3 ms·

> That is odd, it didn't seem to happen when the Republicans were in power. Except it literally did. It literally happened when a Republican was president. >

> That is odd, it didn't seem to happen when the Republicans were in power. Except it literally did. It literally happened when a Republican was president. > We saw a tremendous amount of censorship of Right content and people. A tremendous, but more than the left? Not at all. https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again-that-facebook-doesnt-censor-conservatives/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again... I don't know, most of the reports that looked into this couldn't find anything to back this up. Numerous studies back this up. So please, share studies that back up that statement, because so far, the evidence doesn't support that theory.

iammisc 5y ago
I'll do a study. which democratic president was censored on Twitter? You're assuming all pages are equal. Censoring the Daily Wire is not the same as censoring the local stop climate change page, for example (not that DW has been censored). Your study counts all pages equally, but frankly, it shouldn't. Censoring the POTUS is more dire than censoring some small leftist organization, because POTUS is more influential. Perhaps weight the censorings by # followers or a similar metric. We know that right wing alternate media is more popular than left wing, so my hypothesis would be a weighting would reveale something more dire.
- mc32 5y ago
  Even better, what presidency got to tell Social Media what was disinformation and not?
- jasonlotito 5y ago
  I'll do a study: Which president broke the rules of Twitter so frequently, they got their own special rules above and beyond anyone else? Seems to me like Twitter and FB worked really hard to keep POTUS on their platform despite him routinely violating their ToS. So, literally, the opposite of what you are claiming.
kokanator 5y ago
Your reference does not support your claim. It simply shows more right traffic and content. This does NOT prove censorship claims. Simply activity. Here is a database of confirmed censorship: https://censortrack.org/ https://censortrack.org/
- jasonlotito 5y ago
  > Your reference does not support your claim. It does. You are just looking at one point of data. And there were many studies on this. That being said, it's still more evidence than the OP provided. > Here is a database of confirmed censorship: Conservative censorship run by a conservative group focused on supporting conservative views. It also uses Project Veritas in its "data" which is a major red flag. They are known, proven liars. And finally, that doesn't support the allegation that conservatives suffer more censorship. So, you've still failed to backup the original argument. I'm done.
  - kokanator 5y ago
    You are using the Origin Fallacy also known as the Genetic Fallacy as an argument[0]. This is not a valid argument. Stating that the information was curated by conservatives does not make it true or false. The claims in the database are researched and vetted. You can view each claim and the research applied to it. If I were to use the Origin Fallacy I could claim that media in general is untrustworthy because it is curated by liberals claiming liberal ideals [1]. Also, you only get to drop the mic when you are a rockstar or Obama. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy [1]https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It literally happened when a Republican was president. In fact, Twitter changed its rules to provide a PR excuse for why it didn't censor Trump under the same rules as other political actors, entrenching a policy of pro-government, pro-elite bias in its censorship. Trump’s minions got upset later and screamed about unfairness when they learned that that favorable bias wasn't unlimited while he was in power, and are even more incensed that it cuts against them now that their icon is out of office. OTOH, freedom of speech means private actors generally are free to decide what ideas to participate in relaying and what ideas not to.
- iammisc 5y ago
  What policies did trump break that other heads of state did not? > OTOH, freedom of speech means private actors generally are free to decide what ideas to participate in relaying and what ideas not to. Legally sure, but it doesn't mean we have to tolerate it as normal. Just like disinheriting your children is legal, but ought to be condemned in normal society in general.

iammisc 5y ago

I'll do a study. which democratic president was censored on Twitter? You're assuming all pages are equal. Censoring the Daily Wire is not the same as censoring the local stop climate change page, for example (not that DW has been censored). Your study counts all pages equally, but frankly, it shouldn't. Censoring the POTUS is more dire than censoring some small leftist organization, because POTUS is more influential. Perhaps weight the censorings by # followers or a similar metric. We know that right wing alternate media is more popular than left wing, so my hypothesis would be a weighting would reveale something more dire.

mc32 5y ago
Even better, what presidency got to tell Social Media what was disinformation and not?
jasonlotito 5y ago
I'll do a study: Which president broke the rules of Twitter so frequently, they got their own special rules above and beyond anyone else? Seems to me like Twitter and FB worked really hard to keep POTUS on their platform despite him routinely violating their ToS. So, literally, the opposite of what you are claiming.

kokanator 5y ago

Your reference does not support your claim. It simply shows more right traffic and content. This does NOT prove censorship claims. Simply activity. Here is a database of confirmed censorship: https://censortrack.org/ https://censortrack.org/

jasonlotito 5y ago
> Your reference does not support your claim. It does. You are just looking at one point of data. And there were many studies on this. That being said, it's still more evidence than the OP provided. > Here is a database of confirmed censorship: Conservative censorship run by a conservative group focused on supporting conservative views. It also uses Project Veritas in its "data" which is a major red flag. They are known, proven liars. And finally, that doesn't support the allegation that conservatives suffer more censorship. So, you've still failed to backup the original argument. I'm done.
- kokanator 5y ago
  You are using the Origin Fallacy also known as the Genetic Fallacy as an argument[0]. This is not a valid argument. Stating that the information was curated by conservatives does not make it true or false. The claims in the database are researched and vetted. You can view each claim and the research applied to it. If I were to use the Origin Fallacy I could claim that media in general is untrustworthy because it is curated by liberals claiming liberal ideals [1]. Also, you only get to drop the mic when you are a rockstar or Obama. [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy [1]https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop

dragonwriter 5y ago

> It literally happened when a Republican was president. In fact, Twitter changed its rules to provide a PR excuse for why it didn't censor Trump under the same rules as other political actors, entrenching a policy of pro-government, pro-elite bias in its censorship. Trump’s minions got upset later and screamed about unfairness when they learned that that favorable bias wasn't unlimited while he was in power, and are even more incensed that it cuts against them now that their icon is out of office. OTOH, freedom of speech means private actors generally are free to decide what ideas to participate in relaying and what ideas not to.

iammisc 5y ago
What policies did trump break that other heads of state did not? > OTOH, freedom of speech means private actors generally are free to decide what ideas to participate in relaying and what ideas not to. Legally sure, but it doesn't mean we have to tolerate it as normal. Just like disinheriting your children is legal, but ought to be condemned in normal society in general.