What I'm hearing here is "my viewpoint is valid because I observed it, and the viewpoint that disagrees with me is biased". Your observations may happen to gene

What I'm hearing here is "my viewpoint is valid because I observed it, and the viewpoint that disagrees with me is biased". Your observations may happen to generalize and be correct, and the other viewpoint may be biased, but that doesn't mean the argument you made in the previous post was correctly reasoned. If data or research can't support "right wing voices are being censored", while you're perfectly entitled to believe that based on seeing a couple specific voices get censored, it's a bit unreasonable to dismiss claims to the contrary as "left wing bias" when the data simply isn't there to support it. I personally wouldn't be surprised if you end up with political bias in automated censorship and filtering algorithms, the training set is going to be full of bias and it will be hard to filter that out. But they also quite possibly managed to come up with something that isn't leaning in any particular direction. Between the two possibilities "Twitter is suppressing <x> speech" and "Twitter is not suppressing <x> speech and a few people are crying censorship to try and get unbanned/get attention" I think occam's razor suggests the latter, personally, because we know it has been an effective tactic in the past and that sort of speculative claim gains traction regardless of whether you can prove it. Lots of people claim to be shadowbanned when they're not, similarly.