3 ms·

the way I understand it, they are censoring people, which is why some are saying they shouldn't have the 230 protection

bediger4000 6y ago
I put together a Twitter Q-sona. I followed a bunch of prominent and not-so-prominent Qanons. The way I understand it, they are not censoring people, the people claiming to be "shadow banned" and "twitter deleting my followers" and "I get no traction on my tweets", are misunderstanding Twitter, or technology, or both. There's a huge misunderstanding of how large twitter is, how many tweets flow through, and how many people are tweeting. My understanding is based on personal research. What's yours based on?
- autokad 6y ago
  The most notable recent example is Aytu BioScience, an aultraviolet light blood treatment company banned, we all know the story. I thought about going into one of the many particular individuals that have been banned, that is well know to most people except exceptional researchers like you, but I figured it would just be easy to start you with a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E
  - bediger4000 6y ago
    Conservatives have accused all media of that for 40 years, most often without any reason at all. Tim Pool appears to be a conservative ideologue - why should I believe him?
    - autokad 6y ago
      why should I believe you? the events mentioned in the video are not under debate. no one debates those actions didnt happen. all you do is make statements and say that since you dont see it, it didnt happen.
      - bediger4000 6y ago
        I'm not asking for belief. I'm asking for reasons to believe. If you can't offer any, really you should respond.
dragonwriter 6y ago
Section 230 was specifically and explicitly put into place to allow censorship by platforms. People are objecting because they think it should only be used to censor ideas the objectors don't like, not things the platform operators don't like.

I put together a Twitter Q-sona. I followed a bunch of prominent and not-so-prominent Qanons. The way I understand it, they are not censoring people, the people claiming to be "shadow banned" and "twitter deleting my followers" and "I get no traction on my tweets", are misunderstanding Twitter, or technology, or both. There's a huge misunderstanding of how large twitter is, how many tweets flow through, and how many people are tweeting. My understanding is based on personal research. What's yours based on?

autokad 6y ago
The most notable recent example is Aytu BioScience, an aultraviolet light blood treatment company banned, we all know the story. I thought about going into one of the many particular individuals that have been banned, that is well know to most people except exceptional researchers like you, but I figured it would just be easy to start you with a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbTXqrS9l5E
- bediger4000 6y ago
  Conservatives have accused all media of that for 40 years, most often without any reason at all. Tim Pool appears to be a conservative ideologue - why should I believe him?
  - autokad 6y ago
    why should I believe you? the events mentioned in the video are not under debate. no one debates those actions didnt happen. all you do is make statements and say that since you dont see it, it didnt happen.
    - bediger4000 6y ago
      I'm not asking for belief. I'm asking for reasons to believe. If you can't offer any, really you should respond.

dragonwriter 6y ago

Section 230 was specifically and explicitly put into place to allow censorship by platforms. People are objecting because they think it should only be used to censor ideas the objectors don't like, not things the platform operators don't like.