (as shouldn’t surprise anyone who is on the site regularly). But if you’re regularly pushing total nonsense, you might get suspended.
Now, I can already hear some people screaming that “misinformation” is in the eye of the beholder, so it’s possible a study like this would inaccurately count certain content favored by, let’s just say, Republicans as misinformation. However, even there, the researchers appeared to bend over backwards to try to make this as fair as possible. They used other studies that involved many different raters to judge which sources were reliable and which were not (i.e., they didn’t just pick which sources they favored).
Another interesting piece of the study was that they also ran a survey of both Democrats and Republicans to see whether or not they thought that social media sites should try to reduce misinformation and found that even among Republicans there was strong agreement that reducing misinformation was the right approach.
We begin by assessing public attitudes about whether social media companies should take actions against misinformation on their platforms, and how these attitudes vary by respondent partisanship (results are qualitatively equivalent when examining variation by respondent ideology). When N=1,228 respondents were asked whether or not social media companies should try to reduce the spread of misinformation and fake news on their platforms, 80.0% responded “Yes”. Is this support for platform action bipartisan? While support for reducing misinformation did correlate with respondent partisanship, such that Republicans were less supportive(r(1226)=-0.18, p<0.001; regression including controls for age, gender, education, and ethnicity: β=-0.17, t=-5.84, p<.001), even a substantial majority (67.2%) of strong Republicans believe social media platforms should try to reduce the spread of misinformation (Figure 1a). Thus, there is strong bipartisan support for interventions against misinformation.
In other words, stripped of culture war buzzwords, the vast majority of people want social media websites to intervene to slow the spread of misinformation (contrary to what you might hear out there). Second, the evidence pretty strongly shows that spreading misinformation is the leading indicator of why you might get banned by a social media platform.
So, even if more Republicans than Democrats end up getting banned, the evidence again suggests that it’s not anti-conservative bias at work, the issue is just that Republicans are significantly more likely to spread bullshit. If they stopped doing that, they wouldn’t face the same moderation pressures. You can find the whole study at this link or below.
Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, bias, content moderation, study
Companies: twitter
Comments on “Fascinating New Study Suggests (Again) That Twitter Moderation Is Biased Against Misinformation, Not Conservatives”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“Misinformation” such as saying that men are not women
This would be a lot more comforting if there was agreement over what was classed as misinformation.
Re:
Well, the classification of “misinformation” is likely close to how Russia defines punishable “misinformation”. It’s not like U.S. lawmakers are foreigners to the unholy “what could go wrong”/”working as designed” pairing.
My biggest takeaway is this
Agreed upon misinformation can be wrong from time to time. There are a couple of examples where agreed upon misinformation actually had some more legs to it (lab leak, laptop) and was admitted as such later on.
Really what they are saying is that it’s not the algos/company that is at issue it but the fact checkers and humans behind what is defined as agreed upon misinformation.
To me it seems like there should be a process with which to have mea culpas when mistakes on the agreed upon misinformation happens. Mistakes will always happen (humans are not perfect) and it would lend to more credibility if that was acknowledged much more than what is going on now. I personally have not witnessed say someone who was banned getting it removed due to the agreed upon misinformation changing. I expect that to be happening now, however.
It certainly would lend to more credibility than say looping in reasonable questions with crazy talk and calling it all crazy or in this case of this article ‘blatant misinformation’. Great marketing, but doesn’t really move anything forward.
Re:
If that’s true, why are you using the exonerative tense?
Re: Re:
Exonerate for who? I’m using those as examples where, after time, the information changed on those topics and then go on to explain that there should be a way to rectify past mistakes, if it doesn’t already exist.
I’m not saying because information changes on one thing that it means the whole lot is good now. It’s more about maintaining credibility.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, exactly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Hokey, you’re not at fault for being confused about what this groomer ‘Thad’ is talking about.
Never heard of ‘exonerative tense’? That’s because it was one of the many made-up terms invented in the last two decades. In this case by a CNN pervert named Schneider whose day job is working at the far left anti-American think tank ‘Third Way’.
It’s just typical leftist Newspeak. Don’t fall for their tricks. When a leftist degenerate like Thad uses a term you don’t recognize, always do your research.
It’s always enlightening to understand how leftist concepts and terms are invented and then adopted universally by anti-Americans. They’re like marching orders, and always good intel to have to understand where the bad guys are going.
Re: Re: Re:2
I see you’ve moved on to the “everyone I don’t like is a child molester” phase of your trolling.
Re: Re: Re:3
Right, because someone that molests adults is never a pervert. /s
Re: Re: Re:4
And I see you’ve moved into the “every queer person is a sex offender” portion of your trolling.
Re: Re: Re:5
Right, because a straight guy that rapes a woman is also not a pervert. /s
Projection much?
Re: Re: Re:6
Yeah, because when conservatives (and conservative trolls) talk about perverts and groomers, the first thing that always comes to mind is someone like convicted rapist Brock Turner~.
You’ve been a generally decent commenter since you popped up here, so I’m asking you not to be obtuse with me. I’ve got more than enough spite and venom to spit around after I’m done with the dipshits, and I’d sincerely hate to use it on you if I don’t have to.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 >> "Spite and Venom"
You don’t say! You, frustrated and mad?
After you’re “done” with the dipshits? You mean when they’re done with you.
I’ll probably come back soon to crank up your “sobbing into the pillow and looking toward the knife drawer” levels. Might be days or months.
Ask your parole officer if he’ll lower your chemical castration dosages in preparation.
Re: Re: Re:4
If both are willing participants, I have no problems with it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Who’s the ‘CNN pervert’? Jessica Schneider or Bill Schneider?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 CNN Sex Offenders
I don’t know Jessica Schneider. It was Orwellian Newspeak inventor par excellence William Schneider.
He’s in the same category as John Griffin and Jeffery Toobin and Fredo Cuomo, but hasn’t been caught yet.
Re: Re: Re:3
Dan Schneider.
No wait, he’s from Nickolodeon.
Re:
Even if you weren’t lying about there being proof for those conspiracy fantasies, facts that didn’t exist until a later date doesn’t magically retroactively make a claim any less of a baseless lie at the time it was made.
Re: Re:
Exactly, I agree! But if someone was banned for portraying what was misinformation at that time and then later on that misinformation turned out to be true, then they should have their account back. It’s all about accountability and credibility. I also think that’s going on now.
Re: Re: Re:
Why?
If someone’s banned for spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated bullshit without regard for whether or not it’s true, and it later turns out that it is, based on information they had no way of knowing at the time, what exactly have they done to deserve having their ban reversed?
Re: Re: Re:2
But what if they were banned for a piece ofinformation based on the facts at their disposal that was agreed by many others to be misinformation when they first reported on it? The fact that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab, for example?
Re: Re: Re:3
When did it become a fact that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab?
To take a piece of unvetted information or speculation and fabricate a conclusion and present it as a fact is just a form of lying writ large. Regardless if it turns out to be true later on it was still a lie.
Re: Re: Re:4
“When did it become a fact that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab?”
When the World Health Organization investigated the origin of the virus, they found that it had originated in bats thousands of miles away from the source of the outbreak, and that none of the bats sold in the wet market were carrying anything close to it. Also, those wet market bats that were carrying any form of coronavirus weren’t able to transmit it to humans. The WHO discovered all that, then sat on the information and claimed, “Wild virus,” so as to not negatively impact international relations with China. (China has the fourth largest nuclear weapons arsenal, after all.) These facts were thoroughly investigated by ITV and broadcast to the thinking public in a programme they produced.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yeah, uh…you’re gonna need to cite a credible source of information for all that wild-ass shit you said. Otherwise, you’re a fuckin’ liar, dude.
Re: Re: Re:6
I gave my source. It’s hardly my fault if you don’t consider ITV to be as credible as Fox News, is it?
Re: Re: Re:7
Just saying “ITV” is insufficient. Where did they say that?
Re: Re: Re:5
So never in the real world, got it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well, if your knowledge of what happens in the real world comes from a source as ‘reputable’ as Fox News, I’m not surprised you don’t believe ITV.
Re: Re: Re:7
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
Re: Re: Re:5
Spit out the name of the programme then.
Re: Re: Re:3
” The fact that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab, for example?”
Fact is a weird way of spelling Qanon horseshit
Re: Re: Re:4
Are you sure you’re not part of QAnon. After all, that particular group has never alleged things, true or otherwise, about COVID-19, to my knowledge.
Re: Re: Re:5
Oh, they most certainly have. That it’s a hoax, for example.
Re: Re: Re:3
“The fact that COVID-19 was created in a Chinese lab, for example?”
Why do you use the word “fact” here?
Re: Re: Re:4
Because that’s how it was presented in an ITV programme I watched, taking in the oodles of evidence the producers included to back their statement.
Re: Re: Re:5
And have you have verified that evidence? Because if you haven’t – all you are doing is repeating something you can’t know is true which is definitely not fact.
Citations fucking needed.
Re: Re: Re:6
Search it yourself. This is Techdirt, not Wikipedia. I’m not here to do your job for you.
Re: Re: Re:7
So you admit you’re just peddling far-right lies.
Re: Re: Re:8
Given CNN has more recently projected it as a possibility…
It is still unknown but definitely not “far-right lies”.
The general consensus in media across this he board is origin remains unknown, but lab is a possibility.
Re: Re: Re:9
The general consensus in media across this he board is origin remains unknown, but lab is a possibility.
Which is not the same as saying it came out of a lab is a true fact.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7 Found it easily
Autie, best to use the Leftist’s own sources. That way they can’t accuse you of using ‘Far Right notzi’ sources (any source to the right of Mao.)
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/joe-biden-cozies-kids-28036800
You’re safe with any mainstream news outlet like ITV, ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC, MSNBC, all are on the Masnickian pro-pedo anti-White side. You don’t need to go as far as The Jacobin or NAMBLA or things Stone watches on a TOR browser.
(Stay away from the DNC website though; I would hate you to get caught up in an Interpol sweep of CP traders.)
Re: Re: Re:
This is, as with most things content moderation, a LOT more complex and nuanced than it seems. I’ve talked about just this point with executives at large social media firms, and they’ve explained the challenges of doing this, and it’s not at all as simple as you make it out to be.
So, they need to make a policy that can be handled reasonably well. It would be impossible to go back and re-analyze every old decision, and would be a massive waste of time. Some platforms will allow people who had an enforcement action to later go back and appeal if the details change at a later date, but most have said it would be impossible to revisit those things, because they’re not going to keep track of all that and go back and have to adjudicate things after the fact.
You’re asking for an impossible thing, basically, even if you think it’s a more “fair” way to handle it, it’s not one that is feasible to implement.
Re: Re: Re:2 Fair and Feasible
A policy that is both fair and feasible is to ban posts, not people. Then if a post was banned for misinformation that later turned out to be true, the poster is still there to repost it.
Re: Re: Re:3
And if that poster continually violates the rules, such that moderating their content becomes a loathsome burden, they deserve to have their shit pushed in by moderators/admins.
Nobody—and I mean NOBODY—is owed a spot on any social media service. A Twitter account is a privilege; Twitter can revoke it at any time for damn near any reason it wants. What the fuck are you gonna do about it besides complain?
Re: Re: Re:4
Is moderation done by hand, still? In that case, I agree, poor moderators!
As for what to do about woke censorship, cancellation, and silencing, in the right places, lawsuits help a lot: https://www.npr.org/2022/04/20/1093601721/shawnee-state-university-lawsuit-pronouns
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s nice.
What the fuck does that have to do with the comment you replied to, again?
Re: Re: Re:4
I work hard for year to become privileged and all I get is this lousy Twitter account?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Why Toom is the intellectually disabled mascot of Techdirt
(That’s Newspeak for “mentally retarded”.)
If something’s true, it’s true.
Intelligent people understood Harry Dexter White, Treasury official, was a Soviet agent who helped start WWII… many decades before it was proven incontrovertibly in the Venona papers.
I try to understand how you’re able to navigate daily life being so stupid. Must be frustrating.
It's more complicated
I’m currently suspended from Twitter for unstated reasons but they imply my account was hijacked even though every tweet published is mine.
My tweets, however, were focused on pro-Russian and/or objective news sources (The Saker, Oriental Review, Scott Ritter, etc).
This is the news that’s being censored. If you seek to share truth about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Twitter silences your account. I was easy to silence, I refuse to give Twitter my ph# and they won’t let me log back in without one (they let me back in without one when an Elon Musk social media spammer hijacked my account, but Ukraine is apparently a much more serious matter).
If you go to Twitter, feel free to search for me and then tell me which of the news stories I have links to are inaccurate. So far all of them seem to be holding up quite well even as our State Dept embarrasses itself with jingoistic talk of sanctions.
Re:
You know you’re not supposed to openly say you’re on Russia’s side unless you’re Donald Trump, don’tcha?
Re:
You do realize that Russians agree publicly with Putin because to disagree is a go to jail card. Do you also believe that a horse worming medicine cures Covid?
If you want to visit Ukraine and see what is happening on their side of the lines, you can. Want to visit the Russian side of the lines, you better agree to say what you are told, if they let you visit.
Re:
You’re, uh, not refuting the article, champ.
Re:
Wait, aren’t you here right now talking about it?
How is is that you were silenced when I can see what you wrote just a few posts above mine?
Re: an example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNizGwjZbo0
This is the kind of above board content you should be able to link to, even in times of war.
A HERO of the Ukrainian RESISTANCE (i.e., a mercenary) and now a POW has been interviewed and has some interesting things to say if you have the courage to listen.
Re: Re: Hope your next check clears...
Naw, I ain’t gonna watch your shitty Russian propaganda.
Re: Re:
And out of shot stands one Russian soldier with cue cards and another with an automatic rifle aimed at the Ukrainian’s head. How does that video prove your point again?
Re: Son you do realise we can read you past comments, right?
Last night while watching my NBA team lose, I received four emails from Twitter urging me to change my password as someone from Vietnam had logged into my account.
By the time I saw the emails, I was locked out of Twitter and my account was closed. So far I have been unable to open a new account because the registration process does not allow me to not have a phone (I quit phones forever last year, never going back until our corrupt Congress gets rid of phone spam).”
Re: Re:
So, you refused to set up 2FA to secure your account and ignored the emails you got telling you what was happening, and that’s Twitter’s fault?
“So far I have been unable to open a new account because the registration process does not allow me to not have a phone”
Yeah, unfortunately because people keep getting hacked because they don’t have 2FA and ignore emails, and to reduce actual frud, Twitter have decided to insist on something that the majority of the population have in their possession to sign up.
It would be nice if there were other options, but you handily explained yourself why it’s necessary to have something other than an email and password.
Like they said, anti-conservative moderation practices...
Social media platform: Puts rules into place to reduce the spread of lies
Habitual Liar: ‘They’re persecuting me for political reasons!’
If the rules say ‘Don’t lie’ and you think it’s aimed at you that’s not a good look and your objection is not doing you any favors.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Misinformation
If the rules say “don’t lie” and “People who are born with a penis and testicles are male” is determined to be a “lie” by the people who run Twitter’s moderation policies (the ADL and SPLC,fwiw) who happen to be extremely leftwing and more people who are conservative agree with the statement “People who are born with a penis and testicles are male” then there’s no bias! None whatsoever. If you deliberately engineer a “rule” to snare your political opponents and not your political fellow-travelers,it’s not a “bias”. What are you talking about? Especially if you then smear their beliefs as “misinformation” and “hate”.
I mean,if the people who run Twitter say it’s misinformation,then it’s misinformation. Just like the Hunter Biden laptop they said was Russian disinformation. Also,it’s not disinformation to say Donald Trump did a Face/Off-style identity swap with Vladimir Putin for 4 years because 18 unnamed “intelligence sources” offering no evidence whatsoever said it was true, and still continuing to say it after he was cleared of doing it by a federal investigation cleared him of that isn’t misinformation because we lie out of our asses about our own actions and motivations constantly while maintaining a double standard for people on different sides of the political aisle which we also openly lie about despite everyone knowing that we’re lying!
Ok,leftists,you’re right. Twitter isn’t censoring conservatives,it’s censoring “misinformation” and “hate speech”. And Ron DeSantis didn’t sign a bill that censors gay teachers,he signed a bill targeting child molesters and censoring gay pornography.
If that’s the way you want to play it,we’re perfectly happy to play this game with you.
Re: Re:
Yeah yeah, we know you hate everyone not adhering to your childish and backwards definition of sex and gender – you have made that point explicitly clear since you believe it will destroy society.
Re: Re:
[citation needed]
What if an intersex person has a penis and testicles?
If you’re so obsessed with people’s genitals that you’re talking about it on Twitter, maybe you need to stop obsessing over other people’s genitals. (Or at least start looking at more porn.)
Also, it isn’t a “trap” if a company prefers to have a content policy that is inclusive of people who don’t believe in conservative orthodoxy. But I get your thinking here: If it isn’t controlled by conservatives, it must be against conservatives. Am I in the ballpark there?
If Twitter says it’s misinformation for the purposes of its content policy, so be it. Their house, their rules. But that doesn’t mean Twitter’s declaration should be taken as objective fact.
what in the actual blood-soaked hell are you talking about
Twitter is biased against misinformation and hate speech. If conservatives are more likely to post that bullshit and get moderated for doing so, that’s on them.
DeSantis signed into law a bill that bars any discussion of sexuality and gender until the fourth grade and still bars any such discussion through high school if it isn’t deemed “age appropriate”. But I can all but assure you that you won’t see any teachers who talk about heterosexuality in any sort of incidental way face punishment under the law.
The law targets queer people and their allies. It opens anyone who even so much as mentions gay or trans people in even the smallest possible way to legal repercussions.
By the way, before all this talk about “grooming” came about, it was called “recruiting”, and people in the 2020s didn’t invent that shit, they just reheated some ancient-ass homophobia to drive a wedge between trans people and other queer people as a means of making attacks on all queer people much easier to carry out. You wanna pull that shit here? I promise you that we have enough people aware of queer history around here who can school your ass on the matter and help you sound like an even bigger bigot if you want to press on.
I’m begging you to press on. Please. 🍿
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re: Sources? Twitter and the New York Times
https://about.twitter.com/en/our-priorities/healthy-conversations/trust-and-safety-council
Anti-Defamation League listed as second member of the ‘Trust & Safety Council’.
The only reason the SPLC isn’t on there now is their back was broken by lawsuits and the rapid resignation of their founder, Morris Dees, who – you’ll be shocked, shocked to learn – is a sexual predator.
Trying to find a leader of a far left Jewish Supremacist pro-White genocide organization who isn’t a sexual predator is like finding a needle in a haystack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/us/morris-dees-leaves-splc.html
Re: Re: Womp Womp
“Ok,leftists,you’re right. Twitter isn’t censoring conservatives,it’s censoring “misinformation” and “hate speech”.”
Admitting that you have a problem is the first step to getting the help you so desperately need bro.
got banned for speaking against ABA
Yeah, I’m an ABA survivor, and pointed out that ABA is literally a crime against humanity(its child torture and brainwashing) and was banned from twitter for 12 hours 😛
As I’ve seen posted numerous times in the past…
It’s not that social media has an anti-conservative bias, it’s that facts and reality has an anti-conservative bias.
Re:
As a comparatively conservative and liberal person, I strongly object to the U.S.’ abusive treatment of the terms “conservative” and “liberal”.
Words have meanings, not party affiliations. Treating them as prisoners of culture war is offensive.
Re: Re:
You trollin’, brah?
Re: Re: Re:
Nope. The opposite of “conservative” is “progressive”. The opposite of “liberal” is “authoritarian”. Those are orthogonal concept pairs, the first concerning how much you anchor your values and goals in the past, the second in how prescriptive you think a government should be.
Wildly mixing up those categories and equating them with political parties and their goals in a comparatively nilly-willy manner robs the terms of their descriptive qualities and particularly makes them unsuitable for describing individual leanings rather than party affiliations.
I hate it when people misappropriate vocabulary that I had perfectly good uses for. If you want to talk about the policies of the revisionist wing of the current GPO, you can perfectly well call them exactly that rather than steal the term “conservative” that has a useful dictionary meaning.
Re: Re: Re:2
“If you want to talk about the policies of the revisionist wing of the current GPO…”
I didn’t know that the General Post Office even had a revisionist wing. o.0
We made our prophecy and we fulfilled it.
We KNEW they were coming for us
so we posted things they would come for us for over
then complained they censored us.
Motherfscker posting how tamil spices cure diabetes, among other long running lies, screaming they only hate him because he is dark skinned, low caste, conservative.
It can’t be because he is selling snakeoil & lies, its because of these other reasons that when screamed loud enough get people to come to his aid they never looked at what he was saying just his right to be wrong, mislead people, make a buck off the rubes and the harm he causes with his insanity.
But then I think its a shitty platform run by assholes so they can keep his low caste lying ass. There isn’t the bias people assume, but the water is so clouded with because I’m conservative screaming no one can look deeper.
I mean was it that long ago when were were told there was no such thing as shadowbanning, then a teen hacked access & look at that a button marked shadow ban on the internal console…
Imagine the problems if the conservatives stopped claiming the Holocaust never happened, taking horse dewormer, & they kept getting nuked from space… people might see that there is bias in enforcement sometimes.
Re:
How did the people who named it that know that was what it was called internally?
A related study found that applying water to things can dampen them.
Their study …
The biggest difference is that Republicans believe the misinformation is in statements such as:
Their view of misinformation is always in direction contrast with reality.
Re:
*direct contrast with reality.
When are we going to get the edit button Mike???
There is no objective way to determin truth
…short of mathematics and physical sciences (and even then it’s really hard!).
Free speech is necessary to any democracy – if those who disagree with the status quo and reigning orthodoxies can’t speak up and make their arguments, society can’t adopt better ideas and policies.
Free speech has costs. It inveitably enables lots of BS, misinformation, hate speech, and other nonsense. That’s the nature of the beast.
But we have to put up with that haystack if we want to ever find the occasional needle of wisdom.
Moderation is not the answer.
End-user filtering is the answer.
Let all speak their mind – bullshit, misinformation, hate, and all.
Let listeners judge.
Re:
If I say ‘It’s raining’ and there is in fact rain coming down that’s a true statement.
If I say ‘that person just took a rake to their face’ and that person did just pull a Sideshow Bob that is also a true statement.
Some things can be difficult to fit into a true/false dichotomy but for many things it’s not a matter of opinion or really that difficult.
As for ‘let the individual users decide’ they already do that by choosing a platform with moderation practices that they generally agree with. If you want a Very Fine People-friendly platform you’re welcome to go to one of those(and by all means do, they could apparently use the users), if you’re not looking for that sort of experience then you’re more likely to choose one that’s not so friendly to them.
That’s not even touching on what a horrific experience such a system would be for individual users, as previous articles have noted the job of moderation can be so horrific that those doing it can develop PTSD from the experience, and you want to inflict that on everyone?
(I’d post an example from one of those articles but I don’t feel like inflicting that on others, if you’re in a mood to ruin your day search for the TD article Before Demanding Internet Companies ‘Hire More Moderators,’ Perhaps We Should Look At How Awful The Job Is, the example is a quote starting with ‘Marcus’)
If you want to drive large chunks of people away from social media just come out and say so, don’t pussy-foot around with suggestions that would have that as an inevitable side-effect.
Re: Re: That's a true statement
I’m not saying that everything is shades of grey. Of course some statements are true, others are false, and many are somewhere in-between.
I’m saying there’s no objective, outside way of determining what is or isn’t true.
Sure, it’s raining. I agree. You agree.
How do we convince a 3rd person who thinks it’s all a Hollywood effect? All we can do is present the evidence. A reaonsable person will probably agree with us. But not always. And if they don’t, there’s no 3rd party arbiter who can say, in general, X is true and Y is false.
It’s easy for rain (putting aside drizzle and mist).
For lots of things it’s not so easy. It never can be.
But we need to let people argue it out so those of use who can’t look outside for ourselves can find out.
Re: Re: Re:
If you say “it’s raining outside of my house” and someone says “no it’s not”, you can look out your fucking window to see who’s telling the truth.
You don’t. You say “fuck it” and leave them to their delusional bullshit.
Person A: I think gay people should have all the same civil rights as straight people.
Person B: I think gay people should be jailed for life because they’re gay.
Where’s the middle ground there? What’s the compromise between those positions? For what reason should that argument even need to happen, other than some misguided fealty to the concept of “free speech”?
Re: Re: Re:2 Gay people
Your example isn’t about truth – it’s about a policy opinion.
The second opinion is repugnant to most people. The first one was repugnant to many people 100 years ago. And 1000 years ago.
That change for the better was due to free, and at the time highly contentious, speech.
Whatever people’s opinions, they must have some reasons for having them. Those reasons can only be challenged if the opinion can be discussed in the first place.
BTW, you could be more polite (less of what Mike called “a jerk”) in your postings than you are. I haven’t been rude to you.
Re: Re: Re:3
And my question still fucking stands: Where is the middle ground between those two opinions that requires some sort of argument to hash out? What is the compromise that could be found by discussing those two points as if they both deserve equal consideration?
I bet you’re the kind of person who tells women they should smile more.
Re:
Yeah, well, I’m still not gonna let you post on my blog.
Re: Re: Yeah, well, I’m still not gonna let you post on my blog.
I wasn’t aware you had a blog, let alone that you’ve banned me.
What was I said that earned your ban?
Re: Re: Re:
Reading comprehension could help you.
Re:
Why shouldn’t these platforms have moderation, aren’t they entitled to decide who they do not wish to associate with, or messages they do want to carry? Moderation is free speech too.
I also think it’s necessary to point out that the election lies, covid mis/dis info was causing significant real world harm, which was being felt by the real people in these companies and caused users to put significant pressure on these companies to do something about. Can’t expect to stay in business with half your user base boycotting due to bad info circulating, while the other half is dying, going to prison or off grid because of that same bad info.
Now I see your point about the risk losing socially valuable points of view to moderation of thoughts outside of accepted convention. For instance, it can be difficult to criticize the state (government) of Israel without risking an appearance of being anti-Semitic, we have seen a flurry of anti-BDS bills pop up all over as a supposed stand against anti-Semitism. This is certainly an area where moderation can get tricky, and there are going to be mistakes and arguments. I think we have to just keep calling out mistakes and engaging in discussion. And hopefully those discussions and arguments can at least respect humanity on all sides so that it is productive and remains something that can be discussed on such a wide reaching platform.
Re: Re:
Interesting you should say that. Israel is a state; Zionism is a set of policies that the state of Israel is based on. Jewishness is something somewhat amorphous, bouncing between ethnicity and religion as in, you can be born a Jew but be non-observant, or you can be born outside the faith community and convert to Judaism – like Sammy Davis Jnr, for example.
What these anti-BDS laws wind up doing, by defining opposition to the policies of the state of Israel as anti-Semitism, is defining support for those policies as the only political option for Jews. You’re born a “white”, a “black”, an “Asian”, etc, and you can have any politics from Marxist to right-wing – but be born a Jew and the only politics you are allowed is support for Israel’s policies, no matter how repulsive you find them.
From this I gather that the anti-BDS mob are actually viciously anti-Semite, since freedom of choice is considered part of the definition of human freedom, and it’s only the anti-Semites who in my knowledge of history, have forbidden Jews the the freedom of choice. Torquemada, anyone? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
Re: Re: Re:
Well, less anti-Semitic but more Islamophobic? There are plenty of Jewish people who do support Israel unconditionally, who may or may not have an understanding of the experience of the Palestinians, and who may/not care. These are not secretly rabid anti-Semites.
There is also this, in my opinion weird, connection between Evangelicals, Trump, and Israel. I don’t think it’s the source of much anti-Semitism, (though plenty of ignorant stereotyping) where support of Israel in unconditional, having to do with the rapture, which Trump is some kind of prophet of God- I don’t know the specifics, it’s not a rabbit hole I’m exploring. Again though, this same grouping has excessive hate and especially fear of Muslims.
I’m not entirely sure much of the white nationalist manosphere pays much attention to something like BDS, but there’s value to sowing more division for them, but they are more likely to swing against BDS because that’s the right wing position.
Someone like Ilhan Omar has said a couple things that could be interpreted as antisemitic, and she was quick to apologize & delete her tweets, that show how tricky the conversation can be. I mean, money/greed is a universal human faultline, but because of stereotyping, it’s almost impossible to bring into this subject regardless of relevance. I didn’t even know that Jewish people were accused of using, uh dark magic? As part of their “trickery”, so I learned a little history there.
Regardless, the imperative to me is respecting mutual humanity to live at least in peace if not harmony. Or some hippy free love shit like that, you catch my drift.
Re: Re: aren’t they entitled to decide who they do not wish to associate with
Yes, private platforms (including Twitter and Techdiret) are enttitled to moderate and ban as they see fit. It’s their house – they can set the rules.
But it’s not wise if the goal is to have productive and insightful conversations, and to discover new truths via rational debate.
Re misinformation causing real harm – yes. That’s the price of free speech, and part of the price of liberty.
Liberty ain’t cheap. But I’ll still take it.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s also not wise to let some people run off other people by way of harassing them off a platform, but under the kind of “moderation is useless, let everyone go nuts with legal speech” thinking that people like you and Elon Musk been suggesting should be instilled into social media, that’s exactly what would happen.
Or maybe you’re fine with Twitter letting racists chase off Black users with prolonged campaigns of harassment that includes racial slurs being flung at them all day and night. After all, that’s legally protected speech.
Re: Re: Re:
But is is wise to remove those who are disrupting the conversations, which is the big platforms are trying to do.
Re:
This suggests a profound level of misunderstanding.
End-user filtering is a tool that can be useful for some situations, and it’s one that I think would be valuable and more platforms absolutely should embrace.
But it is not “the” answer, because there is no single answer. And end-user filtering does not help in many, many scenarios, including things like revenge-porn, plotting real world harassment and many other things.
Re: Re: profound level of misunderstanding.
To the extent we’re talking past each other, I agree, Mike.
I’m talking about free speech and its value in making society better.
Free speech is part of the pacakage of Enlightenment ideas that has transformed the world and given us all vastly greater freedoms than our ancestors had.
Free speech is necessary to debunk wrong ideas. Homosexual marriage is legal today because the ideas that prevented it were openly discussed and debunked.
Moderation that prevents discussion of “bad” ideas cripples society’s error-correction mechanism.
Revenge porn isn’t an “idea” that’s discussed. Posting it is an act. Plotting real-world harassment is conspiracy to commit crime. (And would you rather have bad actors plot such things openly where authorities can track them down and victims become forewarned, or would you rather push it to the Darknet?)
Enabling open discusions of “bad” ideas (which we may one day decide are “good” ideas) doesn’t require that we also permit real-world crime.
Re: Re: Re:
For what reason should Twitter allow a “debate” about whether Black or trans people are actually people?
Re: Re: Re:2 For what reason should Twitter allow a “debate” about whether Black or trans people are actually people?
Because, obviously, some people beleive that.
And that idea needs to be challenged.
Re: Re: Re:3
Or—and hear me out on this, because this might ruffle your feathers—the idea doesn’t need debate and any space that wants to kick out dipshits who keep saying otherwise is free to do so.
You’re so eager to let people debate the innate humanity of queer people that you don’t see how incredibly fucked up it is that you even want such a thing debated. Jesus, dude, think beyond the concepts of “free speech” and “public forums” for one second.
Re: Re: Re:3
Freedom of speech isn’t just about having the freedom to discuss ‘bad’ ideas, it’s also about the freedom to not have others spread noxious ideas in your own private space on the Internet. Just because someone has the freedom to claim that black people are committing auto-genocide with high rates of gun crime on the street, they still don’t have the right to burn crosses in other people’s front yards.
Re: Re: Re:
I think we are having a discussion in good faith. Even though we don’t see exactly eye to eye, we agree it’s better to counter the bad speech with more good speech, yes?
The problem is when repeated attempts to engage those spouting election lies, claims about masks causing harm or drugs useless against covid, or attacking another’s humanity, that no amount of consistent, prolific good speech is going to deter, change the mind, or chase off a troll. Or bot for that matter. Trolls are getting shits and giggles out of generating responses to their long debunked garbage. These people are not having a good faith discussion, they don’t care what you say.
And unfortunately, despite the “adults” claiming kids can’t separate fact from fiction without more guidance, it’s the adults that desperately need media literacy. And some of those adults are in leadership, or legislative roles, responsible for making decisions and law, while lacking a firm grasp on the facts because people they trust (other “adults”, some trolls too) have been lying or misinforming them. Consequential decisions, ones that can effect our liberty, or lives, the future of democracy, must be based on evidence in reality. So the trolls got told to go play under some other bridge. They weren’t bringing anything of value to any conversation, they were looking for people to exploit,confuse and radicalize. They sought to drive out good speech by being frustrating assholes.
See the difference?
Re: Re: Re:2 Trolls
Please read my other comments.
Yes, trolls are a problem that needs a solution. The solution is end-user filtering, not centralized moderation by Keepers Of The Truth.
I proposed a mechanism whereby each reader gets to provide feedback on every post (if they choose to), allowing downvoting of bad comments (trolls and other defects) to make them less visible.
I won’t repeat the details here.
Re: Re: Re:3
That assumes that they can use provided filtering tools. Given that some people use Google every time to reach Twitter and Facebook etc. that is cannot use book-marks, what hope have they of using filtering tools.
Re: Re: Re:3
And how much trolling should an individual end-user need to endure for the sake of filtering merely some of it? How many horrible pictures and vile messages must they be forced to see in their mentions and DMs so they can maybe be free of some of them in the future? For what reason other than “I don’t believe in any form of moderation because it’s censorship” must end users be their own moderator when “server-side” moderation could help alleviate that pain?
Seriously, stories of Facebook moderators going into therapy for the shit they’ve seen while moderating exist. For what reason should Facebook push that kind of psychological trauma on people who use Facebook for innocuous purposes?
Re:
Free speech also means I get to choose who I wanna hang out with.
And I’ve seen the results of little to no moderation: White Supremacists moving in and taking over.
I don’t want to see that ever again.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Identifiable Bias
Round 2 of the Libs of Tiktok channel suspension over the past week demonstrates the bias. If liberals post a video, it’s fine. If a critic reposts the same video, then the channel gets flagged for “hate speech”. To leftists, the primary factor for hate speech is whether you disagree with them or not.
Re:
And where’s the proof in your assertions? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, after all.
Re:
No offense, Koby, but only a complete and total idiot thinks a single example of moderation where you don’t know any of the details, “proves” anything.
Re: Re:
Bold of you to assume Koby knows anything.
Re: Cool story bro
Bravely bold Sir koby
Rode forth from the Internet.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir koby.
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir koby.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp.
Or to have his eyes gouged out,
And his elbows broken.
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away,
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir koby.
His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowls unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis
“That’s, that’s enough music for now lads, there’s dirty work afoot.”
Brave Sir koby ran away.
(“No!”)
Bravely ran away away.
(“I didn’t!”)
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
(“I never!”)
One line summary of the conclusions
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” — S. Colbert
Re:
…and when reality intrudes with a vengeance on conservatives they quickly become very liberal to save their skin.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Wait, is Techdirt back to hating federal pigs again?
I thought January 6 changed everything. Didn’t you guys spend the last few years going ‘rah rah federal LE’ (especially when they summarily execute White mothers for taking selfies)?
I only come around every few months when I get curious what you degenerate groomers are up to, and to make you say ‘oy veyyyyy!’.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I'm sure this will get censored too.
Third time I’m writing a comment in three days, last two were censored, and no, there was nothing wrong with the posts. I’ll stop beating the horse after this one though, because I’m sure my posts are being censored by someone who’s actually reading them.
Mike Masnick has the worst case of confirmation bias that I’ve ever seen when it comes to conservative censorship. I had to go back and look at the original article he wrote about the hunter biden laptop story, but honestly, it was so cringy it was hard to get through. Filled with potshots at the reporting, nothing even close to a evenhanded analysis. What I find most egregious though is the complete dismissal of the story, which continues even to this blog post. Twitter’s “hacked materials” policy is the stupidest smoke screen i’ve come across, and you people are eating it up hook, line, and sinker.
If it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck, you people start yelling about Zebras.
Quit forming theories and trying to twist facts to fit them.
Re:
Neither of the other two were “censored.” Both remain on the site. Both have people responding to them. You apparently are so clueless you can’t even find your former comments.
In the responses to your comments, people responded to all of your points and debunked each and every one of them.
Of course, they didn’t realize you’d be so incompetent as to look for the responses on a different story. But, hey, dude, you do you. Embrace your own stupidity. It’s a look.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I for one am thankful for Techdirt’s censorship (oops, “””moderation”””, sorry Stone, don’t faint like a Victorian damsel in distress.)
Without Masnick’s sycophants flagging this guy’s comment, someone here might’ve encountered an opinion not endorsed by the Techdirt hivemind.
Re: Re: Wow.
Amazing. Love how you act like people have rebutted me when they just ignore points instead, or start straw-man arguments. I’ve yet to see a single coherent explanation about twitter’s double standard for hacked materials. You say it’s a policy, therefor isn’t censorship. That’s a terrible bad-faith argument. It’s obvious that nobody has a decent explanation for why Twitter censored a NYPost article but not articles about other obviously illegally obtained (read; hacked) documents like trumps tax returns. Not a single coherent argument.
I used “ctrl f” to find my comments, and none showed up. after reading your post, I looked again, and I have to click on your response to even access it because it’s been “flagged”. Nice ad hominem though, looking real petty.
The fact is that you made up your mind about this issue a long time ago, and neither hell nor high water is going to change your mind.
Re: Re: Re:
And that’s because most people will admit it was a double standard—as well as a generally dumb move on Twitter’s part to figuratively whap the New York Post on the head with a rolled-up newspaper.
No, it’s not. Twitter didn’t censor the article; it was (and still is) on the Post website even after Twitter dinged the Post for linking to it.
Why does there need to be one? Twitter did a dumb thing; having the right to do it doesn’t make it any less dumb.
Ain’t that a shame~.
If by “neither hell nor high water”, you mean “bad faith arguments”? Yeah, that tracks.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not what I said. Your inability to read is noted, in addition to your inability to find your old comments.
Dude, you posted multiple times falsely claiming that your comments were deleted, even RIGHT UNDER one of your comments.
At that point me calling you stupid is not an ad hom. It’s kind of self-evident.
Ooooooh, look at that projection. I change my mind all the time when presented with evidence. I presented you with the evidence of what happened with the Biden laptop story and you refuse to change your mind. Who made up their mind a long time ago? Dude, it’s you.
Now, go the fuck away. You said you were going to and yet here you are.
Re: Re: Re:2
Wow. Your behavior is reprehensible, especially as a front man for the blog. Step off your high horse for half a second you jackass. I don’t know why I’m wasting my time with you since you seem to refuse to say anything of substance, only abuse, but let’s try.
Please explain to me how Twitter’s “policy” isn’t an example of censorship when it is repeatedly used to blackhole conservative posts but not liberal ones?
Please explain how twitter’s choice to censor the hunter story is different from their lack of censorship for trumps tax records, his “perfect” phone call, or the Steele dossier.
A simple answer to this that actually responds to the question would be appreciated. Maybe you could try to write like a professional rather than 5th grader, you know, use some language skills, maybe avoid the cursing, personal attacks, straw man arguments, and other logical fallacies.
By the way, I notice you don’t even try to defend your original article about the hunter story, but I get it. If I were that wrong about something being “misinformation” I’d try and pretend it never happened either. I mean, just reading that article says everything about your bias.
Re: Re: Re:3
His blog, his rules. Deal with it.
Please explain to me why conservatives are so eager to violate policies against hate speech and mis-/disinformation. I’m pretty sure conservatives don’t get dinged for talking about trickle-down economics, after all.
You keep bringing this up like a majority of people here thought it was the best thing ever that Twitter dinged the Post.
Maybe you could shut the fuck up and leave if you don’t like how someone talks to you. Like @dasharez0ne says: If it sucks…hit da bricks!!
Re: Re: Re:3
Forgive me for not taking etiquette lessons from someone who whines about how we “censored” his comments right below his own damn comments.
I answered you with significant amounts of substance, and you responded by whining that I didn’t answer you.
I tried. You failed. I’m not here to dance for you.
I have explained multiple times, but this is it. The last time:
(1) The hacked materials policy was used multiple times, including for materials that were favorable to traditional conservatives (i.e., to hide racist cops doing racist shit). https://www.techdirt.com/2020/09/16/content-moderation-case-study-twitter-removes-account-pointing-users-to-leaked-documents-obtained-hacking-collective-june-2020/
(2) The hacked materials policy — which again, we’ve already said was dumb and should not have been put in place — was put in place after the three other examples came out in the news, so you’re asking why they didn’t use a policy that didn’t exist, which, again, is a choice, but not a very good fucking argument.
(3) Even if the policy had been in place, pointing to single examples of “why is this allowed to exist/while this isn’t” is not an example of bias, because YOU DON’T FUCKING UNDERSTAND the details. There are many reasons why certain content may and certain other content may not trip any specific policy. It might be that no one reported the content under that policy (again, this policy didn’t exist at the time of the 3 stories you pointed out). It might be that there was not enough evidence for the company to conclude that the content tripped the policy. As we’ve discussed at length, experts in content moderation will disagree on how to enforce a policy on any particular piece of content (we tested over 100 content moderation experts on this thing and found that there is always going to be disagreement: https://www.techdirt.com/2018/05/18/there-is-no-magic-bullet-moderating-social-media-platform/
I gave you a detailed fucking answer and you whined about how we were censoring you because you can’t find your own damn name.
I do that when talking to actual adults, not whiny victim playing idiots.
I stand by everything we’ve written.
No. Your comments say everything about your lack of reading comprehension.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Still killing it.
Your response is the same word salad I’ve seen before.
Individual examples matter, whether they suit you or not, and this one is especially important since it could have affected the election. Trying to hide behind “we don’t know the decisions that went into it” is unacceptable, especially for something as big as this. this wasn’t some random jackass posting shit, it was A NEWS ORGANIZATION that got censored because twitter didn’t like the message. Your statement that experts in content moderation would have trouble with deciding whether a NEWS ARTICLE is legitimate is laughable.
Your statement that the hacked materials policy wasn’t out yet is also inaccurate. The policy was implemented in 2018, the tax returns exposed in 2019, and same for trumps “perfect” phone call, but ok, I see that it wouldn’t have been in place for the Steele dossier, so you’re 1 for 3.
I don’t understand why you insist on being so corrosive, but as your lackey said, it’s your blog. so keep it up big guy, talking shit must really get you going.
The sad part is I really liked, agreed with, and respected you for years, and was a faithful reader, but the second I disagreed with you, you turned on the hate spigot. Disappointing for someone who seemed so intelligent.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m sorry that you can’t understand fairly basic points. But that’s a you problem.
Your comment was available. “Censored” is a word with a meaning. And the community having it minimized for apparently believing it was stupid is not “censored.” Your comment was easily findable, and your first whining about us deleting it came directly under your last comment. On top of that, all of your comments are clearly visible on your profile page. I’m sorry, but your own incompetence is not an excuse.
Ah, once again, your level of reading comprehension is beyond belief. The DDOSecrets example doesn’t prove a bias one way or the other, but it does debunk the false claim made by you that the decisions on “hacked materials” only went one way. They most clearly did not.
Um. Why do you say that there was a vested interest here?
Besides, if that’s the case, why does every other study find the same thing, not to mention the reports of how these companies rejiggered all their policies to bend over backwards to keep the fragile egos of your Fox & Friends brainwormed crew happy?
I mean, we linked to a study conducted by Facebook that found the same thing, but I imagine your complain there is that doesn’t count because it’s done by Facebook and you can’t trust them, right?
You keep insisting that I’m blind to the evidence, but the only one rejecting the actual evidence here is you, buddy. Maybe take one second to look in the mirror for once in your life and realize that perhaps the problem is looking back at you.
Okay, let’s humor you here. How would blocking links to one single story have impacted the election? The story was still widely discussed, and was (by far) the most read story on the NY Post’s website for a few days, in part because of Twitter’s dumb policy enforcement.
So, how did it impact the election?
I have little patience for idiots who scream wrong things and insist they’re right. You fit the bill.
No, give me a fucking break. There are lots of people here who disagree with me and I don’t respond like this to them. Look at YOUR comments that started all this, where you came in hot, made a ton of bullshit, baseless accusations, and whined and whined about how bad we all were.
I responded in kind.
Don’t like it? Look in the mirror.
Re: Re: Re:6
Well… actually, depending on which of the many surveys since, there we’re likely enough that “would …reconsider or change your vote” who actually would have changed their vote to have changed the election.
The surveys are questionable from both sides, and the numbers inconsistent by a great degree.
But it is possible Biden could have lost.
Re: Re: Re:6
See, this is the problem that happens when I try to communicate. You respond with nonsense. let’s take a walk down memory lane shall we?
So yea, sorry to get on a tangent, but I’d love to see what rules are going to be beneficial only for far right that wouldn’t also also be beneficial for far left.
Let’s compare posts, shall we?
The most aggressive thing I said in my first two posts was that you had a bad case of confirmation bias, and that your article on the laptop was cringy.
You on the other hand, go off the deep end with all sorts of personal attacks that were completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s just unprofessional, you really should hold yourself to a higher standard.
Re: Re: Re:7
[Projects facts contrary to all provided evidence]
Re: Re: Re:7
Quick question, champ: Are you here to have an actual discussion or are you here to (try to) “own the libs”? Because between you, davec, Hyman Rosen, and that blatantly queerphobic dipshit yelling about groomers on every street corner, it seems like there’s been a small invasion of right-wing picklefuckers in the comments over the past few weeks.
Re: Re: Re:8
Now now, don’t hate on those that utilise vegetables in unique ways.
Re: Re: Re:7
Not as much as you may think since i rarely get flagged despite poking both the “libs” and the “right”
But I recognise that sometimes I jab out of annoyance. And shite gets flagged.
I’ll skip over 2-5 because I either don’t know or don’t care.
That’s not censorship though. I stand and scream that twitter censors because they delete material.
Facebook, to their credit, tends to simply make it difficult to access.
I don’t agree with their crapping all over viewpoints along with real falsities but at least they don’t bring an ax to the game.
Re: Re: Re:5
=not deleted=not censored
Twitter may have shite rules. But they’re the rules none the less. Abide by them or be gone? Sounds fair.
Did you miss the whole “hacked materials” rule?
No the link was censored because someone thought it qualified as hacked materials. And hacked materials were not allowed on twitter.
If you want to argue about policy enforcement: no lawyer in this country would put money to this as hacked materials. So call out twitter for the stupidity of banning this on a policy that didn’t even apply.
Re: Re: Re:3 nograymatter
haver you ever co sodered not being a lying shitbag?
If uou really cared about a welcome reception, you would.
Re: Re: Re:4 Nice.
You should probably step out of your echo chamber once in a while. What exactly is the lie?
Re: Re: Re:5
You’re one to talk, given that we presented with you actual evidence and you just bounce back with Breitbart/Fox News talking points.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6 "Breitbart, Fox" or, you know, the ACLU
“Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.”
Oops.
Stepping on your dick constantly .
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: You're an angry fellow
It must be tough being so frustrated all the time. I don’t think I could sleep at night if I flailed ineffectually so often, so publicly.
Re:
Because they need to always be the victim of some grand anti-conservative conspiracy and whining about the “censorship” of social media or “left-wing” news media or whatever. It helps with the grift of grievance politics, which works like this:
The problem with modern American conservative politics lies with its ties to modern conservative Christianity. The two entities have become so intertwined that the conservative Christian zeal to feel persecuted (even as Christians enjoy immense privilege in the United States) has carried over to the political arena. Nowadays, you see the end result of this unholy alliance: Conservatives are right on the edge of destroying abortion rights for everyone because conservative Christians (who vastly outnumber other religions in terms of sheer numbers and political power in the United States) can’t stand the idea of people who get pregnant being literally anything but mindless baby factories.
Conservatives are so much louder about censorship than liberals because they’ve spent decades confusing criticism as censorship and persecution. To them, anything not controlled by conservatives must be against conservatives—even as social media networks like Facebook give conservatives shitloads of leeway to violate the rules without punishment. It’s grievance politics by way of a Christianist persecution complex, and it’s fucking up America.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I’m glad you are very confused about the right wing in America. In fact, you’re 180 degrees wrong.
The Christian ethos of universality, love your enemy, and turn the cheek are the only moderating force on the right. The GOP believers in the foreign religion of desert slaves are one of the things keeping actual right wingers from completely stopping your degenerates forever.
You should be happy there are still some on the right who listen to the liberal platitudes emanating from the pulpit. Without these faint-hearted cowards holding Americans back from cleaning your plows, you’d be in big trouble.
Unfortunately for you, these Christian weaklings are becoming increasingly ignored by Americans sick of them running cover for you perverts.
Trust me, the day the Right stops listening to the neocon religious nut Christians, the people on your side are in big trouble .
Re: Re: Re:
Is that why Christian conservatives are so gung-ho for establishing Christianity as the national religion, attacking queer people as perverts for merely existing, and relitigating the 2020 election over and over again—because of their strong Christian ethos?
…fucking what
They listen, but they don’t hear. Otherwise they’d adhere to the teachings of the biblical Jesus Christ—you know, the non-violent, long-haired, brown-skinned, homeless Middle Eastern Jew who hung out with prostitutes and lepers; preached a radical ethos of loving your fellow man regardless of their faults; advocated for universal health care and redistribution of wealth; never said a goddamn thing about queer people or abortion; and was violently murdered for crimes against the state for being a radical revolutionary. (As opposed to Republican Jesus Christ, who was a blonde White guy from Florida [probably] who preached about owning all the guns, limiting women’s rights to making babies, killin’ queer people, and forcing people to worship God.)
That sounds an awful lot like you’re waiting for queer people to be lined up against a wall and shot merely for existing.
Yeah, uh, the Religious Right is precisely why modern American conservatism is so deeply and thoroughly fucked in the long term. Not listening to those theocractic needledicks would be the best thing the GOP could ever do for itself…aside from, you know, abandoning its dreams of enabling an authoritarian government that no one could challenge in any meaningful way without acts of violence (which would itself necessitate the use of authoritarian violence).
Re: Re: Re:2
Christians to the lions.
The non-asshole ones will comply. The asshole ones are outnumbered.
They’ve had it too good for too long. It’s time the furries stood up against these child molesters.
Re: Re: Re:
Oh, good.
You finally admit you hate us all enough to want to shoot us all.
Good, good. You’re finally being honest.
If Jan 6 wasn’t enough proof your side wants violence.
Re:
Note: In the real world, contrary to the kprons’ false narrative, the few emails that weren’t fake/tampered came from a hack of Burisma’s systems, same MO as the Russians’ earlier theft and fabrication of DNC emails. The stolen laptop’s hard drive shows signs of tampering and most of the “emails” lack forensic evidence of authenticity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Here’s what the Washington Post actually said. Contrast with the pathologcal liars’ “Everything is totally true” disinformation:
And then there’s this:
I was asked to lie about Hunter Biden, admits Ukrainian businessman
Hares Youssef claims he was promised a US visa in return for information that would damage Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, writes Manveen Rana
And remember that “use stolen real content salted with fabrications crafted to push false propaganda (e.g. Seth Rich hit) and present technically incompetent claims of the data’s origin (inside job)” is what we saw before with the DNC email hack.
Re: Re: Re:2
Context. Keep in mind we have no context. Written could be a mandated windows update, a cracking tool, a telemetry response… anything.
Re: Re: Re:3
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“Not listening to those theocractic needledicks would be the best thing the GOP could ever do for itself.”
Preaching to the choir. But you should be more concerned with whom on the right the GOP Christians are keeping in check.
Let’s just say that the ones being held back by the moderating force of the ‘love your enemy’ Judeo-Christians in the Republican Party don’t exactly have a ‘turn the other cheek’ attitude towards child molesters and their enablers .
All the Christians want to do to pedophiles and groomers is have them accept the magical commie Jew in the sky as their savior.
The RWDS (that you people keep pushing for) will have no interest in bargaining with sickos. They will simply start up the woodchipper. Poof, no more pedophiles or their enablers .
Re:
Uh…literally nobody? I mean, it’s not like conservative Christians were able to keep Donald “Can you believe that people believe that bullshit?” Trump from being a profoundly immoral man after they voted the son of a bitch into office. I don’t see them doing much better with people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Ron DeSantis, and Greg Abbott.
Yes, we’re all well aware than you think all queer people are sex offenders merely because they exist, and yes, we’re all well aware that conservatives have been attacking queer people as of late because of the pervasive and overt queerphobia within both right-wing American politics and conservative Christianity. Get a new song; this one was already tone deaf when it first popped up decades ago.
Nice to know that you’re more than eager to start executing queer people without so much as a trial. Really shows how much of a limp-dicked shitstain you really are.
Re: Re: Stone you sick SOB, Gay doesn't equal Pedophile !!!
Where did that come from? Pretty barbaric, Stone.
Gay Pride parades have been disallowing NAMBLA from marching since the mid 1990s. They don’t want people like you accusing gay of = pedo.
I said nothing about queers. I said executing child molesters and their supporters. If you read “child molester” as “queer”, get with the times. “Homosexual” doesn’t mean “pedophile”.
The homosexual community has done a lot of work distancing itself from sickos like Allen Ginsberg precisely because people like you.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Documentaries/comments/rl76hb/chicken_hawk_men_who_love_boys_1994_a_documentary/
You’re undoing a lot of good work, Stone.
Re: Re: Re:
And if you haven’t noticed, the latest round of accusations of “grooming” are happening at the same time attacks against queer people—and trans people in particular—are rising, especially from both conservative pundits (especially on conservative-controlled media) and conservative lawmakers (especially within conservative-controlled states). The underlying goal is to raise that long-dead “gay people are trying to recruit your children into being gay” canard back from the grave and make it apply to queer people…and their non-queer allies, of course. Once the idea of “queer people are trying to trans your kids and rape them” worms its way into the conservative media bubble and the thought processes of those living in said bubble, the leap from “we’re just targeting groomers” to “queer people need to have their civil rights stripped” won’t look so large.
I’m well aware that that bullshit is bullshit. Go tell your conservative allies that it’s bullshit and see how long they wait to brand you as a “groomer” for daring to stick up for queer people.
(And yes, I know you’re a conservative troll. You posted a bad faith interpretation of my post that, in any other situation, would require actual brain damage for anyone to interpret what I said as supporting the idea you say I support. Did you think I wouldn’t notice, or did you think I wouldn’t care?)
Re: Re: Re:2
Any one should be allowed to have any relations of any type with any other as long as those relations are consensual.
Anyone who disagrees with me should be slowly and agonisingly beaten to death with wet noodles 🍜
Re: Re: Re:
And here’s the problem with vigilante “justice” and dispensing the death penalty for the most offensive and disgusting crimes:
https://apnews.com/article/virginia-sexual-assault-500ef04e63672214e2e262d1338370ea
Now of course if this guy had actually done these awful things to his children I would be hard pressed to muster some merciful feelings towards him. He could have been tortured and violently killed by guards behind bars, with hours of footage of brutality for evidence, and I doubt anyone would be fighting to hold guards accountable. But this man didn’t do those awful things to his kids. He was convicted with at least a semblance of defensive legal representation, which some people didn’t think he deserved based on the accusations. It’s the kind of case that makes defense attorneys seem like the scummiest of lawyers. (They aren’t, ambulance chasers are)
I hear this kind of rhetoric (feed the pedos to the woodchipper) from my husband and some of his friends, and I know that they mean well. But they are dead fucking wrong, and I tell them that. It’s ALWAYS wrong to execute people. And while you pretend that you mean the worst imaginable cases, like what that father was accused of, nothing changes the fact that death cannot be undone. Or that there will continue to be reckless accusations of evil, based on homophobia and ignorance. Or that you really do mean anyone queer or supportive the community. Taking permanent, non-revokable actions like execution aren’t Christian values, or so-called western values or offering any protection nor justice to children. Frankly, it sounds ridiculous that you claim the evangelicals are holding folks back from their bloodlust, because the evangelicals are rife with pedos! (Which is not an attempt to smear evangelicals, just pointing out that sexual repression and patriarchal structure enables those in power to victimize those without power by undermining their creditability and casting out anyone challenging them)
In reality, this is advocating lynch mobs. This renewed movement to brand LGBTQ and any one supportive, because be honest that’s the goal, as pedophiles and child abusers actually puts children in danger and enables abusers.
And speaking of, all this bullshit about how any mention of gender, biological sex, or human sexuality to little kids some how corrupts, or primes them for sexual abuse, is exactly that, bullshit. In Western Europe kids in kindergarten are given at minimum proper terminology for male & female bodies, and in some places simplistic explanation of human reproduction. Kids over there have already gotten compressive sex education by the time kids here get sex segregated uncomfortable lessons on puberty, about 5th grade, which is after some girls have gotten their first period. The US has higher rates of sexual violence, STI, unplanned pregnancy, teenage pregnancy, while lower rates of sexual satisfaction and less gender equality for women. When are we, especially the suburban moms like me, going to figure out we handle the subject of sex all wrong. It would be a lot easier to demolish this hate filled rhetoric if kids, yes little kids, already learned basic information about their bodies and sex openly and honestly instead of keeping it a dirty secret.
Re:
So, those that DO want to start the woodchipper are keeping the spineless, psychopathic morons in check?
That is, the insurrectionists on Jan 6 are keeping the “love thy neighbour” crowd?
Because, if what you say is true, there’s no point being nice anymore and it’s time to actually start doing some very nasty things to not only Trump, but also the 73 million who voted for him.
Something that’d make the Japanese Internment AND how the Bonus Army was cleared out look downright nice in comparison.
Re: Re:
You guys focus on the non-insurrection as much as the fox people focus on the handful of violent idiots at BLM rallies. Of the thousands, a small handful broke the law in any meaningful way. A few dozen went beyond the entry and into the corridor.
Between 6 and 8 people commute vandalism.
The most consistent “crime” there was trespass. Not much different than every person who blocked a public street.
That you would resort to concentration camps for a differing opinion says a lot about your dangerous ideology than anything.
Look in the mirror. You’re a dangerous problem.
Studies that find no censorship.
Alright, seriously. Last post. I’m really tired of people holding up these “studies” as proof positive there isn’t censorship happening. They are created by people with a vested interest in finding nothing. What do I mean? Consider that academia today is 95% liberal. That’s not an exaggeration, that’s the latest figures. In this tribal world we live in today, that means that every single study has been performed by people who wouldn’t want to find out that their side is doing the censoring. Secondly, their data sets are abysmal because they have to rely on publicly available data. For example, the NYU study, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/6011e68dec2c7013d3caf3cb/1611785871154/NYU+False+Accusation+report_FINAL.pdf
has this little gem as their summary of how they know conservatives aren’t being censored.
“Taken together, these various measures based on engagement suggest that, if the platforms are trying to suppress conservative views, they’re not doing a very good job.”
Go look at how they decided whether or not censorship is happening. They use engagement as a proxy because they DON’T HAVE THE DATA. In other words, they say, hey, conservatives are getting a lot of posts, lots of hits, lots of engagement, therefor, censorship isn’t happening. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that that argument doesn’t track logically. It’s the difference between correlation and causation.
I’m not arguing that there is a blanket censorship of conservatives going on, which for some reason, everyone wants to assume is the argument. Oh yea, its because that argument is a lot easier to refute than the one that’s actually being made. I’m arguing that censorship is selectively happening around targeted issues, such as the hunter laptop story. Everyone here seems to act like these studies are proving something, when they are all circumstantial to an extreme fault, using other data as a stand in when it simply doesn’t work as a stand in, and when they do have hard data on actual examples of censorship, the sample sizes are so paltry I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some serious cherry picking going on.
In summary, on one hand, we have highly flawed studies done by groups that have a dog in the fight, on the other hand, we have the Hunter Biden laptop story, a story by a legitimate NEWSPAPER that was CENSORED by Twitter weeks before the election. I mean, what planet are you people living on to ignore direct evidence in favor of highly suspect circumstantial evidence?
I just… I don’t get it. It’s blindingly obvious what happened. Mike acts like this was just an example of poor moderation or policy (that’s the most favorable argument he made out of a bunch of nonsense ones…) , but when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
Re:
Huh, wow. I’d never heard of that NYU study before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
But, kinda weird that you point to some totally different study using some totally different data and a totally different methodology and insist that proves that this study is no good… just because, as you claim, it must have been done by “liberals.” Something you present no actual proof for.
Let me give you a hint on your promised way out the door: if you start with the assumption “I don’t like the results of this study so it must have been done by liberals” the problem is with you and your unwillingness to consider actual data.
And I’m not sure why you keep repeating the Hunter Biden thing. We debunked that 7 ways from Sunday, even to the point of showing that that story ended up getting more traffic because of all this. So, it’s kinda hard for anyone to actually believe it was “censorship” trying to “influence the election” unless they literally ignore all the facts.
When you start with what you insist the answer is already and then ignore all evidence to the contrary, as you keep doing, then claim it’s “blindingly obvious” despite ALL of the ACTUAL EVIDENCE, well, again, that’s just a you problem, dude.
Now, come on, you want to go back to your safe space where no one challenges you with facts and evidence. Run along. Tucker is waiting. Just waiting to fill your silly ignorant brain with nonsense, which you’ll lap up and believe because you’ve never had an original thought in your life.
Re: Re:
Mike, my dude, you forgot one of the central tenets of modern conservative ideology: Something is against conservatives if it isn’t controlled by conservatives—even if all available evidence says otherwise.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You’re so right Mike. It’s obvious that because they tried and failed to manipulate people, that it wasn’t an attempt at censorship. No harm no foul. You’ve repeated that asinine argument too many times considering how bad it is.
What proof do I need? 95% of academica is liberal. Everyone knows the universities are a hotbed of far left views. I couldn’t find the more recent study that shows the 95% number I saw, but it’s real. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/
As far as this particular study, I already critiqued it, but here you go again for your easy perusal.
Same problem as with all the others you keep using to “prove” that there isn’t bias, their data collection is more than a little problematic.
“in that it corrected for generally agreed upon false information sharers”
This is pretty odd. I guess it makes some level of sense, but this is why I’m so skeptical of studies on this topic because of how hard it is to get good data. They corrected for “false information sharers” not based on individual articles, but by cataloguing websites “by averaging the trustworthiness ratings of all sites whose links they share.”
In other words, they’ve rated websites and regardless of the content of of what people linked themselves, assigned it a trustworthiness rating. The problem is that these “neutral” people who rate the trustworthiness of websites or aren’t trustworthy themselves. I’ve already explained how these fact checkers they relied on are often incredibly biased themselves, Snopes being a good example.
https://nypost.com/2022/02/16/snopes-latest-example-of-fact-checking-the-truth-away/
The authors even stated that their analysis couldn’t prove or disprove the bias allegations, but could only show that conservatives were bigger on misinformation, which in itself is highly problematic. What was called misinformation last year is today’s truth so yea, not the best of proxies. Give me a better study.
Re: Re: Re:
What you are really complaining about is that the majority do not support your politics, and that is not a problem to be solved by legal means.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve seen yet on this comment thread, and that’s saying something. You don’t even know my politics. I’ll give you a hint, I’m not a conservative.
Re: Re: Re:3
Do tell!
Or are we supposed to guess.
I know, I know… you’re a “small l libertarian”? No, no, that’s too obvious. Oh, I bet I’ve got it: “a classical liberal.”
Do you call yourself a “free thinker” too?
Look, greydude, you’ve made it absolutely clear that whatever you call yourself, you’re a brainwashed fool, deluded by Fox News/Breitbarts of the world to believe utter nonsense, with a big heaping dose of confirmation bias/cognitive dissonance.
You’re someone who pretends to be a “free thinker” but refuses to accept anything that goes against what your heroes tell you. You’re the worst kind of sheep, led by powerful men who are using you to boost their own egos, telling you you’re a free thinker… if you just accept everything they shove down your throat. Good little sheep… good little sheep. Yeah, you’re a free thinker, sure you are…
Re: Re: Re:4
More of a free thinker than you, that’s for sure. Certainly more of a thinker too, considering that I discuss the issues on their merits, and everyone who’s disagreed with me, like yourself, resort to personal attacks because they have no actual argument.
Re: Re: Re:5
[Projects facts contrary to ample provided evidence]
Re: Re: Re:4
A castle builder?
Ah, na. That focuses on civil liberties.
He’d have to first untie himself from “the god delusion”. There are agnostic free thinkers, but they are very few.
I’d guess near north Far East.
As opposed to my far south mid west.
On the Eysenck compass
Though the bi-axial compass places me far down far left. And the tri-axial puts me dead centre. Nolan places me so far left I practically fall off the chart. But slightly up.
I’d love to see where Grey places. On any scale.
Re: Re: Re:5 Ftm
For that matter; I lose wonder where others like Paul and STS place.
Politics isn’t as A-B as some users here think.
Re: Re: Re:3
I don’t need to know your politics, when you are complaining that not all politics get equal exposure, and imply that popular opinions are something you think have an unfair advantage.
Re: Re: Re:
It really isn’t. Conservatives/right-wingers are far more likely to fall for mis- and disinformation because their media bubbles have no defenses for—and often amplify—all that bullshit. Yes, liberal/left-wing media bubbles have their own issues with that bullshit. But when it gets debunked, those issues tend to correct themselves.
Re:
I’m tired of people pretending it’s a problem. Private censorship is vital speech. You don’t see me demanding you add the Apocalypse of Adam or the Gospel of Judas to the bible. Despite them being christian works.
Like it or not Twitter’s censorship is their freedom of speech. By forcing them to host speech they don’t want you are diluting their speech.
So what. Why do you care personally what Twitter doesn’t want to host on their service? Do you want satanic sex rituals hosted on Parler? How about we force Truth to host a discussion about lesbian fetish movements and how they promote greater pleasure for adherents?
Sort of. The link was censored. But coverage was extensive elsewhere.
WTAF?
Have you never heard a pack of zebras? The sounds are the same. For most hoofed animals of similar size and shape.
Re: Re:
It feels like half your arguments are tongue in cheek.
Twitter and facebook should be regarded as public squares. We don’t live in the 1700’s any more, people don’t congregate in physical spaces, social media apps have taken their place. And if you don’t like that argument, then if they want section 230 protections, they certainly shouldn’t be putting their thumbs on the scales.
Horses not zebras is and idiom about Occam’s razor you silly man. If I’m in Africa, sure, it MIGHT be acceptable to think zebra. But in the USA? To quote good ‘ol Joe, “C’mon man!” Everyone is twisting themselves into pretzels to try and explain how the laptop story wasn’t censorship, when the most obvious and simplest example is that it was.
Re: Re: Re:
The biggest issue with “Hunter Biden”‘s laptop is that Hared Kushner made $640 million while Trump was president.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, see, that’s why the story never gained much traction: For however corrupt Hunter Biden seemed as a result of the laptop story, the known corruption of Trump’s adult children was far greater in scale. People largely didn’t care about Hunter’s (alleged) corruption because it wasn’t that important even in the grand scheme of American politics.
Re: Re: Re:3
There’s a minor difference in the Trump family’s business as usual and the Biden family’s alleged trading of access. But ultimately it’s no different in politics here for every presidential family.
Neither family comes close to the type of stuff that happened in the Cold War or the inter-war period.
Ultimately it’s not all that much of a bombshell as it is a ‘look, more of the same’.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, after all the things that happened with Trump, from his daughter being brought to meetings with world leaders to his son-in-law being put in charge of pandemic relief, despite neither have anything that remotely looks like a qualification for either role – that his fans thought that nepotism was the thing to try and hang Biden with will never cease to amaze me.
Re: Re: Re:4
What’s interesting is you think “ nepotism” was the target. And not who the connections connected, or how, or why, or where.
Emails appear to show direct financial arrangements directly based on office access. That’s very different than placing family members in political positions: something most Presidents of late so. Eg M Obama.
Trump, Obama, Bush, etc etc… all did things openly. The reason this is an issue for some is that, if accurate, it was hidden from the public and clandestine.
It wasn’t pulling family members into politics, par for the corse, but direct financial gains in exchange for access.
The difference appears to be classical nepotism vs flat out bribery.
Re: Re: Re:5
“What’s interesting is you think “ nepotism” was the target. And not who the connections connected, or how, or why, or where.”
The main criticisms I’ve read tend to focus on Hunter’s connections through his father, some of which happened when he was a private citizen and not in government. The rest of the details are a little wooly, and the “where” seem to be attempts at distracting from Trump’s known dealings with the same countries.
I’ll be happy to see evidence, but this laptop as the source, with its highly suspicious route to being known in the first place, doesn’t pass muster without more supporting evidence.
“It wasn’t pulling family members into politics, par for the corse, but direct financial gains in exchange for access.”
Whereas Trump’s White House is known to have offered both.
“The difference appears to be classical nepotism vs flat out bribery.”
I fail to see why bribery is worse than access for political and financial gain, but I’m open to suggestions.
Re: Re: Re:
Everyone? Didn’t I just say twitter censors? Cry from the rooftops etc etc?
Yet twitter is a private company.
Move the venue.
Should a republican owned theatre be forced to host Disney films if they chose to boycott Disney?
Twitter is also not the town square. I read posts from a single company once or twice a month when they release info. And only because they chose to stop releasing that info on their own site and via feed.
Look at twitter’s user count and hold it up to the population of the world. Even by country.
Twitter is nowhere near reaching human majority.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s so weird how all the “conservatives” out there are quick to want to seize private property for supposed public good. It’s like they all became communists overnight.
Guess what, cupcake, public squares also had rules, and if you violated them you’d get kicked out. The analogy of the “public square” remains one of the dumbest ones out there, when you’re talking about private property. As Brett Kavanaugh wrote, just because a lot of people congregate in one business, it doesn’t make it public property. It’s still private.
As Rep. Chris Cox (the Republican co-author of 230) noted, the entire point was to enable websites to moderate as they see fit. Your proposed solution makes no sense, as it goes against the entire point of 230.
Weren’t you leaving?
Re: Re: Re:
Why, they have largely replaced newspapers and letters to the editor as place to hold political discussions, and there was no pressure for newspapers to be neutral, and in fact most of them were and are partisan.
Re: Re: Re:2 This study is problematic.
Actually decided to dig into the study. Same problem as with all the others you keep using to “prove” that there isn’t bias, their data collection is problematic.
“in that it corrected for generally agreed upon false information sharers”
This is pretty odd. I guess it makes some level of sense, but this is why I’m so skeptical of studies on this topic because of how hard it is to get good data. They corrected for “false information sharers” not based on individual articles, but by cataloguing websites “by averaging the trustworthiness ratings of all sites whose links they share.”
In other words, they’ve rated websites and regardless of the content of the links themselves, assigned it a trustworthiness rating. The authors even stated that their analysis couldn’t prove or disprove the bias allegations, but could only show that conservatives were bigger on misinformation. And I’ve already explained how these fact checkers they relied on are often incredibly biased themselves, snopes being the most obvious example. so yea. Skeptical. Give me a better study.
Re: Re: Re:3
The sole “problem” being that it debunks your deranged false narratives.
Re:
Yeah, it was so “censored” by Twitter that after the decision to ding the New York Post for linking to the story, that decision and the story itself were one of the hottest topics of discussion across Twitter for at least the rest of that day. Hell, to my knowledge, Twitter didn’t even ban anyone for posting that link (and that includes the New York Post). How can it be “censorship” if…
And I don’t want to hear any weaksauce “deletion is censorship” counterarguments. Bring something with actual fucking substance to the table or keep moving along.
Re: Re:
We’ll skip over the deletion is censorship aspect for you. The problem with this idea is it has caused two years of baseless conspiracy.
Any Republican (or Dem) who wants to look at the actual umbers is in for a difficult bit of salt water.
Let’s take the absolute highest number I’ve seen, which I believe was published by Breitbart. 38%, of Biden supporters polled may have changed their vote.
That’s of some 8000 or so polled?
The idea that the story could have changed the election falls flat on 3 counts
1) more democrats and independents voted in 2020 then ever before. Not just in size but by recorder population percentage. These people simply hated Trump.
2) floaters, people like myself who issue vote regardless of party, overwhelmingly voted 3rd option.
3) for better and for worse: republicans a} could have used vote by mail or ballot drop and didn’t, and b} many previous, and “confirmed” poll locations were closed do to COVID restrictions and/or reaction. Those who opted to screw the “system” or the “man” and didn’t execute due diligence didn’t vote.
All three of these would have not been different with or without the laptop link.
All the story has done was cause a big ruckus with no real effect on anything.