3 ms·

Did the censorship of only right leaning or republican posts on the site sit well with you?

by johng 5y ago

rektide 5y ago
- johng 5y ago
  This report seems to contradict you. 646 on one side vs 0 on the other seems a tad lopsided. https://censortrack.org/protecting-president-big-tech-censors-biden-criticism-646-times-over-two-years https://censortrack.org/protecting-president-big-tech-censor...
  - eesmith 5y ago
    It's from "database designed to show the proof of the extent of Big Tech censorship of conservatives". Of course it will be 0 for non-conservatives.
    - johng 5y ago
      Find me any examples that are even 10% of the banning of any posts relating to Hunter Biden before the election from the other side.
      - eesmith 5y ago
        Do you understand my observation that pointing to that web site doesn't make your statement "646 on one side vs 0" meaningful? At least some of those posts are on topics besides Hunter Biden, like the image banned for implying that kissing one's grandkid on the lips is sexual. I don't think you want to get into that argument. Your reference lists "140 cases of Big Tech censoring people over the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden story in late 2020". (I'm now curious about how brought up the Hunter Biden story. Was it 100% of cases that got blocked? 0.001% of cases?) As to your challenge, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ba... says: "Twitter accounts run by activists linked to the Occupy movement have been suspended after the social network continued its attempted crackdown on bots and fake accounts. Around 80 activists with a collective following of five million people are thought to have had their accounts suspended." 80 > 14. But frankly, I don't really care. A company may exercise its First Amendment right of free association within broad limits. What I care about is not seeing people use bad arguments to support their point.
rektide 5y ago
I got censored here (relatively recently compared to posting time) for saying this is biased & wrong[1]. I said this kind of accusation gets posted in big bold marquee text regularly, & most of it I find to be incredibly low quality muckraking dross. From my perspective, that is the view that seems unacceptable & not permitted today: the push back that right leaning people most-often deserve it, that the content is low quality & incendiary & inflammatory & blown out of proportion. What do we do if content doesn't deserve attention, and is frequently flagrant disinformation? I wouldn't assert this absolutely, but I see a lot of super strong downvoting & protest when the right/conservatives get push back. I see very few things that seem to offer meaningful support, from my perspective, to this aggrieved, forlorn, downtrodden view. But I see a lot of posts get downvoted quickly, and/or flagged, when they question these points of view that the right gets censored/muted. The irony seems double, to me. Claiming you are being censored, then censoring all protest/counter-argument/discussion is about as vicious & underhanded & anti-democratic as it gets. I'm willing to be open to the idea that perhaps perhaps perhaps there's some unfavorable bias out there, but when the push back is so universally censored, well: it all feels vastly more disingenuous & unprincipled & unbelievable in extreme. It feels far more like a pariah complex, a desire to feel downtrodden. I don't see the people who claim their side is being hurt as willing to fight fair, willing to build their case: I see them as holding a grudge, grinding their axes, holding everyone who doesn't agree with them as the enemy. I don't think society, right now, suppresses this anti-social behavior, hardly at all, but I think this pariah complex is strong, & when these people do after miles & miles of running tread too far over the line into illegal or deeply disinformation territory, they crow about injustice. Trying to figure out how we encompass & allow the anti-civil is a hard challenge, and one I think we've been very kind about permitting, so far. I hate hate hate that we're starting to turn against this, starting to demand harsher systems, but there's a big stir now, intransigency is growing both ways with President #44 saying we need to contain this rabble ("pick a side"), and the future looks bleak if both sides just escalate escalate escalate. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31163649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31163649

Did the censorship of only right leaning or republican posts on the site sit well with you?

by johng 5y ago

Did the censorship of only right leaning or republican posts on the site sit well with you?

rektide 5y ago

johng 5y ago
This report seems to contradict you. 646 on one side vs 0 on the other seems a tad lopsided. https://censortrack.org/protecting-president-big-tech-censors-biden-criticism-646-times-over-two-years https://censortrack.org/protecting-president-big-tech-censor...
- eesmith 5y ago
  It's from "database designed to show the proof of the extent of Big Tech censorship of conservatives". Of course it will be 0 for non-conservatives.
  - johng 5y ago
    Find me any examples that are even 10% of the banning of any posts relating to Hunter Biden before the election from the other side.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      Do you understand my observation that pointing to that web site doesn't make your statement "646 on one side vs 0" meaningful? At least some of those posts are on topics besides Hunter Biden, like the image banned for implying that kissing one's grandkid on the lips is sexual. I don't think you want to get into that argument. Your reference lists "140 cases of Big Tech censoring people over the New York Post’s bombshell Hunter Biden story in late 2020". (I'm now curious about how brought up the Hunter Biden story. Was it 100% of cases that got blocked? 0.001% of cases?) As to your challenge, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ban-us-mid-term-elections https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter-political-account-ba... says: "Twitter accounts run by activists linked to the Occupy movement have been suspended after the social network continued its attempted crackdown on bots and fake accounts. Around 80 activists with a collective following of five million people are thought to have had their accounts suspended." 80 > 14. But frankly, I don't really care. A company may exercise its First Amendment right of free association within broad limits. What I care about is not seeing people use bad arguments to support their point.

rektide 5y ago

I got censored here (relatively recently compared to posting time) for saying this is biased & wrong[1]. I said this kind of accusation gets posted in big bold marquee text regularly, & most of it I find to be incredibly low quality muckraking dross. From my perspective, that is the view that seems unacceptable & not permitted today: the push back that right leaning people most-often deserve it, that the content is low quality & incendiary & inflammatory & blown out of proportion. What do we do if content doesn't deserve attention, and is frequently flagrant disinformation? I wouldn't assert this absolutely, but I see a lot of super strong downvoting & protest when the right/conservatives get push back. I see very few things that seem to offer meaningful support, from my perspective, to this aggrieved, forlorn, downtrodden view. But I see a lot of posts get downvoted quickly, and/or flagged, when they question these points of view that the right gets censored/muted. The irony seems double, to me. Claiming you are being censored, then censoring all protest/counter-argument/discussion is about as vicious & underhanded & anti-democratic as it gets. I'm willing to be open to the idea that perhaps perhaps perhaps there's some unfavorable bias out there, but when the push back is so universally censored, well: it all feels vastly more disingenuous & unprincipled & unbelievable in extreme. It feels far more like a pariah complex, a desire to feel downtrodden. I don't see the people who claim their side is being hurt as willing to fight fair, willing to build their case: I see them as holding a grudge, grinding their axes, holding everyone who doesn't agree with them as the enemy. I don't think society, right now, suppresses this anti-social behavior, hardly at all, but I think this pariah complex is strong, & when these people do after miles & miles of running tread too far over the line into illegal or deeply disinformation territory, they crow about injustice. Trying to figure out how we encompass & allow the anti-civil is a hard challenge, and one I think we've been very kind about permitting, so far. I hate hate hate that we're starting to turn against this, starting to demand harsher systems, but there's a big stir now, intransigency is growing both ways with President #44 saying we need to contain this rabble ("pick a side"), and the future looks bleak if both sides just escalate escalate escalate. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31163649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31163649