Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Twitter's alleged bias towards left-wing trolls.

Options
13567…20

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,244 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    biko wrote: »
    Ordinary people following media personalities

    https://twitter.com/w_terrence/status/1347925523150876672?s=20

    https://twitter.com/kilmeade/status/1347758050019573760?s=20

    https://twitter.com/JoeTalkShow/status/1347678021759729665?s=20

    Bot and spam accounts were removed.
    Twitter is riddled with them.
    I lost some too.


  • Options
    #63
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Why are you speculating?


  • Options
    #64
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    Sand wrote: »
    Agreed, it isnt a Reps vs. Dems issue. Indeed, there isnt any major disagreement between those two parties. US elections are forcing Americans to choose between Coke and Diet Coke. When ultimately the profits go to the same owners.

    This the real problem, and I wish more people would see it.
    It's not dens v reps, red v blue, ff v fg or even left v right.
    It's the people v govt. (and whoever the govt. is currently in bed with)


  • Options
    #65
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Twitter purged thousands of QAnon-spreading accounts, including some of the conspiracy’s most prominent backers
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/1/9/22222074/twitter-purge-qanon-prominent-backers-flynn-powell

    Twitter bans Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell in QAnon account purge
    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-bans-michael-flynn-sidney-powell-qanon-account-purge-n1253550


  • Options
    #66
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,244 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    biko wrote: »
    Twitter purged thousands of QAnon-spreading accounts, including some of the conspiracy’s most prominent backers
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2021/1/9/22222074/twitter-purge-qanon-prominent-backers-flynn-powell

    Twitter bans Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell in QAnon account purge
    https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-bans-michael-flynn-sidney-powell-qanon-account-purge-n1253550

    Good.
    Dangerous people.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Inviere
    Registered Users Posts: 7,531 ✭✭✭Inviere


    Bambi wrote: »
    Both Republicans and Democrats were comfortable with breaking up monopolies until the monopolies started lining their pockets
    senordingdong wrote: »
    This the real problem, and I wish more people would see it.
    It's not dens v reps, red v blue, ff v fg or even left v right.
    It's the people v govt. (and whoever the govt. is currently in bed with)

    ^^ Correct. The REAL leader of the USA is:

    il_570xN.1774713609_n1va.jpg

    Retro Computers/Consoles Repair/Restoration List



  • Options
    #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    1/10th of all Twitter accounts have been purged in the last couple of days..

    But shur, when everyone was defending it when it happened to Alex Jones this was the obvious consequence..

    Scary stuff..


  • Options
    #69
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,106 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    conorhal wrote: »
    What free market?
    This week put the lie to that and the left's constantly refrain of:
    "It's a private company, they're not obligated to platform you, if you don't like it, make your own Twitter!"
    Conservatives create Parlor
    Lefty whingebags: "you can't do that, Google and Apple ban that app!"

    Where is the free market in a tech oligopoly that shuts down any competing business?
    Well... indeed. IMHO Sand nailed it earlier:
    Sand wrote: »
    Agreed, it isnt a Reps vs. Dems issue. Indeed, there isnt any major disagreement between those two parties. US elections are forcing Americans to choose between Coke and Diet Coke. When ultimately the profits go to the same owners.

    That's a pretty bloody good summation of US politics and the politics of the big social media sites. Though that's always been American politics to one degree or other. It was always run by the rich, with the brilliant American Dream(c) twist that convinced her population they could become one of the movers and shakers, and in truth and to be fair many did. The difference over the last twenty years is the wealth and power gap has become ever wider. The gulf between the very rich and the rest of America is much wider than it was in say the 1960's. The rich are richer, the poor poorer and the middle ever more squeezed.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #70
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    riffmongous wrote: »
    Never said you did, but most of those agreeing with your post would be the first to complain about any other kind of state interference with a private company.

    I'm sure the man who fought for the POUM would be turning in his grave if he knew who was using his quotes nowadays

    No.
    No one complains when the EU reins in Facebook or Twitter or Google or Amazon or Apple or Microsoft.
    This is generally good, especially good with huge monopolies.

    On Twitter, it is a private company but it has also become the public space, or a massive part of it.
    I didn't demand tv news or newspapers use it as primary source for their news bulletins or reports yet here we are.
    All of these private monoliths cannot have their cake and eat it (or can they?)

    The biggest example of censorship and interference which could have materially affected the outcome of an election (US Nov 2020) was the censorship of the Hunter Biden story which as it turns out, was factual yet all of them censored the arse out of it until the election was over. In the USA, Twitter/FB/Google/CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS - all on the one page.
    Meanwhile, any and every 'report' from trusted sources once it spun the sh1t out of the 'other side' was allowed without a hint of slapping a 'may not be true' label being seen.

    There is a massive problem for all of us, left, right, centre.
    It never ends well.


  • Options
    #71
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,244 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Sir Oxman wrote: »
    No.
    No one complains when the EU reins in Facebook or Twitter or Google or Amazon or Apple or Microsoft.
    This is generally good, especially good with huge monopolies.

    On Twitter, it is a private company but it has also become the public space, or a massive part of it.
    I didn't demand tv news or newspapers use it as primary source for their news bulletins or reports yet here we are.
    All of these private monoliths cannot have their cake and eat it (or can they?)

    The biggest example of censorship and interference which could have materially affected the outcome of an election (US Nov 2020) was the censorship of the Hunter Biden story which as it turns out, was factual yet all of them censored the arse out of it until the election was over. In the USA, Twitter/FB/Google/CNN/MSNBC/ABC/NBC/CBS - all on the one page.
    Meanwhile, any and every 'report' from trusted sources once it spun the sh1t out of the 'other side' was allowed without a hint of slapping a 'may not be true' label being seen.

    There is a massive problem for all of us, left, right, centre.
    It never ends well.

    Yeah, hunter's laptop really could have hurt his chances at becoming president.
    What was factual btw?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    rossie1977
    Registered Users Posts: 11,342 ✭✭✭✭rossie1977


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Bot and spam accounts were removed.
    Twitter is riddled with them.
    I lost some too.

    Kilmeade still has 150,000+ fake followers https://www.twitteraudit.com/Kilmeade
    Joe talk show guy nearly 1/4 still fake https://www.twitteraudit.com/Joetalkshow

    I thought everyone knew about bots and fake followers on Twitter in 2015..guess Republicans didn't get message


  • Options
    #73
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,244 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Kilmeade still has 150,000+ fake followers https://www.twitteraudit.com/Kilmeade
    Joe talk show guy nearly 1/4 still fake https://www.twitteraudit.com/Joetalkshow

    I thought everyone knew about bots and fake followers on Twitter in 2015..guess Republicans didn't get message

    Facebook is very bad at the moment as well.
    They are not doing enough to stop them.


  • Options
    #74
    Samsonsmasher
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 610 ✭✭✭Samsonsmasher


    political analyst wrote: »
    Why is it that Twitter shuts down the accounts of people who merely criticise left-wing social movements (e.g. Lindsay Shepherd, who criticised the transgender rights movement in Canada and was then banned from Twitter but has since got the ban overturned), while left-wing trolls who attack social conservatives are apparently let off the hook?

    Aren't there certain people on the left-wing on Twitter who are just as deserving of a ban as the soon-to-be-former US president Trump?

    The Ayatollah of Iran and the Chinese President are still allowed to have twitter accounts.

    Islamic fundamentalists are still allowed to have twitter accounts.

    Meanwhile everyone from Trump snd his MAGA hat supporters to moderate conservatives to classical liberals to left wingers and basically everyone who doesn't share billionaire Jack Dorsey's woke beliefs will be scrubbed.

    People cheering the cancelling of Alex Jones or the Donald or JK Rowling or a footballer who made a derogatory comment erc will themselves be cancelled before too long.


  • Options
    #75
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    Samsonsmasher wrote: »
    People cheering the cancelling of Alex Jones or the Donald or JK Rowling or a footballer who made a derogatory comment erc will themselves be cancelled before too long.

    Graham linihan springs to mind.
    He was advocating having count dankula silenced but had a knicker fit when twitter banned him.


  • Options
    #76
    Samsonsmasher
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 610 ✭✭✭Samsonsmasher


    political analyst wrote: »
    That's fair enough, given that Twitter is a private organisation and so has the right to decide who or what to allow or not to allow on its website.

    What happens when people are banned from using certain credit cards or online payment services, cannot purchase at certain stores, cannot use certain public transport routes, are banned from educational institutions and certain careers, cannot access certain welfare supports, cannot live in rented accommodation in certain parts of the city and so on because they have the wrong beliefs or social credit score according to state?
    That the totalitarian future we are heading toward.


  • Options
    #77
    Gruffalux
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Good.
    Dangerous people.

    Have those in favour of mass censorship not got the intellectual capacity to win the arguments?
    That is what it looks like. Their emotive and increasingly ascientific rhetoric is failing to convince a lot of people via logic and reason.
    It will be interesting to watch where individuals meet their personal lines in the sand as this liberal authoritarianism progresses.


  • Options
    #78
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,244 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Gruffalux wrote: »
    Have those in favour of mass censorship not got the intellectual capacity to win the arguments?
    That is what it looks like. Their emotive and increasingly ascientific rhetoric is failing to convince a lot of people via logic and reason.
    It will be interesting to watch where individuals meet their personal lines in the sand as this liberal authoritarianism progresses.

    Park life!

    I'm not in favour of mass censorship.
    I'm in favour of censoring those that spread dangerous conspiracy theories and spam, those that promote violent and harm and those that break the law.


  • Options
    #79
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Park life!

    I'm not in favour of mass censorship.
    I'm in favour of censoring those that spread dangerous conspiracy theories and spam, those that promote violent and harm and those that break the law.

    And the obvious response to that is that you are either in favour of free speech for those you disagree with or you are not in favour of free speech at all.


  • Options
    #80
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Park life!

    I'm not in favour of mass censorship.
    I'm in favour of censoring those that spread dangerous conspiracy theories and spam, those that promote violent and harm and those that break the law.

    You are in favour of mass censorship.


  • Options
    #81
    Gruffalux
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Angela Nagle had a good insight into all this in Kill All Normies publ 2017. She outlined how the mantle of transgressiveness was taken from the left by the right. The left used to be the transgressive force in culture, daring, experimental, intellectually provocative and strong, etc but the online left became pious, censorious, rigid, anti intellectual, all the way up to emotional and hysterical.
    Meanwhile the online right in the Chans for example became the rule breakers, the meme makers, they became wittier, more intellectually ascerbic and devastating. They ceaselessly pushed the boundaries.

    And basically what I see now is the online hyper left could not match their brain power. I am not saying at all that I agree with the sh1t sentiments motivating much of the online rights modus operandi but they have undeniably been much funnier, much more avant garde, much more intellectually provocative.
    In spite of the worthy philosophy that might underpin the left they have become obnoxious, anti intellectual and exceedingly unattractive. Instead of sharpening their wits and going into battle they resort now to mass censorship and their wits will be all the poorer in the long run for that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    rossie1977 wrote: »
    Kilmeade still has 150,000+ fake followers https://www.twitteraudit.com/Kilmeade
    Joe talk show guy nearly 1/4 still fake https://www.twitteraudit.com/Joetalkshow

    I thought everyone knew about bots and fake followers on Twitter in 2015..guess Republicans didn't get message
    Interesting tool

    https://www.twitteraudit.com/joebiden 15% fake followers
    https://www.twitteraudit.com/kamalaharris 8% fake followers
    https://www.twitteraudit.com/realdonaldtrump 21% fake followers
    https://www.twitteraudit.com/Kilmeade 31% fake followers
    https://www.twitteraudit.com/Joetalkshow 22% fake followers


  • Options
    #83
    Cody montana
    Registered Users Posts: 5,244 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    senordingdong wrote: »
    And the obvious response to that is that you are either in favour of free speech for those you disagree with or you are not in favour of free speech at all.

    Free speech doesn't mean you are free from any consequences.

    Free speech can allow you to be racist, or homophobic or call for the harm of others.
    Does that absolve you from any repercussions or criticisms?
    No.
    And rightly so.


  • Options
    #84
    senordingdong
    Registered Users Posts: 10,673 ✭✭✭✭senordingdong


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Free speech doesn't mean you are free from any consequences.

    Free speech can allow you to be racist, or homophobic or call for the harm of others.
    Does that absolve you from any repercussions or criticisms?
    No.
    And rightly so.
    Nobody here suggested it should be free from consequence.


  • Options
    #85
    Gruffalux
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,023 ✭✭✭Gruffalux


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Free speech doesn't mean you are free from any consequences.

    Free speech can allow you to be racist, or homophobic or call for the harm of others.
    Does that absolve you from any repercussions or criticisms?
    No.
    And rightly so.

    Twitter is absolutely stuffed with paedophiles and abusers, pornographers and activists who threaten to rape to death people who disagree with them. This is Jack's glorious bastion of the right side of history.


  • Options
    #86
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Yeah, hunter's laptop really could have hurt his chances at becoming president.
    What was factual btw?
    I'd also posit the seemingly ok story that was allowed to be spread unfettered by Twitter for example about Trump apparently dissing American servicemen and women versus the reaction to the Biden story.
    Every news outlet ran with it, yet no or minimal news outlet investigations into the ongoing questions about Hunter Biden's money matters which is now a US Federal criminal investigation, nevermind that one story.
    It's partisan and skewed and the only losers are the public (in this case the US public)
    The tech monoliths who now ARE the public space cannot be allowed to decide who and what gets to be heard.


    https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/522325-taibbi-facebook-and-twitters-response-to-hunter-biden-story-sends-politicized

    “The sudden decision by all of these platforms to start establishing standards about questions like hacked material, leaked material, doxing material, material that can’t be verified, that’s very convenient because the last four years, the news landscape has been just packed full of what they call hack and leak stories,” Taibbi argued on Hill.TV’s “Rising” Thursday.

    Taibbi cited the Steele dossier, which included allegations of links between the Trump campaign and Russian actors ahead of the 2016 election, as one example of a report that became an important topic of discussion among social media platforms and news outlets, despite containing unverified claims.

    Taibbi argued that the Post article, which used information from Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, that had allegedly been obtained from Hunter Biden’s laptop hard drive, should receive the same treatment.

    “In journalism, we don’t have an admissibility requirement,” Taibbi explained. “If something comes in and we don’t know the exact providence of it, that doesn’t mean we can’t publish it. All we have to do is establish that it’s true, and a lot of important stories have been broken that way.”


  • Options
    #87
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    This is a dangerous slope ,

    I understand a private company is allowed do what it wants but its very short sighted.

    Lets say you have a teenager who gets beaten up by somebody of x race , they post on twitter ‘damn x guy beating me up, I hate x people‘ gets banned for that because twitter doesn't allow ‘racism’ so he looks around for a site where he can talk about it - facebook is out, twitter is out, parlers been banned, boards doesnt allow it etc... so any reasonable site where most people would tell him ‘ahh here that was one lad’ or ‘not all of them are like that’ is gone, now the only places he can vent that opinion are the likes of stormfront, 4chan etc.. where the response is more akin to ‘yeah x people are all like that, x people should be killed’ and you can see where that leads...

    These companies arent just banning far right/left hate material , theyre banning an impressionable persons access to balance, removing dissenting opinion on large platforms leads to more division and extremism


  • Options
    #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    This is a dangerous slope ,

    These companies arent just banning far right/left hate material , theyre banning an impressionable persons access to balance, removing dissenting opinion on large platforms leads to more division and extremism

    We're half way down the slope now though..I was having arguments with people about this around the time of the AJ thing..
    That anyone could agree with this is just so short sighted, you would wonder about their intellectual capacity..


  • Options
    #89
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    Joe Rogan did a podcast with Tim Pool where Jack Dorsey tried to defend Twitters behaviour (Well Jack didnt have the mental capacity, so he brought a twitter exec who had a line back to Twitter HQ)

    Anyway Tim Pool schooled him and thats saying something because Pool isnt exaclty a Pulitzer level journo, neither is Rogan.

    The whole episode is worth watching but watch the first 10-15 seconds of this clip where the twitter exec explicilty states that social media platforms deciding what is wrong and right would be a very bad thing. Less than a year later they were doing just that, and the same running dogs on here who would have agreed with them last year that it was a bad idea, are agreeing with them now and will agree with whatever further Orwellian depths they plumb in the future, all the while stating that they're not in favour of censorship.




  • Options
    #90
    RasTa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,116 ✭✭✭✭RasTa


    I do laugh at the people in here more in arms about no twitter rather than no free healthcare.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,282 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    RasTa wrote: »
    I do laugh at the people in here more in arms about no twitter rather than no free healthcare.

    Well go start a thread about free healthcare so, this ones about twitter... also this isnt america... we do


Advertisement