4 ms·
On the one hand you may be right, on the other hand you're giving Twitter so much deniability that you'd never get enough evidence to convince you that you're w
by MikeUt 6y ago
On the one hand you may be right, on the other hand you're giving Twitter so much deniability that you'd never get enough evidence to convince you that you're wrong.
- DangerousPie 6y agoIf they deliberately made plans to block statements against issues like these then there would be proof. There would be documents. There would be people who could become whistleblowers. If you can shown me one of those I might be convinced that there's something going. But a single anecdote like this that can easily be explained in a less conspiratorial way is not particularly strong evidence.
- MikeUt 6y ago> there would be proof. There would be documents. Would there? Or would such blocks simply be the result of strong, shared political leanings at Twitter [1], without any need for central organization? In age when so much is being attributed to unconscious bias and systemic effects, this seems like a strange spot to draw the line that now we need evidence of deliberate organization. [1] Twitter is so liberal that its conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions,’ says CEO Jack Dorsey - https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...
- DangerousPie 6y agoI get what you're saying, and if this was a conservative politician getting banned for saying "I think we should lower taxes and reduce government spending" (or whatever) then I would be much more concerned. But in this case there is a much simpler alternative explanation so in good old Occam's razor fashion I'm going with that one.