Twitter's alleged bias towards left-wing trolls.

is_that_so

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Some men photographed in the Capital House were black and they wore Trump gear. The media lying to you about this was just angry White men. All kinds of people, different skin color, different backgrounds were inside the building. That does not fit the narrative the democrats want.

The narrative is the assault on the building. It's not a partisan issue and who they were matters less than what they did.

MisterAnarchy

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Because most people on the left (not the real left, the social media americanised left) exist to be offended and to silence other people. When anyone falls foul of the angry mob twitter is inundated with reports.

Thomas Sowell sums this up quite well I think

Anyone who studies the history of ideas should notice how much more often people on the political left, more so than others, denigrate and demonize those who disagree with them — instead of answering their arguments.

and

Too many people today act as if no one can honestly disagree with them. If you have a difference of opinion with them, you are considered to be not merely in error but in sin. You are a racist, a homophobe or whatever the villain of the day happens to be.

Cody montana

Bambi wrote: »

Most social media should die in a chip pan fire but unfortunately it is now the arena of public discourse.

Looks like you want to stop free speech.

Robert ninja

Cody montana wrote: »

I’m a lefty and I can assure you women don’t have a penis.
Unless they’re trans or born with it.

See without that 'unless' that would be hate speech and you'd be liable to banned, but probably only if you're not clearly on their side.

There's only 2 genders
Israel is a terrorist state
Blacks in the US proportionally commit more crime

If you produced enough content about any of these then you will be removed from social media. I've seen it. Lots have to have their own websites now and even they are getting their hosting terminated, payment processors blacklisting them.

I can't even find the video anymore (deleted) but it was a British woman who had her bank account frozen because she made videos criticizing the UK's censorship laws and favoritism towards muslims. Now that her YT is gone I literally can't locate her content or find out what happened. It's why whenever you find dissenting voices you need to immediately create a bookmark tree of all their backup platforms, which each begin to blink off when they've been targeted.

Cheerful Spring2

is_that_so wrote: »

The narrative is the assault on the building. It's not a partisan issue and who they were matters less than what they did.

The Biden media narrative not absolutely accurate. Video emerged show the police inside opening the doors to let the crowds in. Many who got inside did not break in, they walked in. From the photos, you see Militia groups from the south, racists there, young and old conservatives, women for Trump, also Trump supporters, with different skin color and probably also agent provocateurs mixed in with them to cause trouble.

completedit

I think the nature of the pandemic and increased digitalisation of society brings to light just how significant a precedent this is. Sites like FB and Twitter are public domains and control most of the communication space in today's world. Effectively, we have a US president locked out of communication while still in office. Its clichéd but its the stuff of Black Mirror. The "most powerful man in the world" can't make a retweet. Bizarre times.

However, Trump sets a dangerous precedent too so it depends on which precedent you determine to be more ominous; a raving cretin inciting violence or big tech oligopolies increase control over communication networks. It has to be said Twitter didn't ban Trump for his politics, but to what degree should they be able to step in and wield the power of their terms and conditions? I haven't read them but it just seems a slippery slope whereby anything that doesn't mesh with the American left form of progress is seen as a violation of the TS and Cs.

MisterAnarchy

This article explains Twitters bias pretty well.

https://unherd.com/2020/05/the-sinister-bias-of-youtube-and-twitter/

It is well known that Silicon Valley is perhaps the most liberal (in the American sense of the term) place in the world. The people who work at the tech companies are almost uniformly left-leaning progressives, if not something stronger, and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has admitted in the past that the corporation’s few conservatives don’t feel safe to voice their opinion. Similarly a former Facebook employee has accused the site of ‘curating’ feeds to screen out conservative content.

At the higher end, these companies have strong links with progressive politics on both sides of the Atlantic. The flood of former officials from the Obama administration into Silicon Valley after he left office, and Hillary Clinton failed to reach the White House in 2016, is well recorded.

All of this and much more means that the tech companies swim in a bubble within a bubble. Their awareness of where the political or moral centre skews consistently left. When they do manage to take down terrorist material from their platforms, for instance, they placate the criticism they expect by stressing that they are opposed to ‘extremism’ in general; or ‘hateful content’, to give just one of the fabulously flatulent terms currently in vogue.

It is the same with YouTube, which even before you get to the issue of banning has the subtle art of ‘demonetisation’, by which the media giant signals whom it favours and whom it does not.
For years it has become clear that conservative-leaning content in particular is having its ability to monetise (that is, make money from advertising revenue raised by views) removed because the site disapproves of the politics.

The kicker in all of this is that as the various platforms are caught out in various forms of censorship, their final move is to confirm in their terms of service that they are allowed to do the things that, up till that point, they denied doing. So having spent years denying that they engaged in ‘shadow-banning’, in January the new terms of service agreement that all Twitter users were requested to agree to included having the right to refuse to distribute certain content and to “limit distribution or visibility of any Content on the service”. Otherwise known as shadow-banning.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Ah right so you're still denying you were engaging in "so what you're saying is" when its there in black and white. Just want to establish what level of pseudo reality that you're operating on.

You claimed that Parler was the equivalent to stormfront, another trope so standard that it has its own meme:




The last time I checked Stormfront was an avowedly Neo-Nazi forum run by a Neo-Nazi. Parler is a social media site founded by American conservatives who are affiliated with the Republican party that has a commitment to freee speech.

Now in the pseudoreality that you operate in a commitment to free speech might be equivalent to Nazism but for those of us who are living in your makey up online world theres an obvious difference.

There is a huge amount of hate speech on Parler. They make a point of it being unrestricted. On top of that, it was used to organise the terrorist attack on Wednesday. I would be very surprised if the fbi aren't investigating them in the next few days. It was also where those proud conservatives called for Mike Pence to be hung due to his failure to enable a tyrant. So downplaying it as a home for conservative voices doesn't represent the reality of what the platform is. It's a home to extremists in the exact same way stormfront. In fact, being a site that was used to organised domestic terrorism breaches pretty much any hosting platforms rules btw.

Robert ninja wrote: »

See without that 'unless' that would be hate speech and you'd be liable to banned, but probably only if you're not clearly on their side.

There's only 2 genders
Israel is a terrorist state
Blacks in the US proportionally commit more crime

If you produced enough content about any of these then you will be removed from social media. I've seen it. Lots have to have their own websites now and even they are getting their hosting terminated, payment processors blacklisting them.

I can't even find the video anymore (deleted) but it was a British woman who had her bank account frozen because she made videos criticizing the UK's censorship laws and favoritism towards muslims. Now that her YT is gone I literally can't locate her content or find out what happened. It's why whenever you find dissenting voices you need to immediately create a bookmark tree of all their backup platforms, which each begin to blink off when they've been targeted.

You should be able to provide a link rather than an anecdote that you've likely modified heavily.

Robert ninja

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a huge amount of hate speech on Parler.

If it's not illegal like like doxing where you specifically go after a private citizen and tell others to harass them then they can hate all they want. Hate shouldn't be illegal and silencing people doesn't solve it. The solution to hate speech is more free speech so you can call them out on it. Otherwise it's a one-sided conversation and you're naive if you think you're always going to be on the good end of that well oiled censorship machine you're helping to build.

Deleted User wrote: »

You should be able to provide a link rather than an anecdote that you've likely modified heavily.

A link to what? Some banned channels that you can now only find on alt tech? Or you mean the one I literally can't find anymore because they were censored before I could make a backup of them? What a self fulfilling prophecy that is. There's no evidence of all the banning because it's all banned :pac: What a joke. Oh and FYI, the overwhelming majroity of banning and shadowbans don't get the kind of mention that Donald Trump does. It's not an easy thing to track an in fact they purposely make it hard to find out what even happened. I have videos missing from playlists where it doesn't even tell me what it was. Just a grey box.

Robert ninja

Robert ninja wrote: »

If it's not illegal like like doxing where you specifically go after a private citizen and tell others to harass them then they can hate all they want. Hate shouldn't be illegal and silencing people doesn't solve it. The solution to hate speech is more free speech so you can call them out on it. Otherwise it's a one-sided conversation and you're naive if you think you're always going to be on the good end of that well oiled censorship machine you're helping to build.


A link to what? Some banned channels that you can now only find on alt tech? Or you mean the one I literally can't find anymore because they were censored before I could make a backup of them? What a self fulfilling prophecy that is. There's no evidence of all the banning because it's all banned :pac: What a joke. Oh and FYI, the overwhelming majroity of banning and shadowbans don't get the kind of mention that Donald Trump does. It's not an easy thing to track an in fact they purposely make it hard to find out what even happened. I have videos missing from playlists where it doesn't even tell me what it was. Just a grey box.

That has never worked... Unrestricted hate speech does not help and in the case of parler it just serves as a congregation ground. Let's remember how the Christchurch shooter used post his hate speech online and that really helped. Same for Breivik who often outright quoted those who favour unrestricted hate speech.

But regardless, a terror attack on the Capitol was egged on and parts of it were even organised on Parler. It's also not the first time that platforms that emphasised unrestricted free speech was used to do so. Iirc, 8chan was similarly associated with attacks.

In relation to your other anecdote, you can't prove it even happened. No news story of any kind? Fair to conclude it's probably nonsense.

Cody montana

Robert ninja wrote: »

See without that 'unless' that would be hate speech and you'd be liable to banned, but probably only if you're not clearly on their side.

There's only 2 genders
Israel is a terrorist state
Blacks in the US proportionally commit more crime

If you produced enough content about any of these then you will be removed from social media. I've seen it. Lots have to have their own websites now and even they are getting their hosting terminated, payment processors blacklisting them.

I can't even find the video anymore (deleted) but it was a British woman who had her bank account frozen because she made videos criticizing the UK's censorship laws and favoritism towards muslims. Now that her YT is gone I literally can't locate her content or find out what happened. It's why whenever you find dissenting voices you need to immediately create a bookmark tree of all their backup platforms, which each begin to blink off when they've been targeted.

I’ve been incredibly critical of Israel on twitter and never been given a warning.
And I’ve seen the other views posted on Twitter and Facebook all the time.

Robert ninja

Cody montana wrote: »

I’ve been incredibly critical of Israel on twitter and never been given a warning.
And I’ve seen the other views posted on Twitter and Facebook all the time.

What's your audience reach? Let me know when you have an average viewership of 100k+ on each Israel-critical tweet/video you make, see how long you last. An absolute ton of them I followed got purged when they actually got heard.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a huge amount of hate speech on Parler.

Ah yes hatespeech and Alt right Naziiiss. All your fallback responses are so boilerplate you could be countered entirely through the medium of memes I

Twitter is full of people expressing hatred of others based on their skin colour, sex, poltical view pionts, ancestry etc. and yet its still available on Google and Apples stores because the tech corporations don't consider it to be hatepseech.

By your logic they should be gone and yet they are not but Parler is.

Cheerful Spring2

Cody montana wrote: »

So nothing.
Do you not think you should take personal responsibility for your comments?

Trump and others were allowed to run free for 4 years, people became radicalised, the outcome was obvious this week.
Must never happen again.

Nobody has actually shown a genuine quote where Trump told them to storm the building. The narrative i suggested days ago on here seems to be right.. Biden media said sources inside the White House revealed Trump was upset the people who got inside made him look bad. A bit of logic knows Trump only wanted them to go and demonstrate like the BLM protestors outside.

Some people do think Trump wanted his supporters to murder the senators representing the country on live TV? The same people believed there was a Russian hotel Pee tape and Trump is a Russian operative.

That’s bull****, those groups were there in Bush and Obama time. Pretending these groups all just appeared because of Trump pure fiction.

Cody montana

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody has actually shown a genuine quote where Trump told them to storm the building. The narrative i suggested days ago on here seems to be right.. Biden media said sources inside the White House revealed Trump was upset the people who got inside made him look bad. A bit of logics knows Trump only wanted them to go and demonstrate like the BLM protestors outside

Some people do think Trump wanted his supporters to murder the senators representing the country on live TV? The same people believed there was a Russian hotel Pee tape and Trump is a Russian operative.

That’s bull****, those groups were there in Bush and Obama time. Pretending these groups all just appeared because of Trump pure fiction.

You have got to be kidding me!

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Ah yes hatespeech and Alt right Naziiiss. All your fallback responses are so boilerplate you could be countered entirely through the medium of memes I

Twitter is full of people expressing hatred of others based on their skin colour, sex, poltical view pionts, ancestry etc. and yet its still available on Google and Apples stores because the tech corporations don't consider it to be hatepseech.

By your logic they should be gone and yet they are not but Parler is.

Twitter has a moderation policy which generally covers them and they ban users who violate the rules which includes hate speech, incitement to violence or terror attacks. They also weren't used to help organise a terror attack on the Capitol. Your meme usage is far less clever than you think it is. Pretty sure you could choose talking points from stormfront and find the exact same on Parler with the exact same rhetoric btw.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

But regardless, a terror attack on the Capitol was egged on and parts of it were even organised on Parler. It's also not the first time that platforms that emphasised unrestricted free speech was used to do so. Iirc, 8chan was similarly associated with attacks.

In the same way the terror attacks on federal buildings in Portland were being egged on here? You might remember what posts you were thanking back then

Gmail, Facebook, Youtube, SMS, Whatsapp, Viber, Telegram, mobile phones etc have all been used as communication tools for illegal activities so I assume you want them all banned? When are we shutting Vodafone down? People distribute drugs through An Post, that will have to go too.

Robert ninja

Deleted User wrote: »

Fair to conclude it's probably nonsense.

If you honestly believe people don't get banned from social media for talking about certain topics because what, I fail to give you a link to something you're not even being specific about? Then there's no hope for you. There's a whole list of words that if you even mention them (no context of pro/anti) will get your video demonitised and pushed down in results.

Here, start your journey

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=youtube+bans+conserative&t=ffab&ia=web

FYI 8chan had better track record of removing illegal content than facebook. They were faster at it, too. Facebook had child grooming gangs for YEARS on their platform and they encourage families to upload pictures, which they auto tag and can be easily used by predators. The terror attack that got posted there was also livestreamed to facebook.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Twitter has a moderation policy which generally covers them and they ban users who violate the rules which includes hate speech, incitement to violence or terror attacks. They also weren't used to help organise a terror attack on the Capitol. Your meme usage is far less clever than you think it is. Pretty sure you could choose talking points from stormfront and find the exact same on Parler with the exact same rhetoric btw.

No they don't, unless you live in the pseudoreality that you occupy. As previously, watch the Joe Rogan podcast where Tim Pool points it out to them and watch their response

Eric Cartman

Conservatives were removed from twitter and the left rejoiced, they moved to parler and the left were horrified, parler banned and the left rejoiced.

Its not about stopping them seeing these views or protecting kids or challenging nazi’s , its very clear that the agenda is to silence conservatives.

Whatever about twitter but if you have google removing parler from the play store and the apple app store banning it then that is a freedom limiting change considering theres little alternative to android and apple , this is silencing conservatives

senordingdong

Cody montana wrote: »

The consequences are censorship.
You spread hate, you get shut down.

Same as on here, same as in real life.

That's not the way it is in real life.
The consequence should be reasoned debate, or at worst, being ostracised by the community.

Movementarian

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody has actually shown a genuine quote where Trump told them to storm the building. The narrative i suggested days ago on here seems to be right.. Biden media said sources inside the White House revealed Trump was upset the people who got inside made him look bad. A bit of logic knows Trump only wanted them to go and demonstrate like the BLM protestors outside.

Some people do think Trump wanted his supporters to murder the senators representing the country on live TV? The same people believed there was a Russian hotel Pee tape and Trump is a Russian operative.

That’s bull****, those groups were there in Bush and Obama time. Pretending these groups all just appeared because of Trump pure fiction.

Its not that the groups weren't there its that they have been emboldened by the curreny administration like never before. By not openly denouncing them and using phrases like 'stand back and stand by' it allows them to believe they are validated.

Add on top of that multiple and continued lies that their vote is stolen and it was bound to blow up like it did.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

In the same way the terror attacks on federal buildings in Portland were being egged on here? You might remember what posts you were thanking back then

Gmail, Facebook, Youtube, SMS, Whatsapp, Viber, Telegram, mobile phones etc have all been used as communication tools for illegal activities so I assume you want them all banned? When are we shutting Vodafone down? People distribute drugs through An Post, that will have to go too.

Iirc, the protests in 2020 were never classified as a terror attack. Any ringleaders to the state Capitol incident will likely face terror charges, they entered the building to attempt to overthrow a government.

Social media is somewhat of a different issue to messaging apps. It's not a form of private communication and is possible to moderate or report to authorities when necessary. Youtube, Twitter and Facebook on the other hand generally overhaul their processes even they fail to remove criminal content. Twitter for example regularly face reviews in the EU for that sort of stuff around safeguarding etc. Not sure how it works in the US but imagine there's mechanisms for reporting to fbi etc. Pretty sure social media platforms aren't currently liable but private hosting companies or app stores have good reason to not want to be associated with it.

Also they're free to search for other hosting platforms. The Android apps are perfectly possible to install without an app store.

senordingdong

Movementarian wrote: »

Its not that the groups weren't there its that they have been emboldened by the curreny administration like never before. By not openly denouncing them and using phrases like 'stand back and stand by' it allows them to believe they are validated.

Add on top of that multiple and continued lies that their vote is stolen and it was bound to blow up like it did.

Blm and antifa riots have been emboldened by the opposition this past year.

Movementarian

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Conservatives were removed from twitter and the left rejoiced, they moved to parler and the left were horrified, parler banned and the left rejoiced.

Its not about stopping them seeing these views or protecting kids or challenging nazi’s , its very clear that the agenda is to silence conservatives.

Whatever about twitter but if you have google removing parler from the play store and the apple app store banning it then that is a freedom limiting change considering theres little alternative to android and apple , this is silencing conservatives

Hang on a second now, this all happened because there is evidence that the platforms are being used to directly advocate for and incite violence.

Conservative voices in general are not being silenced as you put it. Huge leap in logic considering that Trump himself has spread birthirism and other conspiracy theories and not been banned.

There absolutely has to be a line and incitement to violence is over it.

Movementarian

senordingdong wrote: »

Blm and antifa riots have been emboldened by the opposition this past year.

I didn't say they weren't. But there is a difference between specific factual events that trigger protests (police killings etc) and a protest over a non factual issue that is being hyped up by lies told by politicians.

senordingdong

Movementarian wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't. But there is a difference between specific factual events that trigger protests (police killings etc) and a protest over a non factual issue that is being hyped up by lies told by politicians.

But you reckon trump should be banned for apparently encouraging violence but his opposition shouldn't?

conorhal

At this point I think that the best revenge would be to let the left have Twitter and for all conservatives to depart.
Given what a vitriolic sewer of torch wielding hashtag mobs it has becom and the left's propensity to eat itself in a never ending spiral of purity testing, we can just put on the popcorn and enjoy the laughs

Nermal

Deleted User wrote: »

Any ringleaders to the state Capitol incident will likely face terror charges, they entered the building to attempt to overthrow a government.

LOL, just LOL. I'm sure Jamiroquai et al were mere moments from declaring a second republic and wheeling out the patriotic shortener.

Anyway, move to Gab, explicitly run to First Amendment standards.

And if you must use Twitter, use an ad-blocker, and do your bit to starve the beast.

mynamejeff

Movementarian wrote: »

I didn't say they weren't. But there is a difference between specific factual events that trigger protests (police killings etc) and a protest over a non factual issue that is being hyped up by lies told by politicians.

to be fair left politicians are very quick and shameless to stoke violence with questionable, inaccurate of no evidence at all for their own reasons ,

BLM is a fine example of that and our own lord mayor of Dublin another