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

a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

I posted a tweet from a twitter exec that explained the situation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheSubversiveOne

I posted a tweet from a twitter exec that explained the situation.

I posted a link to twitter rules that explains they can "change your account setting to Mark media you Tweet as containing material that may be sensitive so that future posts are marked accordingly". They may also "Permanently adjust your account setting to Mark media you Tweet as containing material that may be sensitive so that your future posts have a warning message users must click through before viewing your media."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It seems to be hit or miss. Read through the responses to the ingraham tweet. Some people are saying it was deleted, others say it was marked sensitive, and others didn't notice any issues with it.

If I were to attempt what I believe twitter is doing, I'd randomize it too. It gives you some plausible deniability.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It seems to be hit or miss. Read through the responses to the ingraham tweet. Some people are saying it was deleted, others say it was marked sensitive, and others didn't notice any issues with it.

If I were to attempt what I believe twitter is doing, I'd randomize it too. It gives you some plausible deniability.

And in doing so they draw massive amounts of attention to it...for what purpose?

What you describe only makes sense if they are trying to feed the Right Wing conspiracy machine. Why would they want to do that?

a reply to: introvert

Hyperbole is normal for people on both sides. You yourself are engaging in it.

Yes, but that's not really relevant. I'm simply saying that you would see it across the spectrum.

But it does not appear to be happening often.

Do you use twitter? If so, how often do you see these sensitivity warnings? Are they often misapplied to political content? I can only go off my experience unless I set up some control accounts.

In this case, it was a matter of the ignorance on the user's part.

Not really, though.

a reply to: introvert

No, quite the opposite. It gives cover. You can claim that the right wing conspiracy machine is at it again. If they just flat out blocked these people (like youtube did with AJ) then they have to defend their attack on political speech. Compare and contrast the coverage around this incident and the AJ incident.

No one is blaming jones for user error or mocking him. They're either professing love for silencing him or concern for censorship.

originally posted by: neo96
Twitter does CENSOR conservatives.

FACT not accusation.

It's a two way street buddy, I was temporarily banned from twitter from tweeting Trump after asking about the wall.

No malice, no cursing, no threats...just an inquiry. So if Twitter is trying to silence conservatives then why was I silenced? when does saying "how's the building of the wall goin?' warrant a suspension?

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

originally posted by: neo96
Twitter does CENSOR conservatives.

FACT not accusation.

It's a two way street buddy, I was temporarily banned from twitter from tweeting Trump after asking about the wall.

No malice, no cursing, no threats...just an inquiry. So if Twitter is trying to silence conservatives then why was I silenced? when does saying "how's the building of the wall goin?' warrant a suspension?

That's one of the problem with censorship. Once it is used against one group or type of expression, it isn't long before it goes after the others. That's one of the reasons we defend the free speech of views we disagree with.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Ah Twitter. The pinnacle of modern communication in all its greatness. Ugh.

So Twitter owns their own content? And can do what they want with it? And have free reign to censor what they want?
Because it's not a free speech thing, right? 1st amendment doesn't apply.

But the sitting President cannot block someone on Twitter? At least according to a judge, because of the 1st amendment.

Hmmmm...

The president is a government actor. The first amendment applies to the government. Not really that difficult to understand. I'll give you a minute. Good luck.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: xuenchen

I'd guess Twitter. They own the content after all.

That is such a cheap argument. You realize you are essentially backing censorship, and based on the style you wrote this thread, I suspect you would be fine with censoring conservatives. But ask yourself WHY does Laura Engram get censored using a "sensitivity" filter? I wonder if the same filter is used for Rachel Maddows, or Chris Mathews. They are the polar opposite of Engram...

I know you'll digress and fall back on the old "Its their content"... Does it make it right tho? Liberals need to understand that the world is a lot bigger than their small minds can comprehend. There are other people out there who hold different viewpoints, and you don't get your point across when all you choose to do is stick your fingers in your ears and try and ignore the other side. Thats what close minded fools do. And these tech companies are apparently ok with that.

The shocking and appalling thing is that this is a tipping point for outright censorship in the West. This is how you achieve it. You censor what people say. Slowly chip away at free speech. This sets a dangerous precedent. And you dont seem to care at all about that. Fine. But know this, you are making your bed. Will you lie down in it when it comes for you?

originally posted by: semperfoo
The shocking and appalling thing is that this is a tipping point for outright censorship in the West. This is how you achieve it. You censor what people say. Slowly chip away at free speech. This sets a dangerous precedent. And you dont seem to care at all about that. Fine. But know this, you are making your bed. Will you lie down in it when it comes for you?

Did the government stop you from saying anything? No? Then free speech is safe. Just because Congressclown Asstard cannot figure out social media doesn't mean the First Amendment is under assault.

This website censors/filters/restricts (call it what you want) content as well, yet here you are, posting away on a website that moderates all those Sandy Hook and Pizzagate 'truthers'. 'But muh Free Speech!'.

And just for the record, I don't care what Twitter does, they could ban conservatives, liberals or anyone in between, it's their company, that's how the free market operates. You do like free market capitalism, right?

a reply to: semperfoo

Well yeah. Of course it's a cheap argument. I'm not paying to post my opinions here. All my arguments are cheap. They are free.

Does it make it right tho?

That's up to the individual. Not an entire political ideology. Personally, I don't use Twitter anyways. So I really don't care how Twitter manages its own product. If I DID care, the way I'd express that is by boycotting Twitter, in other words I would deactivate my account. But oh wait! I already don't have an account.

So how about save me the emotional appeal crap? You don't know my personal situation anyways. It is 100% legal for Twitter to do this, and with the most recent evidence coming it is likely that Drudge Report (the original source of the tweet) had set the setting themselves to mask media content as sensitive. So it isn't even Twitter's fault.

The shocking and appalling thing is that this is a tipping point for outright censorship in the West.

Lol. Spare me your melodrama.