That the participants were censoring people who presumably agree with them seems to hint very strongly at that.
[EDIT] Actually, is there a widespread liberal version of that? It seems like a lot of the conservative sorts who go around having speaking events mainly function as trolls, and make their living on it—maybe an outgrowth of AM radio culture, whose brand of, uh, presentation hasn't been popular on the left. Like I'm sure there are a few liberal examples, but are there in fact lots of them that I'm not aware of, staging events to get confrontational sound-bytes for their Youtube channel or radio program, or in service of shitty documentaries? I mean, Michale Moore did the latter a bit, but how prominent is he these days?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_King#Fundraising_activit...
Michael Moore can be insufferable, but I can't think of an instance where he was actually wrong. I think we need to make a distinction between showmanship and grifting. Many prominent assholes on the right are outright grifters. Prominent assholes on the left missed their chance to be a theater kid and make up for it every day.
Though, yes, that's not the same thing as people who make their money from ad impressions on cherry-picked videos where they, grown-ass adults who've prepared their material much the way a stand-up comedian does, "own" unprepared liberal college freshmen, or make "documentaries" full of simply made-up shit and drum up word-of-mouth by getting shouted down at speaking gigs (they's silencing me!), or whatever. And my perception (which may be skewed!) is that there are a lot more of those sorts on the right than left.
I seriously wonder if the partisan gap in responses to the poll has more to do with the left perceiving the right-wing media-personality/"intellectual" sphere as being infested with trolls, than with the issues themselves. Maybe not! But I think it's a real possibility.
Conservatism in the U.S. is largely tribalism. The conservative demographic is very uniform. It's reasonably easy to create programming that appeals to that demographic, and it's also subsidized by the same entities that it serves.
Left of center in the U.S. you have a very loose, fractious coalition of different demographics who are trying to change something about the status quo (generally speaking). Trying to program content that appeals to "the left" in the U.S. as a large enough groups to sustain advertising, etc. and has fewer patrons with deep pockets.
I'm oversimplifying by a lot but there's a lot of reasons that there isn't a widespread liberal version of the campus speakers making the rounds to push things.
For whatever reason, the right really loves being against things and trying to deny other people's ability to just live in peace. If left alone (ahem) most of the left would just be content to go do other shit.
> ther isn't a widespread liberal version of the campus speakers making the rounds to push things.
Easy explanation for this one: left-wing ideology is deeply embedded within the campus administration and faculty already. The left doesn't bring in outside provocateurs to campus because they are already solidly entrenched.