GOP leader accuses Twitter of censoring conservatives, doesn't go as planned

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Well take offense to it then. Pretend like your persecution complex is being fulfilled ALL because you have to click an extra link or enable a setting to see the content. Me. I think the whole issue is ridiculous because if you really cared you wouldn't be using Twitter on principle. I don't use Twitter. It's not that hard and something like this wouldn't even make me doubt using it if I did use it.

I don’t use twitter. But to say this isn’t censorship is plainly wrong. The only ones pretending are the same people taking this GOP Rep to task.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

It isn't censorship. It's just a case of McCarthy acting a fool.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

It isn't censorship. It's just a case of McCarthy acting a fool.

It is what every censor has down throughout history. It is censorship.

a reply to: introvert

But it is no longer his personal twitter feed. He uses it to make official government announcements and such.

The First Amendment is about the right to be heard, not the right to listen in on someone else's communications.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Every censor throughout history has hidden content behind an easily removable block that only stops the dumbest among us from reading it? I was always under the impression that censors throughout history did more definitive and last acts of censorship. Things like book burnings, permanently modifying statues and pictures, or banning books legally. Could you point me to the historical precedent showing censors of the past covering up content with an easily removable filter?

originally posted by: timequake
a reply to: introvert

But it is no longer his personal twitter feed. He uses it to make official government announcements and such.

The First Amendment is about the right to be heard, not the right to listen in on someone else's communications.

No it isn't. You don't have the right to be heard. You merely have the right not to be silenced by the government. Or at least that is what the 1st Amendment protects. There is no right for people to listen to you or even hear you though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Every censor throughout history has hidden content behind an easily removable block that only stops the dumbest among us from reading it? I was always under the impression that censors throughout history did more definitive and last acts of censorship. Things like book burnings, permanently modifying statues and pictures, or banning books legally. Could you point me to the historical precedent showing censors of the past covering up content with an easily removable filter?

The duty of a censor since the beginning of censorship was to curate content, and to pick and choose what was appropriate or not. The technology involved in suppressing the content has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you hang up the phone on that telemarketer call? How dare you deny his right to be heard.

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

Ever taken an ethics and technology course? Technology is a BIG part of any ethics issue. Technology makes it easier to exponentially make a problem much worse, or in this case, blur the lines as to what is and isn't censorship. Don't discount the technological aspect just because it doesn't support your position fully. That just means you need to update your thinking on what is and isn't censorship.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Did you hang up the phone on that telemarketer call? How dare you deny his right to be heard.

Oh no! I hope the police don't come for me cause I didn't want to hear about that final offer for a special credit card interest rate for the credit card I don't own they were offering me for the thousandth time (seriously, this is a real telemarketer call I get from time to time).

a reply to: Krazysh0t

False equivalency. I don't believe that this content warning is censorship.

no it's not a false equivalency. Twitter treats conservative view points the same as pornography or excessive profanity (it hides all of them behind a content warning). Do you agree with that? Do you agree that conservative viewpoints should be treated the same as pornography or profanity?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Nope. I have seen no evidence directly from Twitter to suggest that is the case. The only defense I've seen for that viewpoint are out-of-context anecdotes.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

False equivalency. I don't believe that this content warning is censorship.

no it's not a false equivalency. Twitter treats conservative view points the same as pornography or excessive profanity. Do you agree with that?

They also treat pics of icebergs with penguins on them the same way.

Is it a twitter conspiracy against ice? Perhaps against penguins?

Or perhaps you and many others are making this out to be more than it is and you need to get a grip on your victim mentality/persecution complex.

Nope you don't agree with it or nope you don't think it's happening?

a reply to: introvert

I can give them a pass on pictures, they're tough to write effective algorithms for. Words, not so much.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Twitter treats conservative view points the same as pornography or excessive profanity (it hides all of them behind a content warning). Do you agree with that?

Answer: Nope. I have seen no evidence directly from Twitter to suggest that is the case. The only defense I've seen for that viewpoint are out-of-context anecdotes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So unless the guards admit to beating the inmates, it's not happening?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: introvert

I can give them a pass on pictures, they're tough to write effective algorithms for. Words, not so much.

Fair enough.

Now how was this particular case an example of twitter treating conservatives in the manner you described, when the tweet is available to view?

The person in the OP became outraged over the settings on their own account, correct?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Here is evidence that I want to review to believe your narrative:
1) Twitter's policy on content filtering
2) Statistical analysis or some sort of in depth comparison of tweets to show a trend to silence conservative opinions.
3) A leaked memo saying they desire to silence conservative voices would help, but at the same time the opinions of one worker at Twitter doesn't necessarily mean that is the opinion of the entire company. So I guess that depends on the leak.

Posting a youtube video or a number of anecdotes of Conservatives being "censored" isn't evidence because it blatantly ignores all the times that people have been censored and it had nothing to do with conservatism. If there is a trend here, then it should be statistically provable.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's way too much homework.

This is why these things are mostly left as alleged fact as opposed to show the work actual facts.

I wouldn't be surprised if twitter leans left but if this is all it takes to break the other side then they have a bigger problem then twitter.