From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
Twitter is an enemy of free speech and tolerance. Examples include them shadow banning conservatives (and admitting it, on-tape), some of their employees getting excited about violating their members privacy (assuming those members are conservatives/Trump), and how they suppressed anti-Hillary tweets during the election. That's scarily Orwellian. It's still their company and they get to be as dicky as they want to be with it (within the bounds of the law). But I'm going to point out their moral terpitude just so that consumers can make an informed choice -- not as any call to action (legal, governmental or otherwise).

YAWYD! You are what you do. We can have the nicest words and intent, but what matters is our actions. So if a person (or company's) words and actions conflict, judge them by the actions. And with that in mind, here's a summary of things that Twitter has done: comparison: 10 items

  • Shadow Banning - Some chickenshit institutions (like Twitter) don't have the balls to come out and explain their policies outright. (Probably because they don't want to be held to the same standards). So they "Shadow Ban" folks -- which is basically silently blocking customers (preventing others from seeing them), and not living up to their expected terms of use, of sharing what the user chooses to share, not what Twitter feels like sharing.
  • Jack Dorsey - If the condom eating generation-TidePod needed a leader, that person would be Jack Dorsey. He thinks things that Democrats should start and win a cultural civil war, by a generation that doesn't know not to eat laundry detergent, or how to hunt and skin a free range Tofurky. He sees the world as black and white, and forgets that the other side makes his cars and food, and could beat his goat-yoga practicing little ass into next week, without breaking a sweat. Start a civil war at your peril little man.
  • Demoting - Demoting is the the opposite of promoting. In tech/social media what it means is that cowardly organizations (Twitter) that want to corrupt our democracy and free speech, will silently "demote" people who hold views that they don't like. For example, they have blue checkmark certification/icon for those verified to be who they claim they are. But they'd pull it from people they don't like. Not because they aren't verified, but because they just don't like them. If that's what you want, then put it in your terms/explanation: "the lack of a checkmark represents the disapproval of our fascist leader".
  • Blocking/Banning - While, blocking/banning in Social Media is the equivalent of book burning, I really don't have a problem with it: if a company is transparent, defines the terms, and documents how someone violated them. My problems are when they have double standards where they attack those on the right for being more informed but occasionally resorting to the tools of the left (name calling, etc), while they ignore far worse from "their side". And that's why I'm not a fan of Facebook, Twitter, Google, and others that want to arbiters of fairness, while only demonstrating hypocrisy.
  • 2019.04.11 Mother Teresa is a hater - Mother Teresa, "Abortion is profoundly anti-women. Three quarters of its victims are women: half the babies and all the mothers." In an act of supreme (but predictable) arrogance, it was blocked from Twitter as hate speech. When asked by Ted Cruz, they refused to admit so, but said the context mattered.
  • 2019.01.27 Learn to Code - ❄️ The left is angry because after the Obama administrations anti-business/anti-coal policies put many (10's of thousands) out of work, the reply by media outlets like NPR, Wired, NYT against the cries of anguish was, "Learn to Code" (the meme trended starting in 2011-2015). Implying lifetime coal miners or manufacturers targeted by the lefts policies, could just get retrained, and get new jobs in the tech sector. Well, last week, massive layoffs hit HuffPo, BuzzFeed, and Gannett News, hitting a small fraction as many workers as under Obama. And since turn-about is fair-play, some reflect the "Learn to code" information right back at the newly unemployed's cries of how life is unfair. The left had a melt-down calling their own message a hate meme (as did Twitter), but only when their sentiments were directed back at them. "How insensitive and cruel". Ya think?! If they were self-aware, they'd be getting a very important life-lesson from this, but instead they're too busy banning things that hurt their feelings to learn.
  • 2019.01.24 Ruining Journalism - According to NYT writer Farhad Manjoo, Twitter is ruining journalism by letting Journo's expose themselves for the shallow partisans that they are (as exemplified by things like the Covington Saga). I think this is more the fault of Journo's igno-bias than Twitters fault, but they are an ingredient in the toxic asininity.
  • 2019.01.23 Twitters Beto Double-Standard - While there are many Trump parody accounts, a lady ran one against the mock-worthy Beto's navel-gazing called Beto’sBlog -- and was permanently destroyed because it was, "a violation of the Twitter Rules, specifically the policy on impersonation..." Something that they never had a problem with if it mocked a Republican. There's a dozen fake Trump parody accounts. Not Beto's fault... but it sure doesn't make him seem more manly either.
  • 2018.03.05 Twitter defends Maxine: Queen of the Twits -
    Maxine, the perpetual liar and insulter, accused someone of being a Russian Bot, and they retorted that she was a retarded, corrupt, and has a bad wig... and they got blocked for 7 days. Which isn't bad, if it was applied fairly, but the left regularly says 10x worse to conservatives and is virtually never blocked or punished. James Woods decided to double down and tweeted, "That’s a wig? I thought it was a service animal..." Another replied, "I wonder what it eats?", and someone else retorted "[if brains,] It must be starving". Old joke, but particularly apropos.
  • 2018.01.10 Oversharing - There's a Project Veritas video going around that made a little bit of a stink about how Twitter would share Trump's private messages, a little too gleefully. The gleefully part is concerning, and while they have a history of being loose with our privacy, the majority of the point was "with the DOJ". That's not just a good idea, it's the law. So I don't have much of a problem with this.

Banning anti-Hillary tweets

This is infowars, so I take it with a grain of salt. But the National Enquirer broke stories that the NYT got caught intentionally stifling. The point is not the source, but the voracity of the content. And they seem to have evidence that Twitter was intentionally censoring truths they found uncomfortable. This goes well beyond preventing personal attacks, but filtering reality for their audience, while misrepresenting their mission and terms of use. [1]