3 ms·
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems purposefully disingenuous. Not to say that there definitely isn't a liberal bias in Twitter moderation, but this art
by happytoexplain 6y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems purposefully disingenuous. Not to say that there definitely isn't a liberal bias in Twitter moderation, but this article's evidence is that they banned the US president but didn't ban three rando tweets with five or fewer likes/retweets. Surely the more likely case here is that moderation has missed them so far? On the other hand, the KillTrump hashtag is indefensible, since surely this isn't the first time that's appeared, and it seems super easy to spot and ban without needing a ton of user reports (though admittedly, looking right now, all tweets under that hashtag are using it to criticize the hashtag...).
- jamie_ca 6y agoAgreed, there's a difference in degree between randos with no reach rage-tweeting into the void, and Trump being read by millions. That said, if they're going to say Trump's tweets are finally a problem, there's definitely other public figures with thousands/millions of followers who are also tweeting messages of violence, and it sounds like continued crickets on that front.