4 ms·
No, but there is evidence that Twitter is censoring certain icons based on their CEO's political leanings.
by dingo_bat 8y ago
No, but there is evidence that Twitter is censoring certain icons based on their CEO's political leanings.
- s73v3r_ 8y agoWhy 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 agoHow 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 agoYou'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 agoThere'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 agoYou cannot keep claiming that the content is irrelevant just because that's the only way your argument makes sense.