4 ms·

We're not even talking about evidence here. I'm saying this claim is false: > The initial claim was that Facebook is currently acting to suppress one political

We're not even talking about evidence here. I'm saying this claim is false: > The initial claim was that Facebook is currently acting to suppress one political view. This claim is false, based on that political view being the dominant view on Facebook. I'm saying that both can be true at the same time, independently of each other. Try this example: - Quadrant 8 of the city has the most incidents of graffiti - The police spend the most time preventing graffiti in Quadrant 8 of the city Both of those could be true independently of each other. Neither proves the other true or false. One could surmise that the reason police spend so much time preventing graffiti in that part of the city is because it has the highest rate of incidents of graffiti, just like maybe Facebook censors so many conservative news stories because they are so prevalent, but that is not necessarily the case.

pwinnski 6y ago
You really seem to be missing, repeatedly, that I was replying to a comment that misrepresented the entire concept of evidence. You can agree or disagree with me about whether or not evidence is sufficient, that's fine. But you're still missing that someone tried to claim that evidence for Not-A was actually somehow evidence for A, which is simply not how anything works. Can A and Not-A both be true? Sure, maybe, it's possible. But evidence for Not-A is not therefore magically evidence for A.
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  What you don't seem to get is that Facebook and Twitter have censored Trump 65 times according to this study compared to a total of 0 for Biden. You keep ranting about lack of evidence but when confronted with it, you can't register it. Having a large community is NOT evidence of impartiality. For example, /TheDonald was the largest subreddit before it was shutdown completely because it was not inline with the ideologies of China's new asset. So you can take your argument and put it in the garbage where it belongs. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/19/facebook-twitter-censored-trump-campaign-65-times-/?cache https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/19/facebook-tw... https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-facebook-and-twitter-censored-trump-65-times-biden-zero/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-faceboo...

pwinnski 6y ago

You really seem to be missing, repeatedly, that I was replying to a comment that misrepresented the entire concept of evidence. You can agree or disagree with me about whether or not evidence is sufficient, that's fine. But you're still missing that someone tried to claim that evidence for Not-A was actually somehow evidence for A, which is simply not how anything works. Can A and Not-A both be true? Sure, maybe, it's possible. But evidence for Not-A is not therefore magically evidence for A.

blackflame7000 6y ago
What you don't seem to get is that Facebook and Twitter have censored Trump 65 times according to this study compared to a total of 0 for Biden. You keep ranting about lack of evidence but when confronted with it, you can't register it. Having a large community is NOT evidence of impartiality. For example, /TheDonald was the largest subreddit before it was shutdown completely because it was not inline with the ideologies of China's new asset. So you can take your argument and put it in the garbage where it belongs. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/19/facebook-twitter-censored-trump-campaign-65-times-/?cache https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/19/facebook-tw... https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-facebook-and-twitter-censored-trump-65-times-biden-zero/ https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/19/new-study-shows-faceboo...