3 ms·

If so, wouldn't that mean that twitter is credibly bias towards progressives?

krapp 8y ago
The null hypothesis here is that Twitter is biased against users who violate their terms of service, and that if conservatives violate Twitter's terms of service more often than progressives, they appear to be subjected to "harsher" treatment, which is interpreted by conservatives as an organized campaign of anti-conservative bias and suppression, rather than Twitter simply enforcing its policies. What needs to be demonstrated, to me, is that the majority of banned provably conservative accounts were not banned for violating Twitter's terms of service, but for their political views, and that an equal or greater ratio of provably liberal accounts with equal or greater following which violated Twitter's terms of service were not banned, in order for political bias to be the more likely reason for the treatment of conservatives.
- shard972 8y ago
  What if I told you that twitters TOS itself is bias against conservatives? Your whole argument seems premised on the idea that twitters TOS is completely neutral.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >What if I told you that twitters TOS itself is bias against conservatives? Here is Twitter's TOS[0], I'd ask you to prove it. [0]https://twitter.com/en/tos https://twitter.com/en/tos
    - shard972 8y ago
      > We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment. So Kathy griffin doxxing and sending a hate mob after children is not harassment but alex jones having a minor encounter with a CNN journalist is an instantly bannable example of harassment. I'm pretty sure your just arguing out of bad faith at this point.
      - mcphage 8y ago
        Interesting. So which part of that do you feel is intrinsic to being a conservative, that would make the part of the TOS you quoted biased against conservatives? Is it the harassment, maybe? The unlawful conduct? > I'm pretty sure your just arguing out of bad faith at this point. You have no idea what that means, do you?

The null hypothesis here is that Twitter is biased against users who violate their terms of service, and that if conservatives violate Twitter's terms of service more often than progressives, they appear to be subjected to "harsher" treatment, which is interpreted by conservatives as an organized campaign of anti-conservative bias and suppression, rather than Twitter simply enforcing its policies. What needs to be demonstrated, to me, is that the majority of banned provably conservative accounts were not banned for violating Twitter's terms of service, but for their political views, and that an equal or greater ratio of provably liberal accounts with equal or greater following which violated Twitter's terms of service were not banned, in order for political bias to be the more likely reason for the treatment of conservatives.

shard972 8y ago
What if I told you that twitters TOS itself is bias against conservatives? Your whole argument seems premised on the idea that twitters TOS is completely neutral.
- krapp 8y ago
  >What if I told you that twitters TOS itself is bias against conservatives? Here is Twitter's TOS[0], I'd ask you to prove it. [0]https://twitter.com/en/tos https://twitter.com/en/tos
  - shard972 8y ago
    > We reserve the right to remove Content that violates the User Agreement, including for example, copyright or trademark violations, impersonation, unlawful conduct, or harassment. So Kathy griffin doxxing and sending a hate mob after children is not harassment but alex jones having a minor encounter with a CNN journalist is an instantly bannable example of harassment. I'm pretty sure your just arguing out of bad faith at this point.
    - mcphage 8y ago
      Interesting. So which part of that do you feel is intrinsic to being a conservative, that would make the part of the TOS you quoted biased against conservatives? Is it the harassment, maybe? The unlawful conduct? > I'm pretty sure your just arguing out of bad faith at this point. You have no idea what that means, do you?