5 ms·

Reposting this because unsure why it was flagged, as it is perfectly valid and based in objective reality: They (twitter) remove a lot of volume because it doe

Reposting this because unsure why it was flagged, as it is perfectly valid and based in objective reality: They (twitter) remove a lot of volume because it doesn't fit with their political narrative, even though this is financially detrimental to them.

jfk13 4y ago
What's "a lot" of volume in the context of this claim? Do you have a source for the proportion of would-be active tweeters they block, or proportion of tweets they take down, or anything like that?
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  In this case you don't even need a source. You just need to have your head out of the sand, but outside of that, you can look at all the users who have left the platform or became entirely inactive after Donald Trump was banned, then look at the surge of users the alternative Twitter platforms gained, and pretty much make a safe assumption they lost at least that. You can also take a look at Twitter's stock price in Jan 2021, where it was close to 77 dollars, and rising at the time, and compare it to the pre-Elon hype price of 39 dollars, with Goldman rating it as being closer to 30 dollars in true value.
  - jfk13 4y ago
    > you can look at all the users who have left the platform or became entirely inactive after Donald Trump was banned, then look at the surge of users the alternative Twitter platforms gained Do you have those statistics on hand? I don't, so I was asking. I know the stock price is substantially lower than its peak 1+ yrs ago -- it's easy to find a graph of that -- but it's not obvious to me that this is the result of Twitter's politics rather than other factors.
- nailer 4y ago
  Donald trump had a large amount of followers and did not threaten violence beyond his role as us commander in chief, much like his predecessors and successors have.
raisedbyninjas 4y ago
Trump was prompinent on twitter and violated their TOS for years. He was banned on Jan. 8th. If Twitter were protecting some political narrative, it wasn't reflected in their ban.
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  This argument holds zero water. You have Iranian officials openly calling for revolution, Chinese foreign officials spreading literal propaganda, and Saudis calling for actual executions, which I would think also consistently violate their TOS, and yet have seen no similar measures taken against their accounts.
  - raisedbyninjas 4y ago
    That only demonstrates lax enforcement, not that Twitters mission is pushing politics in lieu of money and active users. Trumps politics haven't changed since he started his right-wing schtick.
    - nailer 4y ago
      It does seem odd that the example of enforcement is a very interpretative reading of a center right view, and the examples of non enforcement are every other direct call to violence.
- smaryjerry 4y ago
  I find the violating TOS argument for why Trump was banned flawed because the TOS allows for very vague interpretation. For example the tweets that supposedly got him banned said something to the line of “fight for democracy” and that was interpreted as encouraging actual fighting and the illegal activities on January 6th. It also ignores the fact that he said along the lines of “we need to go and march peacefully, don’t cause problems, that’s exactly what they want” and as everything was happening was tweeting that everyone needed to respect police, be peaceful and go home. Good luck even finding the tweets from January 6th because only a couple outlets even reported what they were, only that they violated TOS which is also very suspicious. Edit: typos/grammar.

jfk13 4y ago

What's "a lot" of volume in the context of this claim? Do you have a source for the proportion of would-be active tweeters they block, or proportion of tweets they take down, or anything like that?

dimitrios1 4y ago
In this case you don't even need a source. You just need to have your head out of the sand, but outside of that, you can look at all the users who have left the platform or became entirely inactive after Donald Trump was banned, then look at the surge of users the alternative Twitter platforms gained, and pretty much make a safe assumption they lost at least that. You can also take a look at Twitter's stock price in Jan 2021, where it was close to 77 dollars, and rising at the time, and compare it to the pre-Elon hype price of 39 dollars, with Goldman rating it as being closer to 30 dollars in true value.
- jfk13 4y ago
  > you can look at all the users who have left the platform or became entirely inactive after Donald Trump was banned, then look at the surge of users the alternative Twitter platforms gained Do you have those statistics on hand? I don't, so I was asking. I know the stock price is substantially lower than its peak 1+ yrs ago -- it's easy to find a graph of that -- but it's not obvious to me that this is the result of Twitter's politics rather than other factors.
nailer 4y ago
Donald trump had a large amount of followers and did not threaten violence beyond his role as us commander in chief, much like his predecessors and successors have.

raisedbyninjas 4y ago

Trump was prompinent on twitter and violated their TOS for years. He was banned on Jan. 8th. If Twitter were protecting some political narrative, it wasn't reflected in their ban.

dimitrios1 4y ago
This argument holds zero water. You have Iranian officials openly calling for revolution, Chinese foreign officials spreading literal propaganda, and Saudis calling for actual executions, which I would think also consistently violate their TOS, and yet have seen no similar measures taken against their accounts.
- raisedbyninjas 4y ago
  That only demonstrates lax enforcement, not that Twitters mission is pushing politics in lieu of money and active users. Trumps politics haven't changed since he started his right-wing schtick.
  - nailer 4y ago
    It does seem odd that the example of enforcement is a very interpretative reading of a center right view, and the examples of non enforcement are every other direct call to violence.
smaryjerry 4y ago
I find the violating TOS argument for why Trump was banned flawed because the TOS allows for very vague interpretation. For example the tweets that supposedly got him banned said something to the line of “fight for democracy” and that was interpreted as encouraging actual fighting and the illegal activities on January 6th. It also ignores the fact that he said along the lines of “we need to go and march peacefully, don’t cause problems, that’s exactly what they want” and as everything was happening was tweeting that everyone needed to respect police, be peaceful and go home. Good luck even finding the tweets from January 6th because only a couple outlets even reported what they were, only that they violated TOS which is also very suspicious. Edit: typos/grammar.