How are they providing a "progressive-supremacist" slant? And what does that even mean?
Perhaps you should unfollow those whose tweets you don't like. It isn't Twitter that is generating the content.
Is it the way they display it that bothers you?
Perhaps you should unfollow those whose tweets you don't like. It isn't Twitter that is generating the content.
Is it the way they display it that bothers you?
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151301555066/the-week-i-became-...
Fully agreed and totally expected for people to do this. But Twitter is going so far as to ban people who haven't made threats, but that Twitter considers evil.
EDIT: They're also shadowbanning many accounts of those who support Trump. Scott Adams recently switched his endorsement, and within a few days was shadowbanned.
Hacker News does the same, incidentally:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6060954
I always found that weird about the American system. "Free speech" on the one hand, and yet extreme reactions to political opinions everywhere. You regularly find Americans who publicly declare that they won't work with people with particular opinions. It switches which side is the one overtly silencing the other, which is also weird. When I was a teenager, it was definitely republicans silencing people, and yet today, not so much.
Very weird.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12205161#12208276
> I think it means the same thing as shadow banning. We have largely phased that out, except for spammers and serial trolls. For the most part we tell people that we banned them by posting a reply to one of their comments, and when they seem rehabilitable (I suppose that's not a word?) we invite them to email hn@ycombinator.com if they want to be unbanned.
How about: they just have some BS department/AI that shadowbans based on user complaints etc, and they do a lousy job at it?
Here's the same result, without the conspiracy part.
His original "endorsement" of Hillary was driven by fear of being physically injured or killed due to his support of Trump[1]. He's been pro-Trump from the beginning.
[1]: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/145456082991/my-endorsement-for...
More accurately, that's the reason Scott Adams gives.
Twitter hasn't (as far as I know) responded yet.
Since Adams is known to use sock-puppets there might be something else going on.
Why would Twitter ban trump supporters and not all the other really vile people infesting twitter?
Because they work for the Clintons and Saudi Arabia.
Add to that the fact that 140 characters are not enough to put nuances and develop an argument, and you get an environment that fosters trolls. It's not limited to a specific way of thinking (i.e. SJW)
This is a direct consequence of the way twitter works with everything public, retweeting, etc.
And not just accounts are affected, entire hashtags are hidden from trending and auto complete as a means to limit their spread.
At the same time, other accounts who are truly harassing and even trying to incite violence are left alone, e.g. because the target is Trump or a Trump supporter and those are apparently fair game. (No, I am not a Trump supporter, but telling people to self harm or commit suicide because they tweeted #MAGA once is not only against twitter rules, it's against basic human decency)
Sure, they are a private company and entitled to censor or not censor as they please. But twitter users are also noticing that the self proclaimed free speech zone of the web and beacon of democracy fails to deliver on their free speech promises.
[0] http://blog.dilbert.com/post/151301555066/the-week-i-became-...