Leftists are actually trying to say the leak shows that Twitter was promoting conservatives!

submitted by [deleted] from self.politics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You're asking me to confirm your confirmation bias.

No, the democrats were not "obviously" heavily favored, you are making that up because it sounds nice to you. That wasn't in any evidence, but it doesn't need to be, because you liked the sound of it and now it's a fundamental part of your worldview

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

First of all, why are leftists saying that the "do not take action without consulting management" thing means they were boosting pages like Libs of TikTok? That's the main point of this post.

Secondly, I've seen that a number of conservative accounts were blacklisted. I haven't personally combed through the list of blacklisted accounts or trends, but I haven't seen any leftist accounts being blocked. If there are any, it would surprise me that this was done on the same scale, because a guy like Charlie Kirk with many followers was shadow banned, for example.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

why are leftists saying

Who is saying that? Why don't you ask them? Why the fuck would you ask me why someone did a tweet.

number of conservative accounts were blacklisted. I haven't personally combed through the list of blacklisted accounts or trends, but I haven't seen

Yeah that's called confirmation bias, dummy. Thats why you should go off evidence, instead of dumb blogs and tweets.

a guy like Charlie Kirk

Probably because he broke a twitter policy. Why don't you ask Elon? Don't you think if it was partisan, Elon would have told you by now.

"Elon's latest bombshell: Charlie Kirk was suspended because of political bias"

There's a reason youre not reading that headline, and it's not because Elon is holding out on the good stuff

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Leftists are saying this. You're here to defend leftists. It might not have been you, but it's certainly bears mentioning. That's a completely fair point for discussion, stop deliberately trying to find a fallacy when it's a completely relevant question. So cringe.

Yes, technically, I would need to comb through the list myself. But on the other hand, I haven't heard of any leftists accounts being shadow banned.

Furthermore, you claimed there was no bias. What's this based on?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

"probably because he broke twitter policy", it may not have been Kirk, but there actually is evidence that users WERE shadow banned WITHOUT violating any policies: https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601020845224128512/photo/1

So that's the opposite of what you just suggested.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Reply to me once please. Then we have an orderly conversation instead of multiplying threads every time you get a new idea.

First of all, did you link me to the correct thing here? You linked me to a screenshot which says this

the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions

That is directly contradictory to how you introduced it when you say

WITHOUT violating any policies

Anyway you are still asking me to answer for other people's comments. I didn't make those comments.

You're here to defend leftists

No I am not, I am here to tell you that the Taibi "twitter files" have no indication of bias.

Read what I initially wrote. I didn't say anything about defending any leftists. I said that neither campaign team was favored according to what Taibi showed.

Furthermore, you claimed there was no bias. What's this based on?

Well what are you basing any claim of bias on, first of all?

You're making an extraordinary claim so show your extraordinary evidence.

As for me, Taibi tweeted this

https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752

10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.

Oh no the trump white house is censoring the internet

Edit - oh remember how I wrote this earlier

Its interesting that you're able to look closely at a picture and come to rational conclusions about it, though. I wonder how long that skill will stick around

Funny how that skill is now evaporating isn't it

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The link I showed says this: “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy." Anything beyond that is taking liberties. It doesn't matter if it's in a statement or not. And no sane person would ever believe that repercussions for people who didn't directly violate the policies could be done in a fair way.

Campaign teams? What about other political actors that weren't associating with those campaign teams? Did Kirk or LibsofTikTok have associations with the campaigns? It still matters if they were treated with bias whether it's related to the campaigns or not. That doesn't prove there is "no bias" in the grand picture of all political actors.

It's one thing to ask for evidence. It's another to pretend you have no agenda when you really do. You just don't want to engage with what leftists are asserting in the original post because it shows that you're letting them slide while being hypercritical of those on the right on the very same issue. And truth be told, I don't think Elon would be saying what he's been saying if it were truly an "unbiased" situation.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The link I showed says this

I'm still not sure we're looking at the same thing. I am referring to your bariweis post a few comments up. It's the one that says

the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions

Anyway everything else you wrote is predicated on the notion that these accounts were punished for their politics, instead of receiving consequences for their actions in violation of twitter policies.

Campaign teams? What about other political actors that weren't associating with those campaign teams

Oh like trump white house staff?

Anyway which other political actors did you see in the Taibi leaks? Because I also looked closely at the leaks and didn't see anyone else reporting tweets to twitter for policy violation review. Only campaign staff emailing what I suspect was their ads account manager to complain that Donny saw mean words while sat on the toilet at 2am

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions

Be good faith bro. If we really tell the truth, you would never accept this criteria if it came down on against your side. And you know it. "Indirect" lol. But you're pretending not to know it for rhetorical leverage. Yet you come in here and act like the man that's going to expose everyone's fallacies. That's some bullshit. One set of rules for you and yours, another for everyone else. You'll hold opponents to the strictest standard, knowing damn well it would be a problem for you if "indirect violations" (defined by who?) were levied against your side. I want to treat everyone fair...but I hope I never get that desperate.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

you would never accept this criteria if it came down on against your side

Oh I see what's happening here.

You're allowing yourself to imagine me arguing something else on a different topic...and you're allowed to call me bad faith because of that.

Well, I'm going to imagine you arguing all sort of inconsistent positions. Why you bring so inconsistent bro?

indirect violations" (defined by who?)

Wouldn't you have read the evidence which you cited before asking that?

Remember how I correctly predicted at the top of this thread, that your ability to scrutinize information was about to disappear....

Yes...the SLIDE we were looking at was part of a deck presented at the top policy committee at twitter....according to bariweis. There was even an acronym for the committee which I can't be bothered to go back and find.

(Edit - I went back - its 'the “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support,” known as “SIP-PES.”...Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust (Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust & Safety (Yoel Roth), subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others')

The committee members were, according to bariweis, the top legal + policy + executive decision makers at twitter Inc.

So that's who decided whether they broke policies

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I just think it's cowardly to pretend not to have an agenda just for rhetorical leverage. Which is exactly what you're doing. No clue what your "imagination" scenario is about.

Whether it's you, or someone else, who is going to accept repercussions for "indirect violations" against someone on their side when the account followed the rules as stated? It's simply just bad faith not to acknowledge this.

And your "prediction" was an agenda-driven self-fulfilling prophecy.