4 ms·

> Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases. How is this policy political bias? If one political gro

> Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases. How is this policy political bias? If one political group makes more calls to violence or for discrimination than another perhaps the problem is with the group, not Twitter.

creaghpatr 7y ago
Because political advocacy groups consult Twitter on what constitutes violations: https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html
- TheHypnotist 7y ago
  Which specifically do you have a problem with?
- sdinsn 7y ago
  If not political advocacy groups, who would be a better consultant choice? Isn't the entire purpose of advocacy groups to encourage the safety of certain groups?
  - mc32 7y ago
    I think an apolitical philosophical framework would be better than _biased_ (however good their intentions) groups who have the mostly the well being of their interest group in mind. An advocacy group isn't a group which will take a balanced approach. Naturally, if they are advocates, they would represent their position _fully_ and uncompromised. An apolitical (not advocating anything outside a framework) would be better and more neutral way to manage these differing opinions.
    - anigbrowl 7y ago
      Unicorn and Chimera, or the pursuit of virtue through sundry remarkable demesnes
    - sdinsn 7y ago
      I disagree. Society is highly political, so why should Twitter be "apolitical" with their moderation? (if such a thing is even possible. I doubt the feasibility of apolitical moderation in general)
djrogers 7y ago
Nobody is saying this policy is political bias. The problem is with who gets to define things like discrimination. As an example, there are those who believe any form of border security, or any enforcement of existing immigration law is discrimination and immoral. Which side defines the terms used is absolutely a form of bias.

creaghpatr 7y ago

Because political advocacy groups consult Twitter on what constitutes violations: https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html

TheHypnotist 7y ago
Which specifically do you have a problem with?
sdinsn 7y ago
If not political advocacy groups, who would be a better consultant choice? Isn't the entire purpose of advocacy groups to encourage the safety of certain groups?
- mc32 7y ago
  I think an apolitical philosophical framework would be better than _biased_ (however good their intentions) groups who have the mostly the well being of their interest group in mind. An advocacy group isn't a group which will take a balanced approach. Naturally, if they are advocates, they would represent their position _fully_ and uncompromised. An apolitical (not advocating anything outside a framework) would be better and more neutral way to manage these differing opinions.
  - anigbrowl 7y ago
    Unicorn and Chimera, or the pursuit of virtue through sundry remarkable demesnes
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    I disagree. Society is highly political, so why should Twitter be "apolitical" with their moderation? (if such a thing is even possible. I doubt the feasibility of apolitical moderation in general)

djrogers 7y ago

Nobody is saying this policy is political bias. The problem is with who gets to define things like discrimination. As an example, there are those who believe any form of border security, or any enforcement of existing immigration law is discrimination and immoral. Which side defines the terms used is absolutely a form of bias.