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

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

All McCarthy, or anyone else, had to do to see it was either click on or change the settings. It isn't rocket science!

No. It's not rocket science. It's victim mentality.

The Right Wing likes to play the victim, hoping to gain support through sympathy, not actual ideas.

Looks like the only ones playing victim here is the leftists needing, wanting, encouraging big Daddy Warlord Twitter to censor right leaning content for them.

Its probably an automated system that causes the sensitive content warning, whenever someone uses certain key words.

I mean, I hate twitter more than anyone... But I highly doubt their got like an army of minions reading every tweet posted and censoring anything that's to conservative.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

It has nothing to do with "right leaning content" but simply the words contained in the original re-tweet. Think about it? The filter detects "Violent crime" and the recipients settings query it. How can this be so hard to understand?

Even McCarthy STILL doesn't understand it and is continuing to dig an even bigger embarrassing hole for himself!



From

twitter.com...

a reply to: tommyjo

By gum it IS a conservative censor !!!!!

💥😃💥

a reply to: Alien Abduct

No not "probably not", it absolutely is a good reason. I think you should go back and read our exchange again.

I can read just fine. You asked if "that", in regards to an appeal, was good reason.

I said probably not, as it was stated that it would be appealed immediately, without any clarification of their reason for doing so.

The fact that there is an appeal process in the first place is in fact exactly the reason why it is still in the courts and the reasoning behind the appeals process is undeniablygood.

Their right to appeal, yes. That's good.

Their reason for appealing it, maybe not so much.

That's two separate things.

Perhaps you need to go back and read our exchange.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And why was it deemed sensitive content? I missed that in your OP. I checked a bit on page 1 and don't see it answered.

originally posted by: tommyjo
Even McCarthy STILL doesn't understand it and is continuing to dig an even bigger embarrassing hole for himself!

Cut McCarthy some slack, he's still trying to figure out where his Angelfire page went.

originally posted by: roadgravel
People don't like twitter, leave it. No one is stopping people from creating their own twitterish site and tweeting whatever and banning whoever they want.

a case of "Your place but run it as I say"

And do you suppose AT&T, Sprint and Verizon should be able to start turning off the phones of people that they dont like what they are saying?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
And do you suppose AT&T, Sprint and Verizon should be able to start turning off the phones of people that they dont like what they are saying?

Those are pay services so it's not apples to apples although I suspect if you were doing something illegal they potentially could rescind your contract.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes "there it is" and note "Violent crime". The question is why doesn't he understand such a simple thing?



twitter.com...

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: Alien Abduct

It has nothing to do with "right leaning content" but simply the words contained in the original re-tweet. Think about it? The filter detects "Violent crime" and the recipients settings query it. How can this be so hard to understand?

Even McCarthy STILL doesn't understand it and is continuing to dig an even bigger embarrassing hole for himself!

From

twitter.com...

This tweet has Violent Crime in it and I can see it.
twitter.com...

In fact I went to the original tweet and I have sensitive turned off, and I can see it too. That means it was switched from sensitive to non-sensitive.

Violent Crime can not be an automatic filter trigger, I see it listed in Democrat/left leaning tweets.

a reply to: tommyjo

I have sensitive information turned off so I can not see any tweets with it.

I see Ingraham's tweet. Can you explain how I can see it?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It isn't a perfect system. See following example where a tweet was labelled "may contain sensitive material".

I guess some conspiracy people need to see conspiracy everywhere!



twitter.com...

a reply to: introvert

Their right to appeal, yes. That's good.

Their reason for appealing it, maybe not so much.

That's two separate things.

Dude....

YOU are the one who conflated the two. I said. "It is still in the courts and for good reason"
then YOU SAID " the reason is because they appealed it."
That would imply that you think that the good reason was that they appealed it. To which i said "is that not a good reason?" Meaning the issue still being in the courts because of the appeal process is a good reason because the appeals process is a good thing.

Im sorry you are having such a hard time. Have a better day!

a reply to: tommyjo

I don't see Democrats having these same glitches across multiple networks with the same frequency. Saying the solution is to turn on view sensitive material is not a solution, why was her tweet ever made sensitive to begin with? I searched for violent crime and saw numerous tweets from left leaning politicians and none of them were labeled sensitive.

Your explanation doesn't actually explain anything, it's just wrong.

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes "there it is" and note "Violent crime". The question is why doesn't he understand such a simple thing?

twitter.com...

No no, the question is, why do you supose the words "violent crime" used in the sentence "Sweden is now enduring violent crime waves" should be censored?

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: introvert

Their right to appeal, yes. That's good.

Their reason for appealing it, maybe not so much.

That's two separate things.

Dude....

YOU are the one who conflated the two. I said. "It is still in the courts and for good reason"
then YOU SAID " the reason is because they appealed it."
That would imply that you think that the good reason was that they appealed it. To which i said "is that not a good reason?" Meaning the issue still being in the courts because of the appeal process is a good reason because the appeals process is a good thing.

Im sorry you are having such a hard time. Have a better day!

You said "good". I do not believe I did until after the fact.

Just because you can do something, does not mean there is "good" reason to do it.

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

This is what Ingraham re-tweeted.

twitter.com...

What i dont get is why the article is considered sensitive. The original article i found is from NBC news. So who decided this is sensitive and why? And why even have sensitive if you can click and change it ? Whats the point really other than hoping most wont bother i guess.

www.nbcnews.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: tommyjo
a reply to: xuenchen

This is what Ingraham re-tweeted.

twitter.com...

Whats the point really other than hoping most wont bother i guess.

www.nbcnews.com...

Kids.

Twitter and Youtube both seem to have adopted policies that are more friendlier to their younger audiences and the use of certain words, phrases, etc, can cause issue like this.

If I am not mistaken, and correct me if I am wrong, only around 25% of the adults in the US use twitter. The rest are kids.

That says quite a bit about the adult users of twitter, in my opinion.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Alien Abduct

You can appeal for any reason you want, but the ability to appeal doesn't necessarily mean your reasoning for doing so has merit.

I know how it works a lot better than you could even dream. I think you should read through our little exchange again because i said they have a good reason and i don't specify what the reason was. Then Introvert is the one who gave the reason, and I quote..

"Yes, the reason is because they were able to appeal the decision."

I did read it. I read it before I wrote that response. Nothing I wrote is wrong or incorrect.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And why was it deemed sensitive content? I missed that in your OP. I checked a bit on page 1 and don't see it answered.

I dunno. If you want to know, I guess you need to talk to Twitter on why they mask content like that. I'm sure it's written out in their T&C's somewhere. If I had to guess I'm sure it has to do with children and making sure that they don't read adult oriented tweets all the time. Like a Twitter version of the V-Chip.