4 ms·

Clinton campaign did not do the same thing. All they did was elephant and donkey for the conventions. Looks like it the rights victim complex again.

dingo_bat 8y ago
They got a custom icon.
- wybiral 8y ago
  But not a custom icon as part of an attack ad calling one of the candidates a criminal. There is a subtle difference.
  - dingo_bat 8y ago
    So Twitter is censoring based on the CEO's views. That's exactly my point.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Is there any evidence a #CrookedTrump hashtag/emoji would've been approved?
      - dingo_bat 8y ago
        No, but there is evidence that Twitter is censoring certain icons based on their CEO's political leanings.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Why is that the case instead of, say, Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads?
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        > Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads? Maybe it is. It is still censorship. And it is based on the political opinion of the CEO.
        wybiral 8y ago
        How is it based on the political opinion rather than a choice to keep negative attack ads off of their platform. If they apply the same approach to different political campaigns it doesn't seem politically motivated to me.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        You're going to have to explain far, far better than just saying, "censorship" over and over again. Especially when the RNC was able to get several custom emoji, and they didn't give out any negative or attack emoji.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        There's zero evidence of that here. "No attack ads" isn't the same thing as "no anti-Hillary attack ads". If you can cite the Hillary campaign getting a custom emoji for an anti-Trump hashtag, do so.
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        > "No attack ads" isn't the same thing as "no anti-Hillary attack ads". Irrelevant. Twitter denied them a custom icon whereas allowed their opposition to have one. The content of the icon has no bearing on the matter. It's censorship. That is twitter's choice but it is still censorship, based on the CEO's politics.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        > Twitter denied them a custom icon whereas allowed their opposition to have one. This is NOT TRUE. Click the article. Look at the screenshot. It clearly shows the Republican National Convention was afforded a custom emoji. You've fallen for some propaganda.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        You cannot keep claiming that the content is irrelevant just because that's the only way your argument makes sense.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      You're saying that, because Twitter is not allowing a custom emoji who's entire reason for existing is to be a negative attack on someone, it's censorship?
      - dingo_bat 8y ago
        Yes. "Negative attacks", as defined by you, are still free speech. Twitter is free to censor it, but we should point it out as censorship.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        No, we absolutely should not point it out as censorship, because it has not met the bar. By your logic, taking down a post of someone being doxxed is also censorship.
        wybiral 8y ago
        Sure, but it isn't biased censorship. It is censoring attacks against individuals regardless of their origin. If the Clinton campaign ran an ad that was targeting Trump in a similarly negative way and Twitter allowed that, then it would be bias. But so far I haven't seen that counterexample.
    - geofft 8y ago
      No, your point was, "It is if you allow the other side to do exactly the same, as noted in the linked article." The other side is not doing exactly the same. The other side never intended to do exactly the same, and for good measure, the CEO promised that if they did, they would be prevented from doing so, too. You are now making the claim that, if side X exhibits behavior A, and opposing side Y exhibits behavior B, it is no longer legitimate to compare behaviors A and B - whatever the behaviors are, they are exactly the same simply because they're held by opposing sides.
      - dingo_bat 8y ago
        > The other side is not doing exactly the same. The other side wanted a custom icon. They got it. The content of the icon is irrelevant to the question "did twitter censor political views not shared by the CEO?" The answer is "yes", regardless of the content of the icon granted to the other side.
        wybiral 8y ago
        The content is important though because it's precisely why they weren't allowed the hashtag. They were allowed other hashtags that didn't have the same negative "attack ad" approach so it doesn't look like politically motivated bias so much as them just not wanting to promote negative attack ads on their platform. You can call it censorship. That's fair. But it's unfair to call it bias or politically motivated censorship.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "The content of the icon is irrelevant to the question" It absolutely, most certainly is not. The content is quite vital to the decision.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  So did the Republican National Convention. Take a look at the screenshot in the article.

dingo_bat 8y ago

They got a custom icon.

wybiral 8y ago
But not a custom icon as part of an attack ad calling one of the candidates a criminal. There is a subtle difference.
- dingo_bat 8y ago
  So Twitter is censoring based on the CEO's views. That's exactly my point.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Is there any evidence a #CrookedTrump hashtag/emoji would've been approved?
    - dingo_bat 8y ago
      No, but there is evidence that Twitter is censoring certain icons based on their CEO's political leanings.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        Why is that the case instead of, say, Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads?
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        > Twitter not wanting to turn custom emoji into attack ads? Maybe it is. It is still censorship. And it is based on the political opinion of the CEO.
        wybiral 8y ago
        How is it based on the political opinion rather than a choice to keep negative attack ads off of their platform. If they apply the same approach to different political campaigns it doesn't seem politically motivated to me.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        You're going to have to explain far, far better than just saying, "censorship" over and over again. Especially when the RNC was able to get several custom emoji, and they didn't give out any negative or attack emoji.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        There's zero evidence of that here. "No attack ads" isn't the same thing as "no anti-Hillary attack ads". If you can cite the Hillary campaign getting a custom emoji for an anti-Trump hashtag, do so.
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        > "No attack ads" isn't the same thing as "no anti-Hillary attack ads". Irrelevant. Twitter denied them a custom icon whereas allowed their opposition to have one. The content of the icon has no bearing on the matter. It's censorship. That is twitter's choice but it is still censorship, based on the CEO's politics.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        > Twitter denied them a custom icon whereas allowed their opposition to have one. This is NOT TRUE. Click the article. Look at the screenshot. It clearly shows the Republican National Convention was afforded a custom emoji. You've fallen for some propaganda.
        s73v3r_ 8y ago
        You cannot keep claiming that the content is irrelevant just because that's the only way your argument makes sense.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    You're saying that, because Twitter is not allowing a custom emoji who's entire reason for existing is to be a negative attack on someone, it's censorship?
    - dingo_bat 8y ago
      Yes. "Negative attacks", as defined by you, are still free speech. Twitter is free to censor it, but we should point it out as censorship.
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        No, we absolutely should not point it out as censorship, because it has not met the bar. By your logic, taking down a post of someone being doxxed is also censorship.
      - wybiral 8y ago
        Sure, but it isn't biased censorship. It is censoring attacks against individuals regardless of their origin. If the Clinton campaign ran an ad that was targeting Trump in a similarly negative way and Twitter allowed that, then it would be bias. But so far I haven't seen that counterexample.
  - geofft 8y ago
    No, your point was, "It is if you allow the other side to do exactly the same, as noted in the linked article." The other side is not doing exactly the same. The other side never intended to do exactly the same, and for good measure, the CEO promised that if they did, they would be prevented from doing so, too. You are now making the claim that, if side X exhibits behavior A, and opposing side Y exhibits behavior B, it is no longer legitimate to compare behaviors A and B - whatever the behaviors are, they are exactly the same simply because they're held by opposing sides.
    - dingo_bat 8y ago
      > The other side is not doing exactly the same. The other side wanted a custom icon. They got it. The content of the icon is irrelevant to the question "did twitter censor political views not shared by the CEO?" The answer is "yes", regardless of the content of the icon granted to the other side.
      - wybiral 8y ago
        The content is important though because it's precisely why they weren't allowed the hashtag. They were allowed other hashtags that didn't have the same negative "attack ad" approach so it doesn't look like politically motivated bias so much as them just not wanting to promote negative attack ads on their platform. You can call it censorship. That's fair. But it's unfair to call it bias or politically motivated censorship.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - s73v3r_ 8y ago
        "The content of the icon is irrelevant to the question" It absolutely, most certainly is not. The content is quite vital to the decision.
ceejayoz 8y ago
So did the Republican National Convention. Take a look at the screenshot in the article.