sh76 is not alone in wrongfully thinking that tech companies censor conservatives more than libturds. It's hard to miss the disinformation on FoxNews. The "I'm being banned" narrative is everywhere in conservative worlds these days. Josh Hawley loses a book deal because he's an intolerable dullard and he whines about his First Amendment rights.
Guess what? It's a mirage. It serves their purpose to demonize the big tech companies. They're doing it for attention. Here's proof.
... the claim of anti-conservative animus is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it. No trustworthy largescale studies have determined that conservative content is being removed for ideological reasons or that searches are being manipulated to favor liberal interests. Even anecdotal evidence of supposed bias tends to crumble under close examination... In fact, it is often conservatives who gain the most in terms of engagement and online attention, thanks to the platforms’ systems of algorithmic promotion of content
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds
22 Feb 22
@wildgrass saidSays a report entitled "False Accusation: PAUL M. BARRETT AND J. GRANT SIMS The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives" by:
sh76 is not alone in wrongfully thinking that tech companies censor conservatives more than libturds. It's hard to miss the disinformation on FoxNews. The "I'm being banned" narrative is everywhere in conservative worlds these days. Josh Hawley loses a book deal because he's an intolerable dullard and he whines about his First Amendment rights.
Guess what? It's a mirage. ...[text shortened]... ardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds
PAUL M. BARRETT
Paul Barrett is the author of four critically acclaimed nonfiction books, the most recent of which are GLOCK: The Rise of America’s Gun (2012), a New York Times Bestseller, and LAW OF THE JUNGLE: The $19 Billion Legal Battle Over Oil in the Rain Forest and the Lawyer Who’d Stop at Nothing to Win (2014).
Some of Paul's latest Tweets:
"New lows: Fox News/MAGA alliance endorsing Putin's bullying of Ukraine. There is no bottom to this thing, no depth to which these forces will not drop."
"There's debate over whether Trump can whip up MAGA base with his new TRUTH Social site, a Twitter knock-off. Without libs to "own," probably not. But watch the grift. I'm betting that he sees this as money maker:"
"Are Republican leaders so attached to the perks of power, that they cannot stand up to Trump's undisguised attempt to undermine democracy?"
"Trump revving up his base for 1/6, Part 2, calling on followers to protest the “radical, vicious, racist prosecutors" investigating his attempt to "find" phony votes in GA and his real estate business."
Ummm. Yeah. He sounds pretty objective.
@wildgrass said
sh76 is not alone in wrongfully thinking that tech companies censor conservatives more than libturds. It's hard to miss the disinformation on FoxNews. The "I'm being banned" narrative is everywhere in conservative worlds these days. Josh Hawley loses a book deal because he's an intolerable dullard and he whines about his First Amendment rights.
Guess what? It's a mirage. ...[text shortened]... ardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey — like his counterparts at Facebook and YouTube — has consistently said that his service isn’t biased.
But the people who build Twitter are biased, Dorsey admitted in an interview last month, saying out loud what everyone already knew: Twitter, like most tech companies in Silicon Valley, has a lot more left-leaning employees than right-leaners.
Twitter is so liberal, in fact, that conservative employees “don’t feel safe to express their opinions” within the company, Dorsey told NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen in a new interview published today on Recode Media.
https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics
While its algorithm itself may not be biased, if you think the admitted liberal bias of Twitter employees doesn't seep its way into its editorial decision making, you're being naive.
22 Feb 22
@sh76 saidThis seems awfully ad hominem considering the extensive report includes lots of real data. But ok.
Says a report entitled "False Accusation: PAUL M. BARRETT AND J. GRANT SIMS The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives" by:
PAUL M. BARRETT
Paul Barrett is the author of four critically acclaimed nonfiction books, the most recent of which are GLOCK: The Rise of America’s Gun (2012), a New York Times Bestseller, and LAW OF THE JUNGLE: The $19 Billi ...[text shortened]... "find" phony votes in GA and his real estate business."
Ummm. Yeah. He sounds pretty objective.
How about this one? Are we going with an ad hominem defense here too, or can we get down to the reliability and interpretation of the available data? I found this one when I was trying to find data in SUPPORT of your assertions, but I can't find it.
Our results reveal a remarkably consistent trend: In 6 out of 7 countries studied, the mainstream political right enjoys higher algorithmic amplification than the mainstream political left. Consistent with this overall trend, our second set of findings studying the U.S. media landscape revealed that algorithmic amplification favours right-leaning news sources. We further looked at whether algorithms amplify far left and far-right political groups more than moderate ones: contrary to prevailing public belief, we did not find evidence to support this hypothesis. We hope our findings will contribute to an evidence-based debate on the role personalization algorithms play in shaping political content consumption.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
22 Feb 22
@wildgrass saidAs I said above, in decisions made specifically by the algorithm, there may be no bias. But humans at Twitter do much of its censorship. It's not all about the algorithm.
This seems awfully ad hominem considering the extensive report includes lots of real data. But ok.
How about this one? Are we going with an ad hominem defense here too, or can we get down to the reliability and interpretation of the available data? I found this one when I was trying to find data in SUPPORT of your assertions, but I can't find it.
[quote]Our results reve ...[text shortened]... m/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
22 Feb 22
This Twitter user has been shaddowbanned numerous times.
@gummibear737
You want some more examples? Here you go. If I had an hour, I'd find 50 more.
https://twitter.com/ByronDonalds/status/1382060375781298176?s=20&t=9eAzOFV4fHZgm2jEJsq4rw
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o95
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-ends-ban-on-posts-asserting-covid-19-was-man-made-11622094890
https://zdoggmd.locals.com/post/286525/youtube-demonetized-my-ivermectin-video
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9339711/Facebook-flags-WSJ-op-ed-Johns-Hopkins-professor.html
22 Feb 22
@sh76 saidYou're guessing, based on what appears to be a couple of prominent anecdotes, but the data in these studies do not support that. The left-wing bias narrative of twitter appears to be wrong.
As I said above, in decisions made specifically by the algorithm, there may be no bias. But humans at Twitter do much of its censorship. It's not all about the algorithm.
22 Feb 22
@wildgrass saidChange to 200 anecdotes that I've seen with my own eyes (alas, I have not recorded them all) and add a concession from Jack Dorsey.
You're guessing, based on what appears to be a couple of prominent anecdotes, but the data in these studies do not support that. The left-wing bias narrative of twitter appears to be wrong.
22 Feb 22
@sh76 saidRight you're only posting the right wing anecdotes, which illustrates the problem of anecdotal evidence when making sweeping conclusions about overall trends.
Change to 200 anecdotes that I've seen with my own eyes (alas, I have not recorded them all) and add a concession from Jack Dorsey.
Jack Dorsey's comment was about his employees not his platform's content. You can make an educated guess that the ideology of the employees extrapolates to their content moderation, but the data don't suggest that, so your guess was wrong.
22 Feb 22
@sh76 saidExplain where he has veered away from the objective truth?
Says a report entitled "False Accusation: PAUL M. BARRETT AND J. GRANT SIMS The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives" by:
PAUL M. BARRETT
Paul Barrett is the author of four critically acclaimed nonfiction books, the most recent of which are GLOCK: The Rise of America’s Gun (2012), a New York Times Bestseller, and LAW OF THE JUNGLE: The $19 Billi ...[text shortened]... "find" phony votes in GA and his real estate business."
Ummm. Yeah. He sounds pretty objective.
@kevcvs57 saidI'm not going to spend my time reading a paper just to attack it on an Internet forum, but an article forcefully arguing that there is no bias against conservative viewpoints written by somebody with loud and clear liberal viewpoints is hardly "evidence" any more so than is a Fox News article screaming that other media outlets are biased against them.
Explain where he has veered away from the objective truth?
22 Feb 22
@sh76 saidWhat's your beef?
Says a report entitled "False Accusation: PAUL M. BARRETT AND J. GRANT SIMS The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives" by:
PAUL M. BARRETT
Paul Barrett is the author of four critically acclaimed nonfiction books, the most recent of which are GLOCK: The Rise of America’s Gun (2012), a New York Times Bestseller, and LAW OF THE JUNGLE: The $19 Billi ...[text shortened]... "find" phony votes in GA and his real estate business."
Ummm. Yeah. He sounds pretty objective.
Every one of those tweets sounds utterly true to me.
Just because Trump and his Republican acolyte base are criticized, this, in no way, makes the criticisms untrue.
It's not "bias", snowflake. It's just Truth. Real Truth, unlike Trump's new media piggybank.
@suzianne saidI guess you haven't been following the thread (you tend to ignore the points of threads until you see the word "Trump" in it and then focus solely on Trump), my point was that this was somebody coming from a particular viewpoint; my point was not to attack the Tweets in question.
What's your beef?
Every one of those tweets sounds utterly true to me.
Just because Trump and his Republican acolyte base are criticized, this, in no way, makes the criticisms untrue.
It's not "bias", snowflake. It's just Truth. Real Truth, unlike Trump's new media piggybank.
@sh76 saidSo why do you focus on "viewpoints" when the only yardstick should be "truth/untruth"?
I guess you haven't been following the thread (you tend to ignore the points of threads until you see the word "Trump" in it and then focus solely on Trump), my point was that this was somebody coming from a particular viewpoint; my point was not to attack the Tweets in question.
No one is getting their opinion "censored". Lies are being exposed, that's all that's happening.
People without an argument claiming that "you haven't read the thread" is, unfortunately, classic RHP forumwork. When are you going to go full Metal Brain and start claiming conspiracy theories are true? Oh, wait...