View Full Version : VICE Admits: Twitter Is Shadowbanning Conservatives, Mainstream Republicans
jimnyc
07-25-2018, 02:55 PM
---
VICE Admits: Twitter Is Shadowbanning Conservatives, Mainstream Republicans
A new report from left-leaning VICE News revealed that Twitter is hiding the accounts of certain high-profile conservatives from users — which Breitbart News has been covering for years.
A new report published on Wednesday by VICE News details the ongoing censorship of conservatives on social media. This time, the offender is Twitter. Through an objective analysis, VICE News reporter Alex Thompson concluded that Twitter is hiding the accounts of certain high-profile conservatives from its user through a process referred to as “shadowbanning.”
The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and it’s the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)
Breitbart Tech’s Allum Bokhari reported on this latest form of Twitter shadowbanning Monday.
Some initially speculated that concerns about conservative account “shadow-banning” on Twitter were nothing more than a conspiracy. However, the report also concluded that high-profile liberals aren’t facing the same account restrictions.
Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter’s search.
The new report has turned some heads amongst journalists. Jonathan Swan of Axios wrote that he formerly thought that those accusing Twitter of “shadow-banning” were conspiracy theorists.
“Must admit that when some R sources have complained about this to me I mocked them to their face as conspiracy theorists,” Swan wrote. “This Vice article makes me rethink that, and response from Twitter is inadequate.”
https://i.imgur.com/sBdR3en.png
Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/07/25/vice-admits-twitter-is-shadowbanning-conservatives-mainstream-republicans/
Not overly surprising - most social media platforms have been soft-banning various conservative and liberal media/people, and the PR responses to the uncovering of these background cogs tend to range from being vague to obscurantist.
Drummond
07-26-2018, 08:57 AM
Not overly surprising - most social media platforms have been soft-banning various conservative and liberal media/people, and the PR responses to the uncovering of these background cogs tend to range from being vague to obscurantist.
Do you agree with that conduct, then ?
If 'yes' .... why ?
Either they should do it and be clear about it. Or not at all, the halfway-house style of it is the problem.
The issue (for me) is the optics, not the implementation.
Drummond
07-26-2018, 09:11 AM
Either they should do it and be clear about it. Or not at all, the halfway-house style of it is the problem.
The issue (for me) is the optics, not the implementation.
If you advocate that they should do it and be clear about it ... aren't you stating your approval ?
You're basically saying that if they do their 'shadowbanning' transparently, then it (and they) can earn approval.
How ?
I suggest that the very effort of shadowbanning requires, to happen, a lack of transparency !!
Point of interest -
An old friend of mine was the one who broke this story, Twitter have since contacted him and his editor to confirm that they are aware that the ‘search all’ feature is not auto-populating for some users (which is why there is confusion online with people posting screenshots showing the Representatives name is auto-populating).
They say it is a problem they are working to fix for the affected users.
If you advocate that they should do it and be clear about it ... aren't you stating your approval ?
You're basically saying that if they do their 'shadowbanning' transparently, then it (and they) can earn approval.
How ?
As far as I’m concerned Twitter can do whatever they like, and if people don’t like it they can find or found a better platform
Drummond
07-26-2018, 09:40 AM
As far as I’m concerned Twitter can do whatever they like, and if people don’t like it they can find or found a better platform
What happens, then, if all 'Twitter-like' online entities did the same thing ? Would you just say, 'OK, it's universal, so it has to be accepted' ?
Sure.
What’s your alternative if you don’t agree with that position?
Drummond
07-26-2018, 10:29 AM
Sure.
What’s your alternative if you don’t agree with that position?
My alternative position - a very obvious one ? - is to consider it disreputable, deserving of opposition.
I'd want to see Twitter (and other such online venues) starved of user (& other) support, until they learn to conduct themselves fairly and decently. Publicising what they're doing .. of course ... is key. They'd not like bad publicity.
My approach would not be to knuckle under to Leftie behaviour, of this or any comparable type. 'Sorry' ......
My alternative position - a very obvious one ? - is to consider it disreputable, deserving of opposition.
I'd want to see Twitter (and other such online venues) starved of user (& other) support, until they learn to conduct themselves fairly and decently. Publicising what they're doing .. of course ... is key. They'd not like bad publicity.
My approach would not be to knuckle under to Leftie behaviour, of this or any comparable type. 'Sorry' ......
That’s pretty much exactly my position.
They should be public about whatever they chose to do, and people can support or leave the platform based on that.
Drummond
07-26-2018, 10:44 AM
That’s pretty much exactly my position.
They should be public about whatever they chose to do, and people can support or leave the platform based on that.
Surely, the point would be to shame them into reversing their actions, to treat everybody fairly ?
Surely, the point would be to shame them into reversing their actions, to treat everybody fairly ?
Sure, or leave the platform and they can explain to their investors and advertisers why their numbers are dropping.
Or if this kind of policy increases their numbers and investors/advertisers are happy then fair enough also.
FakeNewsSux
07-26-2018, 12:51 PM
Sure, or leave the platform and they can explain to their investors and advertisers why their numbers are dropping.
Or if this kind of policy increases their numbers and investors/advertisers are happy then fair enough also.
Kind of like what is happening to Facebook:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/facebook-eliminates-93-of-traffic-to-top-conservative-sites-stocks-slide-24/
But there is a criminal element to it. Facebook contracted with these conservative websites to provide a platform for their sites and drive advertising revenue and then secretly denied the exposure they contracted to provide.:
"In February Facebook launched another algorithm change to their platform. With the changes we saw our traffic dwindle even further.
We weren’t the only ones to be affected. The algorithmic change caused President Donald Trump’s engagement on Facebook posts to plummet a whopping 45% (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/02/algorithm-change-causes-potus-trumps-facebook-engagement-plummet-45/).
In contrast, according to Breitbart’s Allum Bokhari, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) do not appear to have suffered a comparable decline (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/02/28/exclusive-trumps-facebook-engagement-declined-45-percent-following-algorithm-change/) in Facebook engagement.
This is a criminal act. Facebook took our money for advertising and promised a fair playing field. Facebook lied to us and every conservative group in America.
Today despite the fact that we have 635,000 Gateway Pundit Facebook fans. We receive almost nothing from Facebook."
You would need to know the details of the advertising agreement between Facebook and the advertiser before claiming breach of said contract (which I do not have the information for) but if a conservative considers that a big enough deal (with or without the relevant details) then they should leave the site yeah.
FakeNewsSux
07-26-2018, 01:12 PM
You would need to know the details of the advertising agreement between Facebook and the advertiser before claiming breach of said contract (which I do not have the information for) but if a conservative considers that a big enough deal (with or without the relevant details) then they should leave the site yeah.
After filing suit for breach of contract and demanding enough in damages to make Facebook think twice before misrepresenting themselves in the future.
After filing suit for breach of contract and demanding enough in damages to make Facebook think twice before misrepresenting themselves in the future.
If the companies involved believe that the contract was breached then sure.
FakeNewsSux
07-26-2018, 01:32 PM
If the companies involved believe that the contract was breached then sure.
Nothing like the constant hemorrhaging of money through jury awards to moderate one's aberrant behavior. This may be the way of heading toward Drummond's definition of fairness in social media but I do agree with you Noir that these are private ventures and the market should be left to decide what is right and desired.
The problem comes with the Fourth Estate (press/news media) that the society needs to relay reliable information to make sound policy decisions. Yes, these are private enterprises but they have been given special Constitutional protections so they can carry out their social duties. When these institutions cross over to becoming propaganda arms of the state or of one political party, they become highly destructive. Just ask the folks who lived with 1930's-40's Germany, 1940's-90's Soviet Block, 1940's-present China, etc.
Drummond
07-26-2018, 05:30 PM
Sure, or leave the platform and they can explain to their investors and advertisers why their numbers are dropping.
Or if this kind of policy increases their numbers and investors/advertisers are happy then fair enough also.
You see no issue of right v wrong, needing correction, then ?
You see no issue of right v wrong, needing correction, then ?
I think the optics are wrong - they should be clear about what their policy is and the free market can take care of the rest.
Drummond
07-27-2018, 06:45 AM
I think the optics are wrong - they should be clear about what their policy is and the free market can take care of the rest.
So, you've no issue with the rights or wrongs of prejudice (and prejudicial conduct) being shown against a group who happen not to believe in what you believe in .. ?
You don't believe, as a matter of principle, there should be any clear-cut remedy brought into being to counter failures of freedom of expression from being protected ?
So, you've no issue with the rights or wrongs of prejudice (and prejudicial conduct) being shown against a group who happen not to believe in what you believe in .. ?
My position would be the same if Twitter were shadowbanning anyone whether I believe in their message or not.
Drummond
07-27-2018, 06:51 AM
My position would be the same if Twitter were shadowbanning anyone whether I believe in their message or not.
Saying what your position is, and failing to justify it, these are two different things.
FakeNewsSux
07-27-2018, 10:59 AM
I think the optics are wrong - they should be clear about what their policy is and the free market can take care of the rest.
Kind of like the charade that the bulk of the media in the world (CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. over here; BBC, DW, AFP, etc. over there) have been perpetuating on the viewing public that they are dispassionate, non-partisan purveyors of the news. Yes, I agree the optics for them are bad but they just can't afford to come right out and say that they are pulling for the left. No matter, the viewing public has become fully aware of which team they play for, the ratings reflect that. The market taking care of the rest I suppose.
High_Plains_Drifter
07-28-2018, 10:02 AM
Found out how to find out if you're being shadow banned on twitter, and sure enough, I am as well as... probably millions of other CONSERVATIVES. Haven't seen a LEFTIST shadow banned yet... go to shadowban.eu
Slimy leftist fascist sons a bitches...
https://image.ibb.co/bTWUw8/shadow_ban.jpg
High_Plains_Drifter
07-28-2018, 10:04 AM
https://image.ibb.co/h6ksio/nazi_dems.jpg
Drummond
07-28-2018, 10:38 AM
https://image.ibb.co/h6ksio/nazi_dems.jpg
One item missing from the 'Nazi' side of that list is the mass State Nationalisation' Hitler always intended ... that is very much a Socialist ideal. Now, I don't know if your Democrats have any of that thinking behind any of what they hope to achieve ..
FakeNewsSux
07-28-2018, 06:29 PM
If the companies involved believe that the contract was breached then sure.
And so it begins:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/breaking-rep-matt-gaetz-files-federal-election-commission-complaint-against-twitter/
High_Plains_Drifter
07-29-2018, 10:15 AM
And so it begins:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/07/breaking-rep-matt-gaetz-files-federal-election-commission-complaint-against-twitter/
Awesome... but until you hit them in the wallet, they'll try and continue they're shadow banning of conservatives. They'll have to be threatened with actual jail for someone or huge fines, or a court order to cease and desist their corrupt speech suppression technics. These people lie like rugs and never give up their control easy. You have to get down in the dirt and scrap with these fascist democrat sons a bitches.
FakeNewsSux
07-29-2018, 08:58 PM
I think the optics are wrong - they should be clear about what their policy is and the free market can take care of the rest.
Looks like Facebook is joining in on the "regretful algorithmic mistake" parade:
https://www.libertynation.com/facebooks-proxy-war-on-conservatives/
Looks like Facebook is joining in on the "regretful algorithmic mistake" parade:
https://www.libertynation.com/facebooks-proxy-war-on-conservatives/
In fairness algorithms are hard.
Likewise YouTube is demonetising lgbt+ videos, they say it’s algorithm problems, lgbt+ groups say its intended to silence them.
Which side you believe is based on personal perspective without access to internal documentation.
FakeNewsSux
07-30-2018, 08:04 AM
In fairness algorithms are hard.
Likewise YouTube is demonetising lgbt+ videos, they say it’s algorithm problems, lgbt+ groups say its intended to silence them.
Which side you believe is based on personal perspective without access to internal documentation.
I agree with you that it's hard but aint it funny how all of the "mistakes" default in favor of their progressive ideology? That part doesn't seem too hard for them.
I agree with you that it's hard but aint it funny how all of the "mistakes" default in favor of their progressive ideology? That part doesn't seem too hard for them.
Silencing lgbt+ groups would run counter to favouring a ‘progressive ideology’
In the similar story- ultra-liberal blogging site Tumblr has had ongoing periods were they have removed search functionality for hashtags relating to lgbt+ posts and blogs, again they blamed algorithms.
Given the content of this thread (and widespread belief by conservatives that twitter is ‘shadow banning’ them) it’s noteworthy that Jack Dorsey is giving a lot of interviews at the minute and he is utterly clear that ‘shadow banning’ is not something that twitter does, or has done.
jimnyc
02-07-2019, 02:55 PM
Given the content of this thread (and widespread belief by conservatives that twitter is ‘shadow banning’ them) it’s noteworthy that Jack Dorsey is giving a lot of interviews at the minute and he is utterly clear that ‘shadow banning’ is not something that twitter does, or has done.
Oh, so that ends it. The person running the show denies it - and that means it's true - in the face of tons of evidence given in the past year.
Noteworthy is about it, noteworthy but means jack shit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.