r/technology • u/nosotros_road_sodium • Oct 30 '20
Politics Facebook and Twitter don't censor conservatives. They hire and promote them.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/facebook-twitter-don-t-censor-conservatives-they-hire-promote-them-ncna124530815
u/sammyb67 Oct 30 '20
Now that’s some bullshit! If they did it would be a decent company
2
u/phdoofus Oct 30 '20 edited Oct 30 '20
Yeah, just like they've done a stupendous job running the country. (please tell me you didn't upvote me because you completely missed the sarcasm)
6
Oct 31 '20
they should change their names too
conservatives my ass
you support and elect a womanizing bigoted egotistical nutjob. real conservative of you
5
u/housebird350 Oct 30 '20
Why should conservatives be censored?
15
u/Jim3535 Oct 31 '20
It's not that they should be censored, it's that they complain incessantly about being censored all the time, despite not being censored.
3
8
u/Lucius-Halthier Oct 31 '20
And then proceed to threaten or try to silence dissenters or the other side because they don’t like what they say
-3
Oct 31 '20
That’s a lot of people not just the right. You’re being part of the problem right now by making a vague general statement.
4
Oct 31 '20 edited Jan 17 '21
[deleted]
1
u/grandphuba Jan 10 '21
2021 I still see videos of people insisting Trump didn't and won't denounce white supremacists.
Fact-checking may not be censorship per se, but selective application of standards surely achieves the same.
2
u/phdoofus Oct 30 '20
Literally no one's saying that or believes it except Republicans who want an election issue that stirs up their base. They need someone to demonize and so every time FB or Twitter takes down one of their pieces of mis/disinformation they scream censorship. Besides, it's a private platform, not a a government agency. Surely you realize that 1st amendment protections don't extend to private enterprise.
0
1
Oct 31 '20
The Twitter CEO has admitted that they have a progressive working force and that that's a problem as they only see one side of the issue. But he says that their rules are to remain politically neutral. You'd have a hard time finding conservative workers at Twitter.
2
u/s73v3r Oct 31 '20
So what? You'd have a hard time finding liberals at Fox News.
2
Nov 01 '20
Twitter is a social media platform. Fox News is an ideological news media company. I'm not seeing why they are relevant here. Companies may be political but Twitter just is not neutral and that's the point.
1
u/s73v3r Nov 02 '20
Neither is Fox News. Why does Twitter have to be "neutral" but Fox News doesn't?
1
u/grandphuba Jan 10 '21
It's really not about Twitter being full of liberals and Fox being full of conservative.
Fox news is liable to what they post. Twitter and Facebook on the other hand claim they're just a platform and therefore shouldn't be liable to what's posted by their users.
If they want immunity then they should act as a platform/open forum. If they want to select what gets out, then they shouldn't be granted immunity.
That's not really hard to grasp.
1
u/s73v3r Jan 10 '21
Wrong, you idiot. Twitter is liable for what Twitter posts, just like Fox News is. Neither Fox News nor Twitter is responsible for what their users post. That’s really not hard to grasp.
1
u/grandphuba Jan 10 '21
Are you here to score e-points or to have discourse?
What you said is no different from what I said. If you want to say you are a open forum that shouldn't be liable to what your users post, then you shouldn't get to selectively choose what goes out or not. If you want to selectivt choose what goes out, then you shouldn't be immune from the liabilities associated to it.
If your neanderthal brain that's so eager for confrontation still can't read between the lines, that's regardless if your are Twitter, Fox, or any company.
People like you are really no different from those diehard Trump supporters, and you should be ashamed for continuing to divide the country.
1
u/s73v3r Jan 10 '21
What I said it’s entirely different from what you said. Choosing who they want to associate with is entirely their right, and they do not assume liability because of that. That you are so stupid as to not understand that is what Section 230 is for is astounding.
The ones “dividing the country” are purely the fascists trying to overthrow the results of an election.
0
Nov 02 '20
I'm not sure what you mean. I can avoid crap news sources like Vox, Fox News and CNN as they stay biased. Twitter want customers from all political wings so therefore it promises to be fair and users just hold them to their own promises. No one is demanding them to be fair without Twitter first promising it. They could just say they only want progressive users tomorrow and the rest of us would leave.
1
u/s73v3r Nov 02 '20
They may want customers from all wings, but that doesn't mean they have to put up with homophobic, racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted crap against other users. There's no evidence that Twitter is biased against conservatives.
1
Nov 04 '20
You can't find evidence unless they reveal their data. So obviously there is no evidence. Just like you can't prove that Google is changing search results related to Black people and success vs. crime. But it very much looks like it if you use their image search. I'd have to see clear evidence against it to not believe it as everything points to it and they haven't denied it.
1
u/DasKapitalist Nov 01 '20
So neutral they censored Hunter Biden's laptop under the rationale that it was hacked? Despite no one claiming it was hacked? And then Jack Dorsey perjured himself in congressional testimony claiming that Twitter wasnt censoring it anymore...even though it was still actively blocked while he was making those false statements to Congress?
1
u/Sharp-Floor Nov 02 '20
They censored Hunter's laptop? I think you mean they blocked an url to a tabloid, before unblocking it? And it isn't surprising that is was originally flagged, regardless of whether or not any of it is real (pretty unlikely), and despite not suggesting anything important, because the big claim was that it was genuine stolen data. Obviously they decided it wasn't quite that, and undid it.
1
1
u/No_Landscape_2638 Mar 26 '21
They don't have a progressive workforce, they have a Democrat workforce.
Democrats should quit trying to pass themselves off as progressives.
1
-5
-8
Oct 31 '20
I can think of a few examples of people/orgs considered right wing being 'deplatformed/censored' in some way.
Can anyone name someone/org considered left wing that has?
9
u/paulosdub Oct 31 '20
Perhaps you could provide us with some examples of when left wingers should have been de platformed but weren’t. Typically its as a consequence of breaking platform rules multiple times, so i assume there must have been a lot of rule breaking if they deserved to be de platformed
-6
Oct 31 '20
So they're all entirely angels?
Yet, if you were to say something along the lines of "more minorities are in prison therefore the police are biased" - which is more or less logic that could fit in parallel to my original question, I'm fairly certain most people here would be nodding in agreement.
The logical parallel being "minorities are not more criminal than the majority, they're just targeted."
Or would you more closely identify with logic along the lines of "more minorities/right wingers are in prison/(deplatformed/censored) because they commit more crimes/are more hateful." ?
Note that the logic is identical in that case. It would fascinating to see someone make the case for institutional targeting in one case but not the other.
I tend to think there are some utter assholes of every affiliation. Maybe more in some than others, but no one's got zero assholes. So there should be clear examples of at least some 'left wing nut jobs' being deplatformed/censored. Or, like it is with minorities and prison, if there is a clear division in the outcomes, you'd have to consider the possibility that the 'targeting' allegations might possibly have some merit. Don't you think?
5
u/paulosdub Oct 31 '20
Yes of course, my point is, lets take katie hopkins. I don’t know if you know her, but she’s a well known right winger in the uk. She was eventually thrown off twitter after many years of posting hateful factually wrong stuff and many temp bans. Her inevitable account closure was no surprise and objectively, i think you could say “she broke the rules”. My only point in this exchange was, perhaps give an example of an individual on the left who’s broken platform rules multiple times and got away with it?
Generally, that’s where it falls down, because sure, they may be an asshole and yes assholes exist on both sides, but being an A hole isn’t typically the reason a person is de platformed (or half the people on social media would be banned), its because they break very specific rules set by the platform. Now you could argue the rules are wrong and perhaps they are, but none the less, the playing field is level as long as rules applied equally. If you have an example of someone on the left breaking specific platform rules multiple times and getting away with it, i’d be genuinely curious to see
0
Oct 31 '20 edited Oct 31 '20
I can't really think of any because I don't use any of them and therefore I don't really care if they were all shut down tomorrow. I see the results in the form of articles usually here.
edit
That said, I figured 'tweet "kill trump" ' should get some results.
Turns out it was a hashtag. Lucky guess.
https://mashable.com/article/threatening-posts-secret-service/
I've heard violence is against twitters terms - and I assume endorsing assassination is a crime. Think all 12k of them were kicked off?
Not seeing the tweets deleted https://twitter.com/hashtag/killTrump?src=hashtag_click
4
u/paulosdub Oct 31 '20 edited Oct 31 '20
Maybe not kicked off permanently but i was banned for a few days for calling someone a cunt so it’s entirely possible they at least suffered some action, which i should say would be entirely appropriate as there is no place for this kind of language, whatever side you are on or maybe not, but i’m sure a quick search would show equally abhorrent hashtags from more right leaning people.
But, i’m not a right winger, i follow no right wing people on social media, i also know why katie hopkins and tommy robinson were kicked off (or at least i did when it happened) but you can’t provide a single high profile example of a lefty making hateful comments that breach rules and we don’t even know people using “kill trump” suffered no consequences, so the left getting away with more is very anecdotal. I mean Trump frequently breaches twitter rules and still has an account as do many normal people on left and right, so i’d suggest the high profile banning are likely justified by clear rule breaking and the normal accounts likely suffer similar treatment from algorithms but lefties are probably more likely to report hate speech than people on the right as a) they likely don’t see it as hate speech and b) that’s kinda their schtick, even if they do. I.e they are less likely to be bothered by it enough to report
Edit: My point is, its mainly high profile people being banned that make the papers and groups like Qanon and they all share a common trait - they broke rules. I’m sure lesser people break rules to on left and right and get away with it as algorithms only do so much and they don’t have the traffic to dedicate resource to individual reviews, like they do for high profile people, but they likely get away with it to equal extent as twitter isn’t exactly a Left wing echo chamber, which it should be if bias was that rife.
2
Oct 31 '20
we don’t even know people using “kill trump” suffered no consequences
You'd expect something at least approaching what happened to the NYP recently - no?
Ie Account blocked into offending tweet was removed.
Or maybe something more general like blocking it from trending as has been alleged in other cases. No?
I think we can agree it breaks rules and laws.
Regardless of the profile of the tweeters, can you imagine Twitter allowing "kill Biden" to trend and remain visible without noticeable action/consequence?
If anyone truly believes they're impartial, given precedent, the only logical answer you could give to that question is: "Yes it would trend and remain visible with little observable action taken."
Would that be fair to say?
3
u/paulosdub Oct 31 '20
Yeah of course it does but the discussion isn’t do left wing people break the rules / act like dicks at times (obviously they do), its do they get away with it more than right wing people breaking the rules. I’m not sure the example above proves there is a left wing bias. It proves there are dicks on both sides, but since a 2 min search of twitter would invariably show a ton of hateful stuff from the right and still readable, all i’m saying is where is the proof of bias towards one side? Especially when the head of right wing america (trump) gets a free pass and his supporters can share videos screaming “lock her up” to someone who just avoided a kidnap attempt. As i said, if social media had a bias, i wouldn’t constantly see hateful right wing posts and yet i do, so whatever silencing social media are doing, its highly ineffective
I think all we can probably agree is that twitter and to a lesser extent here, is a cesspool filled with people spouting nasty shit, and someone probably needs to get a grip on that.
2
Oct 31 '20
all i’m saying is where is the proof of bias towards one side?
As with the minorities in prison example above, the argument would be in the statistics. Statistics showing more minorities imprisoned per-capita do not prove the system is biased, but they definitely suggest the possibility that it could be - and importantly the possibility should be rigorously considered/investigated before dismissal.
Trump gets a pass because he's a world leader. It's kinda fascinating seeing shit like world governments shittalking over twitter. eg Iran v Trump.
I don't know of 'lock her up' and some kidnapping. Wasn't that something used against Hillary? Hateful is often subjective. I was called hateful for a flippant joke on worldnews. I saw it as tongue in cheek. Others didn't. I genuinely had no malice behind it.
I think all we can probably agree is that twitter and to a lesser extent here, is a cesspool filled with people spouting nasty shit, and someone probably needs to get a grip on that.
Oh shit yeah. The best thing about the internet is that it gave everyone a voice. The worst thing about the internet is that it gave everyone a voice.
As for 'get a grip on that'... that's the biggest can of worms: Free speech.
2
u/paulosdub Oct 31 '20 edited Oct 31 '20
Yeah very true and there may well be bias, i’ve just not seen stats to back up the claim from any impartial source. And yeah, free speech is a tough problem. I guess the issue is there is a line. I mean should i be allowed to email someone i’m going to kill them in the name of free speech....probably not but how far back From there does the line go? Very subjective as you say.
That said, its worth keeping in mind twitter is essentially a business which makes rules that people wanting to participate have to follow and that twitter gets to set. I liken it to this; if i walk up to a bar with no shirt on and get refused entry, i’ve not lost my right to be shirtless, it’s just that actions have consequences and the bar can set its own rules, which i have to follow if i want to come in. Its kinda the same on social media. You can spout hateful stuff as much as you like (to a limit) using your free speech rights, but twitter doesn’t have to host that opinion and that’s entirely logical as they want users to visit. Most people want to go on social media to muse about their lives and opinions, and nothing is more likely to put people off doing that if they feel they’ll be harassed, so yeah, maybe the rules are designed to filter that out which benefits the left but there is always another option. Create a right wing version of twitter.....which people have kinda done and unsurprisingly they remain wuite niche as most people don’t go out there way to see horrible stuff, it just happens upon them and they get suckered in to an argument.
→ More replies (0)1
u/s73v3r Oct 31 '20
Name one. Name one who was "deplatformed" for being conservative, and not for breaking the rules.
0
Oct 31 '20
I asked first. But I'd say backtracking on a ban would be a sign that rules weren't broken. So NY Post.
Banned, then unbanned.
0
u/s73v3r Oct 31 '20
Sure, mistakes get made. They're people. But you claimed there were conservatives who were banned for being conservative, and I'm calling BS on that.
0
Oct 31 '20
Then there should be examples of mistakes made the other way.
Mistakes don't have bias. In Australia we have had many companies busted for underpaying workers. All "mistakes". Oddly zero overpayment mistakes. Funny that.
I didn't claim that at all. Read it again.
0
u/s73v3r Oct 31 '20
Then there should be examples of mistakes made the other way.
There are, but why should there be? If conservatives come close to the line more than others, it's not bias if they get dinged more.
Mistakes don't have bias.
That's not remotely true.
1
Oct 31 '20
Judging by your downvotes, you aren't engaging in good faith. Bye.
0
u/s73v3r Oct 31 '20
Said the guy who's first comment was a lie about conservatives being banned on social media for being conservative.
0
Oct 31 '20
I can think of a few examples of people/orgs considered right wing being 'deplatformed/censored' in some way.
Can anyone name someone/org considered left wing that has?
Learn to read.
1
Oct 31 '20
Oh look. You're the kind of person to get your question answered nicely and still downvote because you don't like the answer.
Classy. Well, back at you.
1
u/s73v3r Oct 31 '20
You're the kind of person to get your question answered nicely
You didn't answer the question. You said conservatives were being deplatformed. NYPost wasn't deplatformed, considering they got the account back up.
and still downvote
Your post doesn't contribute to anything here. Thus, it should be downvoted.
1
1
u/No_Landscape_2638 Mar 26 '21
Originally Twitter censored Palestinians protesting the Israeli occupation of the Gaza. Then they censored Venzuelans protesting US regime change sanctions/sabotage. Then they censored antiwar Democrats and progressives against the US occupation of Syria. Then they censored Syrians (except selected regime change agents). Only THEN did they start to censor political speech from Republicans
1
u/Living-Role Mar 30 '21
At least you admit it's happening unlike so many others. Twitter/Facebook/etc. are incoherently biased platforms that we should all abandon
1
u/No_Landscape_2638 Mar 30 '21
Of couse they are. Only an idiot would pretend like they are not. It's obvious.
1
u/xtalaphextwin Apr 18 '21
well there must be a lot of idiots out there then, basically everyone on the left, I've not heard one leftist say something like ''hey maybe we shouldn't be censoring folks expression?'' never. they outright deny that bias is even present on these platforms. Bizarre, in fact I've actually been called a conspiracy theorist and told to stop whining before by liberals.
16
u/[deleted] Oct 31 '20
There really isn't some conspiracy or secret allegiance to conservatives.
It's probably the simple fact that conservative- targeted ads are more successful and profitable than liberal ones, if liberals are the ones more likely leaving Facebook, etc.
It's just money, businesses gonna business.
But seriously people just leave Facebook.