Enough With The Myth That Big Tech Is 'Censoring' Conservatives AND That The Law Requires Them To Be Neutral
from the these-things-are-not-accurate dept
I feel like we need to repost this on a near weekly basis, but there are two big myths that keep making the rounds over and over and over again, so they need to be repeatedly debunked. First, it's the idea that internet companies are "censoring" conservatives. And, yes, I know that we're going to get some angry commenters pinky swearing that it's true, and calling me all sorts of creative names for not being willing to admit it, but it remains true that there has been absolutely no evidence shown to support that premise. The other one, which is related, is the idea that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act somehow was premised on platforms being "neutral." Three recent articles tackle these myths, and it seemed worth highlighting all three.
We'll start with Siva Vaidhyanathan's piece in the Atlantic, responding to the bogus cries of censorship. Vaidhyanathan points out that, rather than censoring conservatives, Republicans seem to have used these platforms to great advantage:
There is no evidence for these accusations. There are no legitimate studies supporting these contentions. There is no documentation of company officials ordering up anti-conservative bias or policies.
But to say there is no evidence for these accusations is too weak. These complaints are just false. Coming from smart people who know better—smart people like Cruz, the first U.S. presidential candidate to hire Cambridge Analytica and try to use its trove of personal Facebook data on millions of Americans—this looks like an intentionally duplicitous move.
Cruz knows that conservatives need Facebook and Google and that they benefit greatly from the algorithmic amplification that occurs in both systems. Trump’s 2020 campaign manager is Brad Parscale, who ran digital operations for the president’s successful 2016 campaign. Parscale declared that his mastery of Facebook for advertising, amplifying pro-Trump videos and memes, and fundraising won the 2016 election.
He further notes that there actually are studies showing that conservative campaigns have leveraged social media to a much greater advantage:
Scholarship supports this conclusion. As the sociologist Jen Schradie demonstrates in great detail in her new book,
The Revolution That Wasn’t: How Digital Activism Favors Conservatives, Facebook and Google work better for top-down, well-funded, disciplined, directed movements. Those adjectives tend to describe conservative groups more than liberal or leftist groups in the United States. In our current media ecosystem, right-wing sources of news and propaganda spread much further and faster than liberal or neutral sources do, according to a rigorous quantitative study of communication-network patterns by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. Internet platforms are demonstrably not silencing conservative ideas. If anything, the opposite is true.
So why do conservatives keep lying? Well, for one, to make sure that they retain this advantage:
First, conservatives are working the refs. If conservatives put media executives on their heels, constantly defending themselves or excusing themselves or apologizing for misunderstandings, then these companies are likely to bend toward conservatives out of fear or just exhaustion. This strategy has succeeded before. The liberal-media critic Eric Alterman has argued that such campaigns in the 1990s and early 2000s resulted in mainstream outlets such as The New York Times pushing unjustified right-wing causes like the Whitewater investigation and the invasion of Iraq.
Working the refs is still effective. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter are not wise enough to understand what’s happening. So both Facebook and Twitter have allowed themselves to be worked.
There's a lot more in that article, but it's absolutely worth reading. The second article is Stanford's Daphne Keller's op-ed in the Washington Post, responding to the ridiculous op-ed the Washington Post published a few weeks ago claiming (totally incorrectly) that Section 230 was based on platforms being neutral. Unlike the author of that piece, Keller is actually an expert on Section 230. We've discussed why the neutrality claim is bunk in the past, but it's good to have another version to point to:
The “neutrality” idea, which has been raised by critics on the left and the right, seems to have gained particular currency among conservatives like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who has insisted that the law protects only sites that act as “neutral public forums.” Similarly, critics like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) have claimed that this immunity is available only to platforms “providing a forum free of political censorship.” Platforms that are not “neutral,” Hawley says, face the same legal responsibilities as a publisher like The Washington Post.
That’s not what the law says. If it did, no one would like the results.
CDA 230 isn’t about neutrality. In fact, it explicitly encourages platforms to moderate and remove “offensive” user content. That leaves platform operators and users free to choose between the free-for-all on sites like 8chan and the tamer fare on sites like Pinterest.
Importantly, Keller highlights that it is reasonable to question how the big platforms handle moderation, but targeting Section 230 will make almost every problem worse. As our own Cathy Gellis has explained in the past, Section 230 is uniquely designed to balance a competing set of interests, encouraging the most "good" content on a platform, while limiting the "bad" content. As Keller points out, while people on both sides of the aisle seem to be targeting Section 230 for opposite reasons, they'll both be disappointed by the results:
Requiring platforms to address these concerns by carrying everything the law permits won’t solve our problems, though. After all, platform users and policymakers of all political stripes often call for platforms to take down more content — including speech that is legal under the First Amendment. That category can include Holocaust denial, bullying, anti-vaccine material and encouragement of teen suicide.
[....]
If platforms with insufficiently neutral policies were “legally responsible for all the content they publish,” as some critics have proposed, no one would like that either. A platform held to the legal standards of publishers like The Washington Post would have to vet everything users post before the public could see it. Users would have to wait while lawyers decide if its political opinions or cat videos break the law. If the lawyers thought any speech exposed the platform to liability, or even the expense of litigating groundless claims, they wouldn’t let the content be shared.
The drafters of CDA 230 recognized this problem. They created a law that let the wide array of Internet intermediaries shape their own policies, without facing the binary choice between becoming traditional publishers or remaining entirely passive.
The final piece is a recent one from Reason, highlighting just how ridiculous it is that both Republicans and Democrats are attacking Section 230.
Widely misunderstood and widely misinterpreted, often by those with political ambitions and agendas, Section 230 is, at its core, about making the internet safe for both innovation and individual free speech. It is the internet's First Amendment—possibly better. And it is increasingly threatened by the illiberal right and the regressive left, both of which are now arguing that Section 230 gives tech industry giants unfair legal protection while enabling political bias and offensive speech.
Ending or amending Section 230 wouldn't make life difficult just for Google, Facebook, Twitter, and the rest of today's biggest online platforms. Eroding the law would seriously jeopardize free speech for everyone, particularly marginalized groups whose ideas don't sit easily with the mainstream. It would almost certainly kill upstarts trying to compete with entrenched tech giants. And it would set dangerous precedents, with ripple effects that extend to economic and cultural areas in the U.S. and around the world.
I'm sure this won't end the nonsense people continue to spew over these laws. Indeed, responding to the Atlantic piece about his own lies about "anti-conservative bias," Senator Ted Cruz whined that "lefty journos ignore facts," while never actually responding to any of the actual facts he ignores. He claimed that the article's claim that he "suspended that habit of evidentiary discrimination" because he's held a couple hearings on "Big Tech bias & censorship." But that's misleading claptrap in its own right. Both of the hearings Cruz held were not about gathering evidence. They were performative nonsense, in which he promoted falsehoods about bias and the law.
There are reasonable debates to be held about the power of big internet companies -- but they're not currently being held. Instead, we're getting pure propaganda and nonsense. Don't fall for it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, cda 230, intermediary liability, neutrality, platforms, working the refs
Reader Comments
The First Word
“This business about anti-liberal or anti-conservative bias is all nonsense, and I am tired of hearing it. In fact, the real bias is pro-vegetarian. And I can prove it: the vast majority of people who get banned are meat-eaters.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
'Unless you LIKE being a tool...'
Working the refs is still effective. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Jack Dorsey of Twitter are not wise enough to understand what’s happening. So both Facebook and Twitter have allowed themselves to be worked.
I imagine more than a few people will try point said fools towards the article calling them out as being easily led chumps, the question at that point is whether they'd have the spine and/or smarts to do something about it.
Being political punching-bags may be easier, but you'd think by this point they'd have figured out that just standing back and letting politicians use them for cheap PR is just leaving them looking even worse, and opening them up for even more pressure to 'do more'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A brief reminder.
Discussion of White supremacy is “political discourse”. A platform that disallows White supremacists from presenting their side of the discourse would be “non-neutral”. If a law required platforms to remain “politically neutral”, that law would force platforms to host White supremacist propaganda against the wishes of those platforms’ owners/operators.
Anyone who can justify that will have done the impossible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's a long list of conservative vloggers who have been banned, had videos removed, or who have been demonetized. There's no disputing that. Not be a long shot. This clearly amounts to discrimination based on political affiliation and it is so blatant and obvious, that to deny that it's happening can only be motivated by ideology which calls into question the integrity of anyone suggesting that it's not happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Please support that with evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another reminder.
“Anti-conservative bias” in social media moderation is a myth. To claim it as a fact, you must prove two notions are true:
Punishment of conservatives happens only because of their political beliefs.
If you want to try, I wish you the best of luck. You will need it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conservaties *are* censored on social media by progressives
First, let me be clear that I'm a liberal and I think the social media and big media companies should be able to do almost whatever they want within the bounds of the law. If Twitter wants to ban left handed people, I don't have a problem with that.
That said, social media sites have definitely adopted progressive ideas and incorporated them into their terms of service or code of conduct. Conservative users have been punished for violating those rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pray tell, which “progressive ideas” are the ones of which you speak?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Again, for the 501 billionth time, please show us some concrete examples of this happening because of their conservative values and not because of them just being run-of-the-mill assholes.
Do you have any proof you can show us are are you just spewing the same bullshit as everybody that comes in here and says the same thing?
Or you could be just another troll with nothing better to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There's a long list of conservative vloggers who have been banned, had videos removed, or who have been demonetized.
That is not proof of anti-conservative bias. If those vloggers are violating the terms of service, then it's that they're violating the terms of service.
This clearly amounts to discrimination based on political affiliation
No, it doesn't. Don't be an idiot.
to deny that it's happening can only be motivated by ideology which calls into question the integrity of anyone suggesting that it's not happening.
Or by wanting to live in reality and not some fantasyland where I'm always the victim, like you. No one's censoring conservatives for conservative views. Or, at the very least, there is no evidence of it. That some people have violated the rules and gotten in trouble and ALSO happen to be conservative, is not proof of anything other than that some people have violated the rules and also happen to be conservatives (or, in some cases, pretend to be conservatives).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Nazzis *are* censored on social media by progressives
I agree 100% - Insomuch as many conservatives have adopted white power, nazi and proud boy rhetoric and thus supporting those positions have gotten their asses kicked off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Conservaties *are* censored on social media by progressives
What are these rules that apparently disallow conservative view points?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rules against using racial slurs and anti-LGBT language, I assume. It’s not as if any of the major platforms have rules against calling for deregulation or shrinking the federal government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not to mention outright threats of violence, rape and murder the Sad Puppies and Proud Boys are known for.
But no, they were simply kick/banned for telling the truth about white power....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"calling for deregulation or shrinking the federal government"
LOL - actions speak louder than words, conservatives only say those things but never actually do them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's Adorable
When the gatekeepers show up to tell you something isn't happening that you can see with your own eyes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Adorable
Nah. It's adorable when people keep insisting something is true and refuse to provide any actual evidence, despite being asked for it over and over again.
If you can see it with your own eyes, then provide us THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE of anyone being censored for their "conservative" views, and not for violating terms of service. I'll wait. We've asked you before. And we've been waiting. All you do is keep playing the victim. I thought you liked to mock those who play victim all the time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If “conservative views” themselves violate the terms of service of Twitter, Facebook, etc., that says more about those views than it does about those platforms’ terms of service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Adorable
*
(Onlyafter a Hannity-huffing session)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Adorable
That you are still here after insisting you were leaving and that people keep insisting pigs are flying when you can clearly look and see they aren't. (Translation: NO ONE has ever seen anyone get banned from social media because of their traditional left/right views.)
Weren't you leaving?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You mean like "be nice to your fellow human beings" and "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" terms of service and codes of conduct?
I fail to see the issue here, or a "bias" towards a particular group. Unless of course said group is intent on being a bunch of jerks and denigrating other human beings. Then yeah, it's totally biased against them and I fully support said bias.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If all the corps had to be..
Fair and balanced...(and get Facts right the first time)
Can you see Milk jugs with Political comments?(I shouldnt give ideas)
How about instead of 1 person on TV news, you see 2..for a 2nd opinion..
Can we see a political commercial on TV, that has 10 rebuttals that follow it??
Letter to the editor, now has a Positive and negative side..
I can see it now.. As a plane Flies over the stadium, with a Flag "Vote for whats his name" and 12 more behind it..for others.
My question is...
Whats stopping them from doing it?? nothing,.
4/10 of last 10 have been democrats.
Do we need 2 history books? would Love to see the other side of THAT coin..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Adorable
Who's the gatekeeper and what gate is he keeping?
Ok, 502 billionth time now somebody has said the same thing but provided zero evidence of their assertions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But not because they are explicitly "conservative". There's also a long list of liberal vloggers who have been banned, had videos removed, or who have been demonetized. Not to mention journalists, gamers, kids, etc... What's your point?
There's also no disputing that liberals and others are also banned on a regular basis. So?
The fact that you can find some people who have similar characteristics and have been banned is a nothing burger. I can find you any number of people who share similar characteristics who were banned from social media. Star Wars fans? Yep, some of them were banned when they got too toxic about the latest movies. Harry Potter fans? Yep. Journalists? Yep. Liberals? Double yep. The question you have to answer is WHY were they banned. And in every single case it's either they violated the rules or got caught up in an automated process by mistake and subsequently had their accounts restored after reporting it.
No, it's really not. Not unless you can explain why liberals are constantly banned too.
Or that it's not actually happening.
Look. We've been over this and over this. You and everyone else making these fantastical claims bear the burden of proof. You've yet to provide ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of someone being banned from social media because they are a conservative. Until you can do that, you have no case, no facts to back you up, all your claims are just tilting at windmills, railing against the fact that the sky is blue and you don't like it and want it to be plaid.
The only persons' integrity being questioned here are you and the other people spreading these lies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's Adorable
It's worse than that. In addition to proving that any one was censored for their conservative views, they'd have to prove that this happens to conservatives disproportionately more than other other groups.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"...calling me all sorts of creative names..."
I haven't been following the comments, but I bet most of the names aren't all that creative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's Adorable
I might have this wrong because I'm not a conservative, but I believe the complaint is that progressive ideologies are built into the terms of service. For example, deadnaming is a bannable offense on Twitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the Loudest(the ones with the most money)
Tend to get into the news..
I love the finger pointing, and Saying other things happened..That never did.
But no one ever fixes it.. isnt that Their job? Both sides?
Then there is the other side..
And they go, Ho' hum, if we dont make a response people think we arnt listening.. So they Make valid arguments, and The other side Still screams louder, and might change the Subject..
There is an old trick About Screamers. Let them scream. Just do what you need to do. Talk about other things..Dont scream. you can even get quieter... Let them scream, as you Show you are doing your job.. Just let them Scream.
Eventually, no one listens or they have become Programmed by all the noise.(love those old time preachers)(holy rollers)..except when the TV has 6 of the 10 channels Full of them, on Early sunday morning... and dont forget the Old testament (haters)..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Myth
No, you really don't. It's actually becoming quite tedious.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Adorable
And even cuter when derps like you make shit up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah, it's hard to believe that somebody can honestly look at twitter and believe that extreme [hateful/threatening/insulting/obscene] liberal posters are treated as harshly as [hateful/threatening/insulting/obscene] conservative posters.
I'm all for giving twitter the ability to ban or kick who they want. It's their platform. If they wanted to boot everybody to the right of AOC, that's their prerogative. It's just irritating to see people pretending their enforcement of rules is not heavily biased.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You're right. Similar characteristics doesn't prove anything, but when YouTube, for example, tells you they're demonetizing your entire channel even though you haven't broken any of their TOS rules, because your opinions aren't PC enough and big corporations might get skittish about advertising next to your conservatism, then it does start to appear like viewpoint discrimination.
This happened to conservative transgender YouTuber Blaire White. She routinely posts videos challenging the accepted PC dogma when it comes to transgender issues-- opposing things like giving pre-adolescent children puberty blocking hormones so they can transition at the ripe old age of seven, for example. Her commentaries don't violate any of YouTube's rules, but she's been demonetized anyway because she's generally conservative and angers the 'trans community" in particular, even though she's trans herself.
I feel compelled to post the following disclaimer before some insipid Anonymous Coward parachutes in to tell me the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to private businesses. Duh. I'm not arguing that YouTube should be forced to host Blaire White or anyone else. I'm merely pointing out that there is some viewpoint-based bias to the moderation decisions they make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Is deadnaming a conservative value for which people are getting banned? Or is deadnaming an asshole thing to do for which people are getting banned.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Myth
No, you really don't. It's actually becoming quite tedious.
I agree that it's tedious how often people keep insisting that there is anti-conservative bias in how these platforms are run, and that they keep posting that the platforms need to be neutral.
So, yeah, if you could pass along your message to those who keep saying it, then we can stop posting this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Myth
Then tell everyone to stop repeating all these myths and lies about Section 230. Until they do, it will be needed.
If you just sit back and go silent, the person screaming their head off will eventually start controlling the story, false or not. The proper response to false speech is more TRUE speech.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Conservatives and bullies in general prey on the sense of fair play of others, they know if they scream bias loudly and often enough, people on the left, or 'centrists' will feel guilty and go 'Well, maybe they have a point, people do keep deplatforming them' without ever stopping to look at why they keep getting kicked off.
You have a right to a point of view, you have a right to state it, you do not have the right to a venue of your choosing for that statement, you don't have the right to an audience and you do not have the right to say hateful things without any consequences. If you took it upon yourself to stand on a table in McDonalds and start yelling at people about how the gays and 'globalists' are causing white genocide, you would be removed from the table, removed from McDonalds and banned, the same goes for Twitter, Youtube, Facebook... Their platform, their rules, if you don't agree, there are alternatives, which granted, don't have the same reach, because most of humanity don't wish to be bombarded by htespeech and alt-right sewage, funny that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's just irritating to see people pretending their enforcement of rules is not heavily biased.
No one is pretending anything. We're asking for evidence. No one ever provides any.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
I can't for the life of me see why you would be banned for painting a target on a person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's really not hard at all:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections
https://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/twitter-bans-ed-brian-k rassenstein-brothers-fake-accounts-1203225266/
Then why are you upset?
You can rest easy then. As I've shown in links above, the only bias is against those people who break the rules, and the rules are pretty much "don't be a jerk".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you could present evidence that YouTube knowingly and admittedly demonetized channels because, to paraphrase your post, “someone’s opinions aren't PC enough and big corporations might get skittish about advertising next to their conservatism”, you might have something resembling a point. But then you’d have to explain why LGBT YouTubers have also faced demonetization seemingly for posting pro-LGBT content, and you can find plenty of those willing to testify that their content also doesn’t violate the YouTube TOS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok, for the 503 billionth time, where is the proof that it is view point discrimination and not a ToS violation (or just being a run-of-the-mill asshole)?
All of you people keep telling us that "can see with your own eyes." or "There's no disputing that. Not be a long shot" but every time somebody asks you to provide concrete evidence, all we get is.... nothing. You all just disappear and refuse to provide anything to support your assertions.
So, if it is so pervasive and easy to spot, where is all the proof?
Hitchens's razor wins every time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As an addendum, I happened to notice that an antifa group got banned. Antifa is regularly derided by conservatives as being one of the most [hateful/threatening/insulting/obscene] liberal groups out there. If that's not equal treatment, I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Adorable
Conservative snowflakes are the BEST snowflakes!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ah, yes, the progressive ideology of “treating people with respect”.
You, uh…you wanna rethink that post of yours, there, champ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Unfortunately, we have to explore this.
Dead naming is a bannable offense, that's true. Its bannable under harassment standards. I think every time I have seen such a banning, it was after multiple instances and after the user clearly states that they do not wish to be referred to in that way. I've not seen it applied in a one strike and you are out application. And dead naming only is an issue when such activity is directed at the individual named.
You have two ways to describe this as a progressive ideology: The first is That disliking harassment is progressive, which Trump and McConnell have nicely put to bed in their public statements. The second is that only progressives would think it harassment to intentionally refer to someone who had a name change by their old name. And that second one runs into issues again with accepting harassment. It runs into questions of what other factors allow you to bypass harassment restrictions.
In the end, The principles behind the dead naming restriction remain equal opportunity. Just because you have explicitly stated that dead naming is covered under harassment, doesn't mean that how you assess harassment operates in a partisan manner.
If you want to claim that pro-harassment is a conservative viewpoint, I suppose you can, I just expect they don't want to claim that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
They’re upset because they think they’re entitled to use Twitter, probably because of some nonsense idea such as “it’s a public forum that’s open to the public and I’m part of the public, therefore I should get to use the privately-owned platform that is actually a public forum”.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Dammit - editing.
Part of the issue with dead naming is it applies just as much to legal name changes where it being an intentional effort to harass is pretty uncontroversial, I would hope. Twitter just isn't in the business of assigning validity to name changes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This business about anti-liberal or anti-conservative bias is all nonsense, and I am tired of hearing it. In fact, the real bias is pro-vegetarian. And I can prove it: the vast majority of people who get banned are meat-eaters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not entirely correct,
to put it mildly. I can list hundreds of cases where people have been banned, their Youtube channels or Twitter accounts deleted. As it happens, and I'm sure it's just a coincidence, they have all been conservative or right-wing people. I can think of only couple of cases where this has happened to a known left-wing personality.
Add to that recent Project Veritas exposures where Google exec admitted silencing conservatives, and various leaked documents and whistleblower accounts confirming this. From earlier it is well-known how butt-hurt some of those tech exec liberals were after Trump win - they were literally hysterically crying. As the saying goes: where's smoke, there's fire.
As far as TOS is concerned, it's also amazing how it just happens that all the people who violate TOS happen to be holders of conservative views.
Also couple of high profile examples. Just when his fame started Jordan Peterson was completely erased from Google. Without any warning or any explanation or any way to appeal. Just like that, all personal accounts closed. Only after huge public outcry was he reinstated.
From the recent Youtube purge Black Pigeon Speaks is another great example. His channel was completely deleted. Again without any mention of any reasons or TOS violations. He too was reinstated after public outcry. I guess he did not violate any TOS after all. There are innumerable such examples where people have been erased without any explanation or any chance that they have violated any TOS. The only conclusion one can draw from this, is that they were erased because of their views.
Moreover Facebook has banned a bunch of people and proclaimed them to be unwanted and dangerous persons. As it happens to be, every single one is right to center. Again, they were not banned because of any particular TOS violations but because of their views. Facebook even leaves themselves the right to ban you not what you do on the platform but based on the people you talk to. Talk about creepy and authoritarian. Also, pretty sure, in my country it would be illegal too for Facebook event to make any reference to me outside the platform.
Hell, even my own comments have banned on Ars Techica, NY Yimes and Guardian simply because they were pointing out plain statistical facts that went contrary to left-wing narrative that articles tried to present.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Do you have an example for that? Because I'm betting they DID break the TOS rules.
Are you talking about the ad-pocolypse? The event when terrorist and Nazi ads appeared alongside and in front of supposedly family friendly content and companies (rightly) wanted to make sure nobody associated them with that stuff? Or the content promoting unsafe practices, like not getting vaccinated against deadly diseases, once thought to be eradicated in the US? If that's your idea of conservatism, then I really have no sympathy for what social media is doing.
However, if you're talking about traditional conservative views like abortion, taxes, government regulation, etc..., I have yet to see anyone provide a legitimate example of that happening.
Are you sure?
Well then you should be able to provide evidence of the videos that were de-monetized that didn't break the rules. Can you provide one or two please?
Well it doesn't. But that really has nothing to do with your assertions and the fact that they are wrong.
Then you can provide links to the evidence proving your point. Right? Because I've looked and I can't find any evidence of this happening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Oh I know. I just like painting them into a corner and watching them squirm/run away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Is that why progressives call Trump, Drumpf?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enough is enough!
Allow me to paraphrase the author:
"Enough truth telling! We leftists hate being exposed. It was so much better before the Internet when we just could cover up the bias and people had no means to observe and measure it. Now that the obvious is exposed, we (i.e. the democratic party) can't just make stuff up anymore and claim it is true. It is highly frustrating. But we will keep lying about it with the hope that there are naive fools who will buy into arguments any half way observant person would see through in a millisecond."
The statement about violating the terms of service is laughable, especially when the punishment for violating those terms is selectively enforced.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If a conservative is banned for violating the TOS because their post expressed a “conservative value” but also happened to violate the TOS, was the conservative banned for expressing “conservative values” or for violating the TOS? And if expressing “conservative values” can themselves violate the TOS, what does that say about those values?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Donald Trump’s legal surname has never been Drumpf, so far as I am aware.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enough is enough!
552 billionth time... concrete evidence or Hitchens's razor wins again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
I don't think pro-harassment is a conservative viewpoint (although maybe it is if you are a hard core free speech advocate), but acceptance of LGBTQ people and banning hurtful interactions is definitely a progressive idea.
Maybe people getting banned for tweeting "learn to code" is a better example. I don't know. I wish more conservatives were here to make their case. This place can really be an echo chamber and when somebody like me tries to say what I believe the argument is, we probably get it all wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also, AFAIK, he has never had a sex change operation either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
We keep asking them to make their case, over and over and over and over again. But instead, when pressed for concrete evidence, we get nothing.... they just disappear.
Hitchens's razor wins every time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Also known as "Here, let me make up a bunch of lies based on my own delusions and rejection of reality and easily observable facts".
Your name should be David LIEfellow.
I assume then that you have written software that is 100% accurate in enforcing all rules on any social media platform without fail or error then? Because that's why they are selectively enforced, automated content moderation is impossible to do with 100% accuracy and it's prohibitively restrictive to try and do it all with humans. As such, rules are enforced in ways that don't always make sense.
That's why we advocate for using those automated tools in better ways and re-working policies so that people who are incorrectly caught up in the automation have more and easier avenues to appeal a bad software decision.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Based on the examples people have brought forward to support their case it is. All of them have been examples of people being banned for outright harassment or denigrating other groups of humans.
No, it's not. Being nice to other humans is not a progressive idea, it's a really old one. The fact that you are literally arguing for the right to hurt and denigrate other people is more telling of you than anything.
Or not.
We're open to it. They refuse to come.
You have literally stated that the idea of being nice to people you don't agree with is a progressive idea and is wrong for social media companies to enforce rules that require people to be nice despite their differences. What am I missing here?
No, actually, it's just you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've literally never said that in this context.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Acceptance in general is a Christian ideal, which explains why it's mostly absent from the right (who like to dress themselves up in the trappings of Christianity but not to actually follow Christ's teachings).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Is that why progressives call Trump, Drumpf?
AFAIK, it is not against the local rules at TD to call el Cheetos "Cadet Bonespurs" or "Raciest and Chief." I certainly wouldn't want to run afoul of the moderation here.
But fair is fair - the Orange One does not treat his opponents with respect:
Pocahontas
Crooked Hillary
Little Rocket Man
Low Energy Jeb
Lyin' Ted (Ha)
Failing New York Times
Crazy Maxine
Little Marco
Crazy Joe (Who is weak, both mentally and physically)
So insulting Drumpf is a tradition started by the Liar in Chief
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Myth
No, it won't be needed. Everyone who reads this blog has already seen it the first dozen or so times Masnick has posted it. Posting it again (and again and again) for people who don't read the blog and will never see it has a certain windmill-tilting quality to it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
who like to dress themselves up in the trappings of Christianity but not to actually follow Christ's teachings
Conservatives worship Jebus, a blonde white guy who drives a pickup and preaches prosperity. They have nothing to do with that dark skinned jew who hated money and preached tolerance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That wasn't the point, but nice strawman you have there since you don't have any concrete evidence to show us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
For all definitions of 'respect' to include those equal to requiring the denial of the natural world and basic science.
(Yes, people have been sanctioned on social media for 'disrespecting' trans people merely by stating that biological gender exists as a matter of scientific and biological fact. If that's what's baked into Twitter's TOS rules under the heading of 'respect', then yes, leftist ideology is part and parcel of the TOS itself.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Myth
To repeat myself:
Every week there is a new story about someone new (or the same people) repeating the same lies over and over. Sometimes with new spins or different scenarios.
It behooves us to continue to address those as they are brought up A) for awareness for the people who already know better, and B) as a counterpoint for potential new readers who may have only heard the lies before now.
As long as false information is continually spread, it will NEED to be countered by the continued spreading of TRUE information. If you don't do that, that's how you get bad policy and people who don't understand things making bad decisions for everyone else. And, worst case, you get an oppressive government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it was your lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
You forgot to add that he was also a blue-collar worker.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nothing. It says the TOS is written in such a way to prohibit posting while conservative.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Gender? No. Sex? Yes. Perhaps they should use the correct terminology, and perhaps that's why they were "sanctioned".
But I would be willing to bet they all went a bit further than that. Unless you'd care to link to some of those videos to prove me wrong?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show me in my comment where I directly attributed that quote to you? I'll wait.....
Here let me help you, it's just a couple of comments above yours.
Find it yet.... the part in my comment where I directly attributed that comment to you?
Didn't think so...
Again, you keep at that straw man as you have no proof.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
No, they don't. I'm a conservative-leaning libertarian (small L) and I don't worship anyone or anything. I'm an atheist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Show where "conservative values" are banned in the TOS.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Whoosh!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You responded to my comment with "All of you people..."
Which makes me one of the people you claimed have said the things you listed. I factually was not. You lied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for proving my point that the leftist language police bias is baked into Twitter's TOS.
Well done.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Please show me which sites have ToS' written in a such a way to prohibit posting conservative values and what those values are.
I'll wait.....
Hitchens's razor wins again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain how getting your facts wrong constitutes the "language police"? Gender and Sex have two VERY different scientific definitions. You typically cannot use them interchangeably without vastly changing what you are saying. It would be like saying electrons have a positive charge and protons have a negative charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
'I want the right to try and deny other people their rights and anything that hinders me in that goal is oppression!'
Conservative values in a nutshell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
For some examples:
Here are Twitter's rules:
https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/enforcing-our-rules.html
Here are Google's:
https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies#community-guidelines
And Facebook's:
https://facebook.com/communitystandards?refid=42
Armed with those, can you identify how any of them are "written in such a way to prohibit posting while conservative?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe you should go back to reading comprehension classes as that does not directly state that you made that quote. Let me help, here is my original comment:
Where do I directly quote you as making that statement? I don't, I am just adding you to the group of people who refuse to provide any proof of their assertions.
But you sure do seem to want to dress up that straw man there.... got a date tonight?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be unfamiliar with the rhetorical device called "hyperbole."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
People constantly call each other all sorts of vile names on Twitter, especially after the target clearly states they do not wish to be referred to in that way. Yet punishing 'deadnaming'-- a hallmark of the Left-- is the only one that gets banned as a matter of policy.
I saw one person claim they were suspended for a week and required to delete the tweet after using 'Bruce' to refer to the famous trans Jenner, who was not involved in the exchange at all. It was some other random person who was offended on Jenner's behalf and complained that resulted in the discipline. So no, it's not only an issue when such activity is directed at the individual named.
The concept isn't limited to people who have had name changes. Many trans people haven't actually gone through the name change process, yet it's still an offense on Twitter to refer to them by their actual legal name. Or even worse, to refuse to use made up nonsense words as pronouns, like 'zhe' and 'zheir' just because some stranger on social media demands it of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You responded directly to me with "all you people say..." which means you've included me as part of the group you're claiming say those things.
I've never said those thing.
You lied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, so it's okay to make unsubstantiated and false claims as long as you say it's hyperbole.
Good to know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And when Twitter bans people for misusing the terms electron and proton, you'll have a point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for proving my point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I never said you did.
Where did I lie?
You can keep putting all the lipstick you want on your straw man, but it's not going to make it look any better.
But I like how you are arguing a simple comment that can be easily disproven (I didn't lie) and yet have nothing to offer up in the terms of proof of conservative bias in social media banning.
But please do let me know how your date went with the straw man.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Enough is enough!
especially when the punishment for violating those terms is selectively enforced
Selective? Not so much. It is confirmed that the bans are often handed out capriciously. Because consistent moderation at that scale is demonstrably impossible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Then you're the overwhelming minority; 85% of American conservatives are Christian; 89% are religious; only 1% are atheists. I don't think it's an unfair generalization to say that American conservatives are religious, and, specifically, Christian.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Nothing. It says the TOS is written in such a way to prohibit posting while conservative.
So you can't talk about fiscal responsibility? Or Elimination of wealth transfers via inheritance?
Wow. That must suck.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Responded to the wrong commenter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not exactly; I meant to have my comment in response to yours, but I should have made it clear that I was directing my challenge at the poster you were replying to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Myth
One of the claims conservatives make is that when a code of conduct violation happens (and they happen all the time), conservative violators are more likely to be banned than progressive violators.
I can actually see how this might happen. Twitter is based in the bay area which definitely has a left-leaning population. People working in tech are also more likely to be left-leaning. Nobody is perfectly unbiased and so when a left-leaning employee is deciding what to do about a CoC violation, it's not inconceivable that they would rule against people they disagree with more harshly.
One common complaint is that criticizing or condemning white people as a group isn't a violation but doing the same for any other race is. The implication is that Twitter doesn't see anti-white views as racist.
That was demonstrated by somebody who took a bunch of tweets saying dumb stuff about white people and replaced "white" with "jewish". That person was suspended immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might really want to bone up on your reading comprehension and/or stop twisting words.
Where did I say that Twitter would ban people for misusing the terms electron and proton? Nowhere. Also I was referring to their respective charges, not the particles themselves.
My point being, by misusing terms you can greatly change the meaning of what you are saying. In the case of particles you can get the science really wrong.
It's not offensive if you are talking about inanimate particles (except maybe to scientists and enthusiasts), but when talking about humans it can be VERY offensive, hurtful, and denigrating.
In short, getting the charges wrong for electrons and protons are not denigrating to human beings. Getting the science wrong on what makes a person a person, is.
Point established. Again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No worries. Thanks for the clarification!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That wouldn't prove it's not bias. One could hypothetically bias the terms of service against "conservatives". (Which we've yet to see any evidence of.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Threats of violence are another good example of liberal double standards.
If anyone with even remotely right-wing views expresses anything remotely that could be conceived as violence, he/she is with 100% certainty banned. At the same time antifa and left-wing calls of violence rarely ever get anyone banned.
Facebook even said recently that violence is OK as long as it's directed towards the people they have pronounced to be persona non grata. Of course they had to quickly backtrack on this, but by doing this, they clearly exposed their train of though and mindset. So please do not come to tell here that there is not different standards applied to conservatives and left-wingers.
Recent calls to milkshake British right wing politicians is another good example. Literally not a single left-winger was banned because of calls to throw milkshakes on right-wingers even though this very act constitutes a crime under British law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What is good for the goose ...
On the other hand requiring Fox News, Sinclair broadcasting, et al to be neutral could be interesting. Imagine Hannity's head exploding when he gets told he MUST be neutral. He won't be able to say anything. Nothing. how could that be a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Considering the TOS for all sites are VERY publicly listed (and someone in this comment section posted links to them) and nobody has found any "anti-conservative" bias in them, I would say that's very much not the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well he could say things. He would just have to stick to the facts: "This thing happened", "Trump said this thing that is directly contradicted by scientific evidence and laws of nature".
Granted his head would still explode but he could say something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
According to the First Amendment, yes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
btr1701, YouTube mods have been demonetizing everyone for just about anything. It has little to do with any political slant. LGBT videos which have no explicit or sexual content have been demonetized, videos recapping comicbook storylines have been demonetized, and so forth. There's literally no pattern to the YouTube nonsense beyond YouTube not having sufficient number of actual moderators handling the process. Most of it is due to mass reporting by bots to tank a channel's revenue or get it shut down altogether. For example, CodysLab got hit with two strikes despite both videos not violating ToS and it was due to flateathers getting mad at him. So, where's the actual bias? I'm all ears.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
In your own example, Bruce is no longer said Jenner's "actual legal name". Using Bruce to refer to this person is precisely what "deadnaming" means. And yes, Twitter recognizes deadnaming as harassment and has made it a ToS violation. Whether you agree with their ToS is immaterial. If you violate the ToS you can be banned.
That is not in and of itself an anti-conservative bias. It's an anti-asshole bias. I'm willing to bet that very, very few, if any, references to Jenner as "Bruce" are meant in anything but an insulting manner. Whether you agree that deadnaming is insulting or not, it is offensive to many and is not welcome in polite society.
While a conservative website may not include deadnaming as a bannable offense Twitter does. Them's the rules. If you break the rules you suffer the consequences.
None of the above should imply I agree or disagree with you. But I'm just enough not-an-asshole to keep my opinions to myself on topics that trigger others. If anti-PC is a conservative cornerstone then it's going to be pretty damned hard to prove the Venn diagram of assholes and conservatives isn't just one circle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correction: flat-earthers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Myth
The only way to prove there is an anti-conservative bias rather than an anti-asshole bias is to admit that conservative == asshole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's Adorable
It all comes down to the fact that conservatives want to tap into the alt-right and reactionary movements for their "young Republicans" of the future. If you ban those two groups which notoriously love to pile-on minorities (LGBT, PoC, etc) then they lose any chance to reach out to them. Folks like Ted Cruz are just too cowardly to admit as much. They know if everyone was told the truth that just about everyone would tell them to buy their own hosting and build their own site and work on SEO to get it on page 1 search results. Yet they keep playing the game because stating the obvious is evil some how.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If it resulted in his head exploding then I would encourage him to speak and quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It always comes down to control.
As you said, conservatives are pulling a fast one. But what's more troubling is that I think many in the tech industry know it. What conservatives really hate is that much of SV isn't so much liberal but that it's libertarian. And libertarians generally don't want to be told what to do or be told who they can do what with whom if it's consensual/contracted. So to deal with such folks conservatives love to use threats of force such as what Hawley and Cruz are employing. Not only does it give them something to talk about for reelection, it gives them leverage over the tech industry. Even if they can't get their way entirely and have a captive audience on Twitter or YouTube, they sure can make it hard for those companies to shutdown actual fascists and reactionaries who are their ideological (and perhaps physical) foot soldiers.
They know that the "alt-right" has been a shot in the arm to their ideology in terms of votes. If that segment of political discourse which often is explicitly violent or advocates for it in various forms (mass murder or genocide) was shutdown then modern conservatism would go with it. It's not to say that conservatism wouldn't evolve it just wouldn't be conservative by our current views (imagine a Republican who does support LGBT rights and low taxes and the like). But as long as the elites of the conservative movement rely on the Internet and it's most acrid movements then expect more of these interventionist attitude to percolate throughout the media as a whole.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enough is enough!
Enough truth telling!
Asking for evidence and citing the lack of any is me saying "no more truth telling"? Really?
We leftists hate being exposed
I'm not a "leftist" so... uh... no?
It was so much better before the Internet when we just could cover up the bias and people had no means to observe and measure it.
The point is that no such "measurement" has been shown. If you have it, by all means. Happy to admit I've been wrong if there's evidence.
Now that the obvious is exposed,
If it's "obvious" surely you have evidence. Please show it.
we (i.e. the democratic party)
I'm not a member of the Democratic Party.
can't just make stuff up anymore and claim it is true.
No offense, but you're projecting here. I'm saying that it's you, claiming anti-conservative bias who is making stuff up and claiming it is true. You can prove me wrong. It's not hard. Show some fucking evidence.
The statement about violating the terms of service is laughable, especially when the punishment for violating those terms is selectively enforced.
Nah, dog. Just you only follow idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Haven’t you embarrassed yourself enough on this topic already?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Ah, so it's okay to make unsubstantiated and false claims as long as you say it's hyperbole”
Well you do it and pass it off as fact so that’s a step up at least.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's Adorable
What’s adorable is you showing up here and thinking your opinion is worth more than a hastily dropped dookie in a broken gas station toilet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Anecdotal
I saw one person claim my best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Ferris pass out at 31 Flavors last night.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I’ll take things that never happened for $500 Alex
“I saw one person claim they were suspended for a week and required to delete the tweet after using 'Bruce' to refer to the famous trans Jenner, ”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Weird how that keeps happening
“I wish more conservatives were here to make their case.”
They keep trying but they keep getting flagged for being racist pieces of shit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: |—|
“No, you really don't. It's actually becoming quite tedious.”
You just came so close, to an actual moment of self reflection and realisation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the conservatives agree to those TOS before joining the sites, so they can hardly say they didn't know about the supposed "bias" of those sites.
CDA230 does not require YouTube, etc., to host you just because you want them too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
And of course you have a citation. Because it’s not like you would just skip past a hundred comments of idiots saying the same thing and getting their shit pushed back in when they fail to make any sort of argument more complex that “nut uh, I said so.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enough is enough!
You at least show slightly more creativity that “it’s true because I said so.” Unfortunately that only takes you into fourth grade sarcasm levels. Pro tip cowboy. Lay it on a bit less think and people won’t think you’re such a dumb prick.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
“Nothing. It says the TOS is written in such a way to prohibit posting while conservative”
For the last time bro. Prove it or kindly fuck off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Myth
Everyone who reads this blog has already seen it the first dozen or so times Masnick has posted it. Posting it again (and again and again) for people who don't read the blog and will never see it has a certain windmill-tilting quality to it.
This may come as a shock to you, but the people who read this blog is not a finite set that cannot change. Many people read all the stories. Many people read some stories here or there. The fact that every time we post about this we hear from new people who hadn't seen the other stories, suggests that there is value in posting this in response to nonsense.
Indeed, the fact that YOU, yourself, continue to post unsubstantiated nonsense in these very comments is further reason to continue to post this kind of thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's Adorable
Even though you'll dismiss it as anecdotal, here's a compilation of left-wing violent statements on Reddit that haven't resulted in either quarantine or ban of the affected sub-reddits, yet a single violent statement on "the Donald" caused it to be 'quarantined', even though the single statement was quickly removed (and on the morning of the first Democratic debates, too! Imagine that!). And, yes, Reddit management has acknowledged that the single statement, since deleted, was the impetus for the quarantine.
https://www.scribd.com/document/417306903/Reddit-s-Left-Wing-Violence-Problem-and-How-T- D-Got-Punished-for-It-Copy
I don't expect any sort of introspection or realization of the point, since whenever anyone gives data points showing the bias, they're quickly dismissed as solely anecdotal on this website, even though the plural of anecdote is data:
https://blog.revolutionanalytics.com/2011/04/the-plural-of-anecdote-is-data-after-all.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How? What rules in the TOS prevent a conservative from posting, other than the ones that are some form of “don’t be an asshole”? (And if those are the ones preventing conservatives from posting, what does that say about conservatives?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It’s possible. It’s also possible that Twitter gives leeway to people espousing such views because White people are the dominant racialized group in the United States and banning even the mildest criticism of said group would…how can I put this…it would not be the wisest decision for that platform, but it could be the Whitest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The GOP is just pissed off that the free flow of information has lost them the control of the narrative they wish to present. I guess it really sucks when the controlled spin of the pr firms starts to lose its effectiveness. No, it's not bias, except to the extent that knowing what the GOP really stands for (if anything) is a sure way to bias voters against them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you think that was the only violent comment on r/The_Donald, or the only comment Reddit considered when it quarantined that subreddit, you are underestimating that subreddit.
Wrong on both sides of the “is”, sir. The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, while the plural of datum is data.
And more to the (less pedantic) point: Anecdotal experience is not empirical evidence. You can probably find a few dozen people who would say “I was banned from Twitter for being a conservative”. Their anecdotes might make for some anger-fueled reading on Breitbart, sure. But they offer no evidence that proves the existence of an anti-conservative pattern in Twitter moderation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I was once suspended and forced to delete a tweet that contained an anti-gay slur. I used the word as part of a discussion about anti-gay attitudes. I am nowhere near being a conservative.
If you want to present anecdotal experience as empirical evidence, I will gladly do the same. If’n you don’t like how it cancels yours out vis-á-vis proving an anti-conservative bias? That sucks for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[suddenly seeking citation]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
“but she's been demonetized anyway because she's generally conservative”
Protip bro, all you have do to stop us making fun of your obvious lies and bullshit, all you have to do is prove you’re right with something more than thirdhand gossip that wouldn’t hold up in a third grade cootie court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
“If anyone with even remotely right-wing views expresses anything remotely that could be conceived as violence, he/she is with 100% certainty banned. At the same time antifa and left-wing calls of violence rarely ever get anyone banned.”
I am running out of ways to say this so I’ll keep it simple for you dotards.
PROVE IT!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
“yet a single violent statement on "the Donald" caused it to be 'quarantined',“
You know why we keep labeling things as anecdotal and hearsay?
It’s because they are.
Maybe the problem isn’t with us understanding what words mean. And more that your argument is based on lies and superstition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
“I don't expect any sort of introspection or realization of the point”
On that single point, I agree wholeheartedly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not entirely correct,
There are few ways to torpedo your credibility faster than citing that falsehood factory as a source.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I saw the number of comments and honestly thought it was blue, Herrick or Hamilton shitting things up.
Dammit, btr1701. Full Hamilton is not the way to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is a coincidence unless you can prove YouTube, Twitter, etc. took action against only those people only for their political views/affiliations.
Two things:
Project Veritas? Really? You’re staking part of your argument on the group that tried to plant a false rape accusation against Roy Moore in the Washington Post as part of a “gotcha” sting that didn’t work because WaPo reporters are good at their jobs?
Oooh, nice touch with the “hysterically” adjective — makes people picture female soap opera characters bawling their eyes out in melodramatic fashion, thus turning the actual emotional reaction of people who (accurately) considered Trump’s victory as a low point of American history into a ridicule-worthy caricature.
…really. Really? Really? It’s the only, singular, no-other-explanation-makes-sense conclusion you can draw from that? Well, I have one for you: It’s called “the users in question got reportbombed and the services took action, then the services undid their action when they received complaints from lots of people who were encouraged to bitch about it by the reportbombed users in question”. Also a viable conclusion: “With moderation at the scale of YouTube and Twitter, mistakes will happen, and services will rectify those mistakes as soon as possible.” There — two viable explanations that don’t rely on evidence-free conspiracy theory bullshit.
…and? Whether you agree with their decision is irrelevant to the fact that Facebook can legally make that decision.
Which expressed conservative views, precisely, got them banned — and how many of those coincided with a Terms of Service violation? Since you seem to know so much about the minute details of these bans, you should have no problem dishing those details and backing up your claims.
And if you can’t…well, that’s a bit of a personal problem, isn’t it.
Creepy and fucked up though it may be, it’s still legal for Facebook to do (for now).
Sure they were~.
But y’know, all this got me thinking. Even if Facebook, Twitter, etc. were all banning conservatives only for their political views (and they’re not), what the fuck are you going to do about it besides whine?
Any law that would require “political neutrality” for social interaction networks would thus force that Facebook, Twitter, etc. to host speech they don’t want on their platforms — speech such as White supremacist propaganda. That would violate the First Amendment and Section 230 as well as open the door for the government to control all speech on any website that accepts user-generated content.
The government can’t force Facebook, Twitter, etc. to host content with which those companies don’t want to associate. You can’t force them to do it, either — because you’re not entitled to the use of their platforms, an audience for your speech, or protection from being criticized, mocked, and otherwise dismissed for unloading a bunch of bullshit on people.
If’n you don’t like that fact? Go whine about it on Twitter. Maybe the Russian bots will be nice enough to retweet your complaints a few times.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I read an article recently that asserted four statements and proved they cannot be all true. The four statements are, roughly:
Point #4 is pretty obviously true. If there were such a campaign, it would be visible and obvious. Absence of evidence isn't always evidence of absence, but when the thing you're trying to find evidence for would be huge and loud and pervasive across an entire nation, yeah, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. A huge meteor did not just crash down into my living room; I can say that confidently because I would have heard it (and/or I'd be dead). Similarly, I can confidently state that the GOP isn't trying exceptionally hard to court black voters because such a thing would be immediately evident.
Point #3, let's check the numbers... yep, 87% of black voters are Democrats, and that number has been very stable for decades.
So, at least one of the following is the case. The Republicans must not think that a smart, educated person, when told what the GOP platform is, would believe that it's beneficial for black people, and/or they must not believe that black people are smart enough to understand their plan. So, either point #1 is false, or point #2 is false, or both are false.
Personally, I think that both are false. I think that Republicans know that what they are selling is harmful to people of color, and that the fact that they sell it anyway, is, itself, evidence of racism.
So, yes, I agree 100% that knowing what the GOP really stands for is a sure way to bias voters against them. Otherwise, the GOP would be putting in a lot more... strike that... they'd be putting in at least the barest modicum of effort to win over black voters. But they aren't, because they know what they are, and it's not what they claim to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not even remotely correct,
Too right. I saw that and was like well I don’t need to read the rest of this dross.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Same evidence either way
“I can list hundreds of cases where people have been banned, their Youtube channels or Twitter accounts deleted.”
Well he says he can.
But I say he’s an ornamental garden frog who’s been enchanted so he can type.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Never go full hamilton.
I told him that last time. But he just dug faster.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Link
I didn't see a link to the WaPo OpEd in the article, so here it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not entirely correct,
I can list hundreds of cases where people have been banned, their Youtube channels or Twitter accounts deleted.
You say you can - but you don't. So...
Hundreds - out of how many accounts? Is a hundred a lot or nothing compared to the totals banned? Per day? Per Year? Per Decade?
This is what we call nebulous, spurious, and anecdotal.
Hell, even my own comments have banned on Ars Techica, NY Yimes and Guardian simply because they were pointing out plain statistical facts that went contrary to left-wing narrative that articles tried to present.
Ah yeah - those are the screeds you keep posting about the master race, and people keep telling yo you are an asshole, and then you scream "I'm being oppressed by lesser races!" Maybe you are getting downvoted everywhere you go exactly because yo are a racist piece of shit? (I'm sorry - you have facts to prove you aren't being racist. Non-racist nazi.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's nothing wrong with the myth though.
Most people here are correctly noting that there is no bias. But remember: it would be totally okay and completely keeping with the spirit of the First Amendment and 47 USC 230 if people were being banned merely because the sites found posts discussing any 'conservative' position whatsoever to be objectionable.
If so-called 'conservatives' want their garbage on the Internet, it's up to them to create their own sites with which to do so, and then we can deal with whether DNS name servers will deign to include them. It's inappropriate, un-American, and un-conservative to try to compel third parties to host material that the third parties don't want to host for ideological reasons. One of the core principles of our government is that no one can be compelled to engage in speech against their will, including acting as a medium for other peoples' speech beyond the extent to which they may voluntarily wish to do so.
Were I running Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc., I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to just ban that crap outright. Frankly, I'm disappointed that they're not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not entirely correct,
Already played the "you're a nazi" card. LAMO. End of discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not entirely correct,
I'm fully aware of Project Veritas' background as a source. In this case the evidence is undeniable though. Leaked internal documents that have been verified to be true, a high-level Google exec admitting on video that they do censor conservative opinions that go against their politics, and multiple whistleblower accounts saying the same.
As it happens, majority of media completely pushed this story under the rug. Moreover, Youtube deleted Project Veritas' video about it even though, again, it did not brake any rules or TOS. It was wiped solely because it was really uncomfortable for Google.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Holy mother of god. Have some of those people demanding proof been living under the rock or something? It will take you literally 5 seconds to find it on the Google. It was even well-reported by majority of alternative media, people like Tim Pool.
https://archive.fo/PkUyv
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There's nothing wrong with the myth though.
Other than the fact that it is a myth and deserves to be called out as such so long as people think it's true?
When you've got people claiming the first doesn't apply because platforms are popular and therefore count as 'public forums' just like a government owned platform would be, and claiming the 'unfair discrimination' is simply evidence of why 230 is bad and needs to go or at least be re-written, pointing out that those arguments are based upon a fiction kinda undercuts everything.
While you're correct in that 230 and the first should make it a moot point where even if they were correct they still wouldn't have a leg to stand on it's worthwhile to undercut their argument from the other end as well, pointing out that the discussion doesn't even need to go that far because there's a distinct lack of evidence showing the discrimination they are claiming.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not entirely correct,
How many left wing people have you followed? If you follow mainly right wing people, you data set is biased, and will give biased results.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"That is not proof of anti-conservative bias. If those vloggers are violating the terms of service, then it's that they're violating the terms of service."
I'll just repeat what I often say - if, for example, white supremacists are being banned, and you find as a result of that a lot of people you follow are being banned - you should not ask why people on the "right" are being banned. You should be asking yourself why you're so closely politically aligned with white supremacists.
That's only an "anti-conservative bias" in that case, if you can find examples of prominent left-wing white supremacists who are not banned. If you can't find such people, ask yourself the above question again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"big corporations might get skittish about advertising next to your conservatism"
So... your problem is that the PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR ADVERTiSING don't want to be associate with a particular channel, and therefore the person on that channel can't get free money from people who don't want to pay her? You want to people (NOT YOUTUBE, by your own words) to be forced to pay to support people they do not wish to be associated with?
Entitled little shits, the lot of you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Well then you should be able to provide evidence of the videos that were de-monetized that didn't break the rules"
He's apparently saying the channel has been demonetised completely. Which is understandable if no advertiser want to be associated with it.
He thinks it's some kind of conspiracy, but it's just another example of whiny conservative shithead saying controversial things for ratings, then getting all whiny because the free money they used to get has dried up and now they have to work for a living.
If it was simply YouTube blocking the money and the advertisers would follow them to their own platform, we wouldn't be hearing this crap. But, they know they won't get paid by decent people, and there's not enough like-minded assholes out there to make up the shortfall.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"YouTube mods have been demonetizing everyone for just about anything. It has little to do with any political slant."
Exactly. One movie review channel I subscribe to seems to get demonetised or held for moderation on a regular basis, often due to some aspect of the often 80s/90s horror and action movies covered (the most recent entry was apparently held up because the title contained the word "terror". They have been caught out for including copyrighted material (even though it's explicitly covered as fair use) or complaints from soft-skinned fools who can't find the skip or back buttons when a film from 30 years ago offends them.
But, you know what I never see? People whining that they're being oppressed because the creator of those videos has a liberal political slant. That victim complex only seems to exist among right-winger who must know deep inside that they're trolls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And when Twitter bans people for misusing the terms electron and proton, you'll have a point."
Do you have examples of people doing that? Or, is this just another example of a right-winger justifying their hate by pretending that a fictional scenario makes it OK?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Congrats on being the exception that proves the rules, I guess.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
"I saw one person claim"
Did you see any evidence of it actually happening, or are you just more gullible when the liar is politically aligned with you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
…the free market in action, just like conservatives want. 😁
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well, that too for sure. The self-proclaimed "libertarians" and "conservatives" do seem to quickly become actual communists and demand seizure of the means of production when they don't get their own way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That's not true at all.
Actual communists want the means of production to be seized by the people.
These guys want the means of production to be seized by rich people who agree with them.
I'd classify them as closer to monarchists than communists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Another fair point.
I think we can agree that the last thing they want is a free market economy, once they stand to be on the losing side at least. No matter howe loudly they proclaim otherwise, they really just want to be on the "winning" side, with as little work and responsibility as possible to get there. So, monarchist does seem apt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Myth
I really wonder about your comment..
I understand that comments can be read to decide a persons ?? group/how they were raised/the bias they have..and lots of things.
But I do like to disburse abit of history and common knowledge to those that Think abit OFF'.
The problems you get in forums is Offtrack'. Some person railroading the section but placing a Stupid comment in a section that has little bearing into the subject.
OR, if the subject IS' about bias and racism..the idea that No one is listening. and you cant pound DIRT into a hole thats already full.
It has taken myself along time to find any type of unbiased history. And still there is a slant in it. Its like watching USA news, then go watch what other nations see/hear. Its amazing.
A few friends on the net from other countries, we have had some interesting discussions and what Is/was/.. happening.
German history, Japan, China, and other countries LOVE their history. and its abit different then ours. Ours gets Simplified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The internet has a big free-speech zone called USENET.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Myth
btr1701, you don't think this blog gets linked any where?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hey, Mike, you're 100% wrong
GOOGLE'S OWN EMPLOYEES have come out and said that they're censoring conservatives, so has Twitter, so has Facebook. Project Veritas has video of Google employees saying they censor conservatives.
There is countless data that PROVES it.
WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?!
I don't get how you're so freaking BLIND and why you're defending open fascism!
Google's own employees have GONE ON RECORD to state that Google is interfering and wants to stop Conservatives from speaking.
JACK FREAKING DORSEY, you know, the guy who RUNS Twitter, has stated Conservative employees are afraid to come out and speak up. Jack got DESTROYED on the Joe Rogan podcast by Tim Pool over the fact that he has rules set up that are against Conservatives, which he didn't even realize it.
Maybe, just MAYBE, Mike...
When people on the right
When people on the left
when people in the center
Keep saying the same thing, over and over and over again...
Maybe, just MAYBE...
There's something to it.
Of course, everyone who defends Google/Twitter/Facebook at this point is just pro-fascism.
Go ahead, flag this comment, or don't let it show. Either way, you're in the wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's impossible to rethink that which was never thought through i the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
So, are you actually stupid enough to not understand the difference between personal disrespect (e.g. referring to Caitlin Jenner as "Bruce") and political commentary (e.g. referring to Trump and McConnell as "Napoleon Boneyspurs" and "Moscow Mitch", respectively), or are you just pretending to be?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I see it with my eyes. On this comment thread. So meta.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I see it with my eyes. On this comment thread. So meta.
Quick! Somebody call the waambulance!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I see it with my eyes. On this comment thread. So meta.
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And if you’ll notice, most of those comments lack evidence that “right-leaning content” is censored specifically because of its political leanings. They are baseless assertions that fail when considering one specific bit of logic: If someone is banned for violating the Terms of Service, and what they did to receive that ban is associated with “conservative views”, the TOS isn’t the problem.
The initial investigation into Benghazi lacked substantial evidence to prove wrongdoing on the part of Hillary Clinton, but that didn’t stop Republicans from running further investigations into the matter. What makes you think conservatives banned from certain social media platforms (and their bootlicking allies) will stop pressing this matter even though they’re the ones to blame for violating a site’s TOS?
If evidence of anti-conservative bias existed, you might have a point. But it doesn’t. So you don’t.
And by the by, this bullshit keeps coming up as an issue because conservatives keep pressing the issue as if doing so will magically uncover that evidence.
That doesn’t make them right.
Or because they believe (correctly) that platforms have every right to moderate as they see fit. If views from “the left” happen to stay away from what fits within a site’s TOS, that doesn’t mean a site is “leftist”. It means the site’s owners/operators recognize changes in society that make people look like assholes and write their TOS accordingly. A few decades ago, using anti-gay slurs in reference to queer people might be more acceptable than it is today. But a site’s Terms of Service cannot be rewritten to comfort the ignorance of those who wish those slurs were still acceptable. If conservatives are upset by that, maybe they should stop wondering why Twitter bans homophobic slurs and ask themselves why they’re so eager to use those slurs in the first place.
Or because the people speaking out against so-called “censorship” are full of shit. If a conservative personality is banned from Twitter, they can go on literally any other social media service that will have them and continue posting their speech. They’re not entitled to use Twitter — or to force Twitter into giving them an audience.
Anyone arguing that “censorship of conservatives on social media for being conservatives is a real thing” is doing that. They have no evidence that it is happening, and they have no arguments about why sites can’t do it even if it is happening. But they argue that it is and hope people won’t look past their emotionally loaded arguments about “censorship”.
Explain which “mainstream conservative views” are supposedly being censored. Then explain which specific expressions of those views were considered in violation of that TOS — and the reason they shouldn’t be.
Screenshots and Imgur are a thing. The Internet Archive is a thing. Archive.is is a thing. If you want to present examples, do the legwork; if you can’t or won’t do the work, stop saying you have examples to show.
And even if you do the legwork, you’ll still have to prove that the deactivated accounts in question were deactivated only because they presented “mainstream conservative views” in a way that wouldn’t violate Twitter’s TOS under even the loosest reading.
[required for a believable argument: at least one (1) citation]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There does seem to be a common connection in all this, though -
All these extreme-right types show pretty conclusively that they have zero understanding of how the concept of "evidence" works.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I see it with my eyes. On this comment thread. So meta.
HAHAHA! Waambulance! LOLZ and all that. Hella clever! I've never heard that before. You used it perfectly! How did you know I was crying when I typed?
I wasn't offering up an argument so much as expressing a sense of awe at... y'know... It doesn't matter. Stick to your viewpoints. Shun independent thought. Seek validation from likeminded strangers instead. Insult those who hold different views. Bury your authentic self deep beneath your allegiance to your political team and your screens. You belong! You'll be a rock in the future. Dr. Parkinson figured that out long ago.
To be clear: I'm saying that it is unhealthy for one to let others shape one's identity while repressing one's sense of self. Many humans feel a need to belong to a group. It is my opinion that political groups tend to include a pathological component concealed under a sense of belonging and the dopamine rush triggered by competition. But it is so fun, amirite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: they weren’t flagged because of their views bro.
“Insult those who hold different views”
Well you are asking for it when not a single one of you mental midgets can produce a single citation supporting your view. If you’re all gonna act spoiled little brats we will continue to treat you as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: they weren’t flagged because of their views bro.
They don't seem to understand that just because they see anti-conservative bias everywhere, doesn't mean those of us that don't huff bad things do too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I see it with my eyes. On this comment thread. So me
"I wasn't offering up an argument"
We know.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FACEBOOK AND TWITTER DO BUSINESS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
Does Facebook and Twitter get contracts with the government YES does Facebook and Twitter get tax relief from the government YES. THEY HAVE GOVERNMENT YOU LYING SACKS OF CRAP AND LEFTDIRT. CHANGE SECTION 230. ITS GOING TO HAPPEN AND I READ YOUR CRAP, ITS LIES AND GARBAGE. CHANGE SECTION 230
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, that or they're under the impression that if you simply repeat a falsehood often enough people will believe it, a tactic that sadly does work on some people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Acceptance in general is a Christian ideal, which explains why it's mostly absent from the right (who like to dress themselves up in the trappings of Christianity but not to actually follow Christ's teachings).
Confirmed correct. The idea of dressing in sheep's clothing is to make themselves look less wolfy.
While I've got my issues with self-identifying as X and have seen some horrible examples of bad actors taking advantage of this to behave abusively, I don't generally go out of my way to be offensive towards anyone. If you start from a position of "live and let live" you can't go wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"There's a long list of conservative vloggers who have been banned, had videos removed, or who have been demonetized. There's no disputing that. Not be a long shot."
There's indeed a long list of vociferous racists, bigots, and otherwise openly offensive people who have been banned. Among them is a long list of fringe republicans.
This only proves that racists today feel as home with the republican party as they did in the democrat party pre-1950.
They aren't being banned because they're republican or conservative. They were banned because they were being openly racist or otherwise directly offensive.
That most of them identify themselves as "conservative" only means any sane man identifying himself as a "conservative" should ask himself the racists today are more at home with the red elephant rather than the blue donkey they used to ride.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Enough is enough!
The statement about violating the terms of service is laughable, especially when the punishment for violating those terms is selectively enforced.
If you don't like it, you can leave and go back where you came from. Heard something like that that somewhere...can't quite remember....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Literally not a single left-winger was banned because of calls to throw milkshakes on right-wingers even though this very act constitutes a crime under British law."
What you've just presented can be summarized as "Why do we get hit for encouraging rape and murder when the political opposition gets away with recommending civil disobedience??? NOT FAIR!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
"Is deadnaming a conservative value for which people are getting banned? Or is deadnaming an asshole thing to do for which people are getting banned."
Deadnaming is an asshole thing to do which comes close to being an accepted conservative virtue. Or at least for what americans today consider to be "conservative". The founding fathers would disagree.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yep, it’s telling that in the discussion about serious capital crimes, the best “both sides are bad” equivalence he can come up with us milkshake throwing. If he wonders who one side gets more attention and consequences, he’s just proven why that happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"Yes, people have been sanctioned on social media for 'disrespecting' trans people merely by stating that biological gender exists as a matter of scientific and biological fact."
Nope. From the actual scientific view there's no such definition.
I humbly refer to Swyer syndrome, De La Chappelle syndrome, and all the other little spokes into the wheel of convenient shoebox classification.
Fact of the matter, phenotypical "gender" being opposite of the genotype is not rare, even in nature.
People who get banned on social media for what you describe usually get banned for using bad and inaccurate pseudoscientific argument as justification for screaming "THOSE DEVIANTS AIN'T HUMAN!!!".
Your argument is like defending a KKK cross-burning as a "barbecue party". And lamenting the subsequent police involvement as unjustified.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
"...but acceptance of LGBTQ people and banning hurtful interactions is definitely a progressive idea."
It's about 2000 years old - assuming Roman or Greek culture, and not counting Old Egyptian or pre-unification Chinese inscriptions.
Acceptance and tolerance of gender/sexual identity is about as progressive as the concept of rock.
"I wish more conservatives were here to make their case."
Quite a lot of the people here ARE conservative, given that they hold beliefs similar to those of the founding fathers and their spiritual predecessors.
Your problem is that only conservatives from the alt-right section are willing to stand in defense of open bigotry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Agreed in full. That the conservatives don't kick these people out -- again -- both puzzles and disgusts me. Are they really that desperate for members
Also seeing the same kind of thing over here in the UK Conservative party. They're not conserving anything, just riding roughshod over anyone who's not rich.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The biggest racist are people like you that call everything you disagree with as racist. These companies are leftists as are most people working in them. There are released documents to prove they are blocking conservatives.
Really, the right get banned for things that shouldn't be while the real leftist racist are still on the service because they are on the right side. You leftist don't see it or don't give a crap because it doesn't effect you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Nazzis *are* censored on social media by progressives
You're watching way too much Leftist propaganda B.S.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's Adorable
COnsidering the Terms of Service are NOT CLEAR at all that's laughable.
Considering you don't see if. Of course not. It doesn't affect you or you just don't care as it's plain as day to see who is getting banned for their views and who are not for radical far left views.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's Adorable
The only snowflakes I see are you, leftists. you want to BAN dialog because you can't back anything up with real facts. Ban, ban, ban.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Not entirely correct,
So you like to ignore facts and stick your head in the sand to hold onto your crazy leftist views.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Considering the TOS are not very clear. Controlled by a leftist company and leftist workers, which can really just ban people on a whim and give no reason. The TOS is worthless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Says the guy with no facts posting in a comment section full of people posting actual facts that say he is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Well then, you should have no problem pointing out which parts of these TOS are not clear to you:
Twitter TOS:
https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/enforcing-our-rules.html
Youtube TOS:
https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies#community-guidelines
Facebook TOS:
https://facebook.com/communitystandards?refid=42
I'm sorry you don't comprehend plain English.
Because we don't go around spewing hateful, offensive views that denigrate other humans. There's a real easy way to have it stop affecting "conservatives" too.
You're right, we don't care, because nobody is getting banned for their political views on the left or right. They're getting banned for calling for the murder of other human beings, saying that because someone lives their life differently than what they agree with makes them less of a human, and other denigrating, offensive statements. This happens on both the left and the right. I'm sorry that the radical right seems to be more rabid about it. But that's a personal problem. Not a tech problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not entirely correct,
When said "facts" are taken out of context and edited to say something the speaker didn't really intend and it was proved that the publisher of said video doctored it to fit their narrative and said organization has a proven history of lying, engaging in illegal sting operations, and regularly doctoring their videos to change what was originally stated?
If you have a "RELIABLE" source, please provide it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, the GOP is pissed off from all the Censorship. The left has no real argument and so just ban, ban, ban. But since the Banning is on your side, you don't care and are full of excuses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The CEO of Reddit admits that sub-reddit "The Donald" doesn't violate any of the rules:
https://i.redd.it/vd9kxl5mqme31.jpg
“I wish there was a solution as simple as banning the community- certainly it would make some things easier- but the reality is that banning a large political community THAT ISN’T IN VIOLATION OF OUR POLICIES would be a hugely problematic.”
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
That's literally not proof of anything. Based on that logic, my email spam filter provider is biased against the prince of Nigeria who is going to make me a rich person and be my BFF for the rest of my life.
The same could be said of flat earthers, yet here we are. Just because something doesn't go away, doesn't make it true. It just means people refuse to let go of it.
Interested in the issue doesn't mean they are right. I'm interested in the idea of declaring pizza with anchovies should be illegal. That doesn't mean I'm right.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Several senators/representatives on the left have routinely mocked the right for believing what essentially amounts to as a conspiracy theory.
It's not ignored. It's debunked and mocked. There's a difference.
Tell that to everybody on the left speaking out against the people speaking out against the so-called "censorship".
You are entitled to feel that way. That doesn't make you correct.
Someone here is, but it's not us.
Why?
Because that would prove you are right. If you can't provide them, then it never happened.
The Internet Archive is a thing that exists. The question is why were those accounts deactivated and would those tweets show they were violating the TOS or simply expressing their views on lower taxes and government deregulation?
You keep saying that but then never provide evidence to back up what you say.
I don't believe you. I don't even know who you are. Can you provide proof?
I'm fairly certain they possess a modicum of self awareness. Most people do or otherwise they generally cannot function as a human being.
The projection is strong with this one.
Actually it's kind of pathetic how easily we can destroy the arguments put forth by you and your ilk. It is fun to watch you squirm and/or runaway when presented with actual facts though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The internet has an even bigger free-speech zone called (wait for it) "the internet".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I've yet to hear someone refer to flat earthers as "racists". Loons, yes, racists, no.
Oh my gosh you're right! We need new labor laws that REQUIRE employers to hire an equal number of conservatives and liberals right now!
Got links? Because I'd like to read those. Oh wait, you don't because they don't exist.
Don't you mean the "left" side? I'll see myself out. The left gets banned too for the same stuff (i.e. being jerks). I'm sorry that conservatives seem to engage in such behavior far more than liberals.
It doesn't affect the people who are able to be polite. If you can't be polite, it will affect you. That has nothing to do with the left or right, other than one side seems to have a larger number of people who can't stop being jerks.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well then, you should have no problem pointing out which parts of these TOS are not clear to you:
Twitter TOS:
https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/enforcing-our-rules.html
Youtube TOS:
https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies#community-guidelines
Facebook TOS:
https://facebook.com/communitystandards?refid=42
Which really means nothing. Lots of companies are controlled and staffed by leftist or rightist people.
That is actually accurate of how most businesses work, online or brick and mortar. It's kind of made possible by this thing called the First Amendment.
There is an argument to be made here. You aren't making it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
So do many other organizations, including some that would be considered "conservative". This is not illegal or indicative of nefarious activity (supposed or otherwise). There is no point in bringing this up.
So do I when I do my taxes and claim exemptions for college tuition and my kids.
We all "have government". Dry the spittle from your mouth and actually make a point here.
And the lies would be????
Why?
First you tell us to change it, then you say it's going to happen. Which is it? Is it going to change without our intervention or do you need us to do something to change it?
Do you have something specific you are referring to along with facts to prove it's false or are you just ranting and raving again?
No.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not entirely correct,
Then you should know that you cannot cite them as a reliable source since they have proven to be UN-reliable.
It really isn't, but it still doesn't excuse citing an unreliable source.
None of this has happened. The supposed documents are not available anywhere for independent verification, the high-level exec did NOT admit that on video, and the multiple whistleblower accounts are either anecdotal or have not provided concrete evidence of this happening other than stating "I worked there and I know it happened!".
What story is that? The one about conservatives pushing an anti-conservative bias conspiracy theory or the one where a group obtained illegal video footage and doctored it to say what they wanted it to say?
Because it violated their privacy policy. Same as other videos that do the same thing.
Then you have never read their TOS because it absolutely broke the TOS.
No, see above. TOS. Violation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because the people being banned/demonetized broke the TOS. The fact that a larger number of conservatives broke the TOS vs liberals is not evidence of an anti-conservative bias, it's evidence that more conservatives are jerks than liberals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't claim you said they would. I said IF Twitter did that you'd have a point.
Amazing that you pull out the tired old 'reading comprehension' cliché, then totally miscomprehend what I wrote. One suspects purposely so.
Big deal. The underlying point remains: if Twitter starts banning people for misstating the science about atoms, then you'd have a point. Since they're not, you don't.
And yet Twitter doesn't ban people for getting the science of electrons and protons really wrong, do they?
Which is something no one was even talking about.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course not. That's why I said "And when... you'll have..."
That's a conditional which indicates Twitter HASN'T yet done that, and which means he DOESN'T have a point and won't have one until they do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
I wasn't talking about Jenner in the context of legal names. I referred to Jenner to rebut a different point being made.
When I said, " yet it's still an offense on Twitter to refer to them by their actual legal name", I was referring to people who HAVE NOT changed their name, which makes using their factual legal name an offense on Twitter.
Sure, but that doesn't mean 'progressive' leftist ideology hasn't been incorporated into the TOS. Punishing someone for using a person's factual legal name just because that person doesn't like it anymore is a hallmark of leftist ideology. If it's in the TOS, it's been incorporated.
Yep, that's a tactic right of Alinsky's RULES FOR RADICALS. Define your position as being de facto right, true, compassionate, ethical, etc. so that you can condemn any deviation from your ideology as definitionally 'assholish'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I’ll take things that never happened for $500 Alex
Wow, you managed to copy/paste my comment and repost it.
Well done!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Ah, so that's the excuse you're going to make for the hypocrisy, is it?
Then why was I vilified last week for calling the leader of the Congressional Teen Girl Squad "Occasional-Cortex"?
I mean, that would seem to fall under your category of acceptable "political commentary", no? Yet for some reason I caught all manner of shit for using a derogatory nickname for a politician when, as you ably note, derogatory names for politicians are used in this forum with a high degree of frequency and acceptability.
I can't think of any difference that might make the ones you cited acceptable and the one I used unacceptable. I mean, they're all politicians. One's a president, one's a senator, one's member of the House... hmm... what could it be... oh, wait... the ones you cited are Republicans and mine is a 'progressive' Democrat. That can't be it, can it? 'Cause that would mean you and the rest of the crowd that leapt on me for 'disrespecting' poor Collectivist Barbie would be a bunch of hypocritical douchebags that can dish it out but can't take it. And I sure wouldn't want to think that's the case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speaking of completely miscomprehending what someone wrote. You still don't get it.
I wasn't using particle charges as an example of Twitter bannable offenses. My point with the particle charges was to point out that words have meanings and if you use them wrong it completely changes what you are saying. Ignore getting banned on Twitter for a moment and comprehend this statement, which you have failed to do so far.
Now that we've established that words have meanings (especially in science and biology) lets move on. If you call someone something that they are implicitly not, that is more than likely going to be offensive to them. Especially when what they are is determined by something outside of their control. For instance, if you call a man a woman, or a woman a man, or a person a dog.
There is a difference between gender and someone's biological sex. If you call them a specific gender term but are really meaning sex, it can be VERY offensive. Hence possible banning for it.
Have I explained this sufficiently so that you get my point now?
Amazing that you completely and utterly missed my extremely simple point of "words have meanings, don't call someone something that they aren't", then accuse me of not comprehending what you wrote. One suspects purposely so.
Well, you were the one that was just complaining about me miscomprehending about what you wrote. I find it interesting that you whine and complain about me doing it, but when you do it it's not a "big deal".
Since you didn't get my point and how I was using atoms as an example of how words have meanings, not directly what Twitter does or does not ban, I do still have a point and you did not get it.
Again, it's not about atoms, it's about NOT using offensive words to describe someone, especially when the words you're using do not even apply scientifically.
That's exactly what EVERYONE was talking about, especially me in my first reply to you. I've never NOT been talking about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You're doing the same thing. You're defining 'being an asshole' as refusing to tow the leftist line. Anyone who doesn't line up with the latest in 'progressive' thought is definitionally an 'asshole'. Clever trick if you can find someone stupid enough to fall for it.
If I don't accede to the language police demands of some guy on Twitter who dresses up like a giant kitten and calls himself a "furry otherkin" and says his preferred pronouns are "zhe/zheir", that's not me being an asshole. It's just me not letting some random stranger define the parameters of the English language for me. But Twitter writing that into its TOS as a bannable offense, is indeed making posting while conservative (on certain subjects, anyway) a punishable offense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You still don't understand my point. I could have used a different example, or no example at all, and it still would have made my point.
My point is that words have meanings and if you use the wrong words it can completely change what you are saying. Especially if you use the wrong words to describe a person. If you call a person a dog, that is scientifically wrong, and largely offensive to the person. Talking about someone's "gender" when you really mean "sex" can be very offensive since you are using the wrong terms. And that IS a bannable offense under Twitter's TOS.
I used something scientifically basic (particle charges) to make the point that words have meanings and if you use the wrong words you can completely change what you are saying and be VERY wrong.
From there I expounded on the logic that words have meanings (leaving behind the atoms metaphor) and stated that using the wrong words to describe someone is offensive and therefore bannable under Twitter's TOS.
Does this make sense to you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I’ll take things that never happened for $500 Alex
Wow, you totally missed the subject line that was mocking you!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: I’ll take things that never happened for $500 Alex
How many times have you been called out for poor reading comprehension in this article alone? I think here is another prime example of your reading comprehension failure!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
So you decided to back the wrong horse and your reaction to learning that it's a poor bet is to double down on your decision... congratulations?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FACEBOOK AND TWITTER DO BUSINESS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
Have you considered not getting on the internet while on acid?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Says the guy with no argument or facts to back up his assertions. Meanwhile the tweets and post of conservatives who were banned pretty clearly show them being douchebags and refusing to abide by the TOS they agreed to follow when signing up for the service.
Come back when you can actually be honest and tell the truth for once.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Well, you're not obliged to respond to what sounds like a right weirdo, BTR1701. I tend to avoid such people as they're not worth the hassle.
The trick to getting along in a society that seems to be leaving us behind is to live and let live. You don't have to interact with people you disagree with in order to convince them to change their minds. You could also -- mad idea -- leave them to it and just get on with your life. I follow plenty of people I disagree with but their discourse generally falls within the parameters of what I personally consider to be reasonable and sensible. There's no point in getting into arguments over emotional issues as there's nothing to gain from it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
"Then why was I vilified last week for calling the leader of the Congressional Teen Girl Squad "Occasional-Cortex"?"
Presumably because that's very childish, and the rest of us are tired of playground tactics surround the right's obsession with that woman. I know you need a woman to demonise after you lost the Clinton boogeyman, but surely you can do better than a freshman who wouldn't have been noticed outside of her own constituency if the right-wing press hadn't lost their shit over her saying we should take major steps to improve the environment?
For the record, yes the nicknames for Trump et al are also childish, but at least they're usually backed up with actual criticisms of the very real abuses of power committed by those men. AOC was being attacked by you guys before she'd officially accepted her first elected position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
Do you have any examples of people this has happened to who weren't objectively being assholes? Because those are the only examples I ever see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"You're doing the same thing. You're defining 'being an asshole' as refusing to tow the leftist line. "
If I were you, I'd examine why you think that being decent to other people is a "leftist" quality, rather than whining that conservatives are being banned for being assholes.
"If I don't accede to the language police demands of some guy on Twitter who dresses up like a giant kitten and calls himself a "furry otherkin" and says his preferred pronouns are "zhe/zheir", that's not me being an asshole"
It is if you're deliberately doing it to be an asshole. But, the question there would be - if you're so offended by such people, why are you following them on Twitter? I never see such people on there in my timelines, except when being deliberately called out by trolling assholes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Well, you're not obliged to respond"
Bravo. Something that a lot of people seem confused about with social media is that you don't have to interact with everything that appears in front of you. No matter what your world view is, the entire world does not and will not conform to it. When you're exposed to the world as you are online, you will find something you disagree with.
But, if you choose to start attacking other people for doing things that offend you, just because you're too weak-willed to scroll past or too stupid to understand how to hide certain people from your timeline, know that you're being an asshole when you do that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
What Paul says. Imagine just leaving such people to get on with their lives, bereft of the wisdom you wish to bestow upon them. Number of resulting casualties: zero.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Freakin LibCucks
Facts have a liberal bias . . . it's been well demonstrated!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If facts (things that are known or proved to be true) have a liberal bias, then it stands to reason that the truth is other than what conservatives make it out to be.
After all, if facts say one thing, no amount of you saying otherwise is going to change that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Your country is literally being run by a right majority. Your mainstream media sources worship the ground Trump walks on. This victim mentality makes no fucking sense to me when you guys have the key to the kingdom.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hey, Mike, you're 100% wrong
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But do FOX, OAN, and Breitbart really qualify as 'mainstream media?'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
But none of those employees have provided any proof of it so it's just their word against the platforms'. Proof or it didn't happen.
No, they don't. They interviewed ONE FORMER, DISGRUNTLED employee who made that claim and never provided any proof to back up his assertions. None of their other videos have any evidence or proof to back up his claim.
And yet nobody can find it and you and your ilk for some strange reason refuse to provide it. I would think that given how badly you get beat down in the comments that you would be HAPPY to link to the evidence and proof that they censor conservatives solely for their political views. You've yet to do so and one can only wonder if that's because you don't have any.
Actual data and evidence of your claims.
Uh, you're the one actually defending fascism by having the government FORCE private individuals and companies to associate with speech they don't want to. Not to mention no one has been able to provide reliable evidence of this happening.
And yet not a single one has been able to produce actual evidence of it happening.
[Citation needed.]
I have no idea to what you are referring. Who is Joe Rogan? Can you provide some links?
Except they're not. The only ones saying it are the ones on the "right".
If that were the case then there would also be something to the claims by flat earthers that the earth is flat, not round. Or that the moon landing was faked. Or that 9/11 was an "inside job". Just because people keep repeating false information does not mean that information is any more true or less false.
That's quite literally the opposite of people defending them. Your argument is that fascist content should be forced to be allowed. We're saying "no it shouldn't". How is that pro-fascist?
As proven in my previous points, no. You are literally wrong and have produced no facts or evidence to prove otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Currently. But not in the House of Representatives.
Um, apparently you are not familiar with the US and what our mainstream media sources are. The only mainstream one that does is FOX. All the others (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc...) are all pretty critical of him. And it's really stretching it to call FOX "mainstream".
Your comment makes no sense as you obviously don't know what you're talking about or understand how the US government and media marketplace work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
New Google leaks
Wow, this new Google documents dump is a goldmine.
Techdirt totally BTFO. I hope the author of this article has a sense of honor to display some humility now.
People who here kept demanding more proof and saying there's no bias BTFO. People dissing Project Veritas BTFO too.
This is just so sweet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: New Google leaks
I’ll wait till something’s verified that’s not from a source known to consist of blatant conmen. But I’ll be happy to discuss if something resembling factual evidence appears
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Nazzis *are* censored on social media by progressive
Actually, that describes all of the examples I’ve seen from conservative outlets, based entirely from conservative sources, including speech from the banned conservatives in question.
I’m not even joking. I’ve yet to see a single case of a conservative who was banned and then had that reported by a conservative outlet that has not expressed support for one or more of the ideas Gary mentioned. Well, or some other things like anti-trans or anti-vax or generally bigotry or harassment. But all the major ones? White supremacy and misogyny all the way it seems. This isn’t a leftist conspiracy; it’s an own goal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Not entirely correct,
Let me put it this way. If Project Veritas and the National Enquirer each published an article that contradicted the other’s, I would believe the National Enquirer’s article first. That’s not hiding from the truth; that’s just how untrustworthy Project Veritas is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's Adorable
We don't have to prove anything to you.
If you're too dumb to figure it out on your own(which I doubt. dishonesty is more likely a factor) keep claiming the sky is green
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: It's Adorable
It's already been proven. Just because youre a partisan hack doesn't make you right
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Unless you're white, amirite parasite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: 'Unless you LIKE being a tool...'
Or it's because they know censorship on their platform exists. Just because 9/10 leftists are lying scumbags doesn't mean they all are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: A brief reminder.
Our founding fathers were "white suprecasists"
It's amazing how brainwashed the modern left is. They'll literally sell out their children for good feefees
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Of course they're censoring conservatives, liars. F*** ALL the way off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nobody should be censored for saying anything ever. Grow up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Myth
So stupid. The left has just defined "bad person" as "in possession of right wing views"
We just ban bad people!
Yes dickhead, and you define "bad people" as "anyone who disagrees with a leftist"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Myth
I love the fact that you dived in here to say that someone who said something over 6 months ago has thin skin. On a site that's known for not banning people, nonetheless.
If you people are capable of self reflection it would seem less pathetic, please work on that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The discussion misses the point
Suppose that democrats are censored just as much, or even more than conservatives. Then it should be in the interest of democrats to stop censorship (or at the very least increase transparency), just as much if not more as it is the interest of conservatives, right?
No conservative is going around saying they should stop censoring right wingers and crack down harder on leftists. We are all saying - remove censorship, period (unless legally obligated of course). So where's the issue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Big Tech "IS" Censoring
Where your genius BS response to "Enough With The Myth That Big Tech Is 'Censoring' Conservatives AND That The Law Requires Them To Be Neutral"
Just nailed Twotter, for taking down a factual article from NY Post exposing the criminals you clowns are trying to help take over this country! (yes I spelled it that way on purpose!) Everyone knows what a piece of SH*@+ MZ is, after all he stole the FB idea from another college student and his character is so low even the scum has to step down on to see him.
The Documentary: The Social Dilemma tells it all!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The discussion misses the point
"Then it should be in the interest of democrats to stop censorship (or at the very least increase transparency), just as much if not more as it is the interest of conservatives, right?"
Not if those "leftists" recognise things like the right to free association and the known dangers of allowing government to dictate the free speech of others.
Besides, there are many sites that consor the "left" even more than the things you complain about are censoring the "right". But, it's hardly our fault that those outlets like Stormfront, Brietbart and Gab don't have the same audience numbers as Facebook or Twitter.
"We are all saying - remove censorship, period (unless legally obligated of course)"
Agreed. But, actual censorship is only done by the government. The owners of private property have the right to refuse service or entry, as your local mall or nightclub do. Stop whining about them exercising their property rights, and start pondering why you keep getting kicked out of the bar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Big Tech "IS" Censoring
"Just nailed Twotter, for taking down a factual article from NY Post"
Sigh... they did no such thing. They did the equivalent of taking down a gig poster from a lamppost on their property. The band the poster is advertising is still playing their gig. If you depended on that particular lamppost to do all the advertising for your band, that's your problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Censoring Conservative Material
Your censoring is frustrating. I am a liberal democrat and can clearly see that you're not aware of what you're doing. You will only bring regulation down upon Google and all the rest of us. Please stop. There is nothing to fear from allowing everyone to see others' truths.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censoring Conservative Material
So what exactly is attracting idiots to this year old article, I wonder? Surely the echo chambers have newer links to spout nonsense on?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
censorship
Absolute garbage. Censoring legitimate stories on Hunter and Joe Biden corruption while pushing false narratives on Trump for 4 years. Big Tech sucks!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: censorship
"legitimate stories on Hunter and Joe Biden corruption"
Oh, they had those, rather than ridiculous stories about Giuliani happening to have random laptop that had information on them they wouldn't allow to be independently confirmed, while pretending that Hunter's employment was more nepotistic than the jobs Trump gave top his family despite not having the proper security clearance checks or qualifications for the job? Would you mind linking to it?
"false narratives on Trump for 4 years"
I bet I have more documented evidence on Trump corruption than Biden.
"Big Tech sucks!!"
Yet, you and your ilk keep using them rather than use the widespread competition that's available and supposedly doesn't do the things you hate. Why is that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Last Word
“How? What rules in the TOS prevent a conservative from posting, other than the ones that are some form of “don’t be an asshole”? (And if those are the ones preventing conservatives from posting, what does that say about conservatives?)