Social Media Silences Conservatives?

[sirI]

Quote

President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened that Republicans will try to close down social media platforms a day after Twitter, for the first time, added a fact check to two of his tweets, ones concerning his unsubstantiated claims about widespread mail-in voting fraud.

Quote

Trump, in a tweet not specifically naming any platforms, said that, "Republicans feel that Social Media Platforms totally silence conservative voices."

What do you think? Is Twitter right?

Read in its entirety: Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms after Twitter fact checks claims on mail-in voting fraud

[toomuchbaloney]

51 minutes ago, sirI said:

Entirety: Stung By Twitter, Trump Signs Executive Order To Weaken Social Media Companies

Sure.

Congress will get in the way of the despot. Sure they will...

[TomPaine]

Google Yael Roth. He's Twitter's "fact checker" and has a long history of anti-trump tweets. https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/Twitter-fact-checker-has-history-of-politically-charged-posts/

My over-arching point is that censorship is bad whether it comes from Trump, Twitter or anyone else. Yes, private businesses, to some extent, can do what they want. But it's a slippery slope when the main form of communication censors one political viewpoint.

Frankly I'm shocked you wouldn't feel the same way. Or are you only in favor censorship because the platforms are run by liberals?

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, TomPaine said:

Google Yael Roth. He's Twitter's "fact checker" and has a long history of anti-trump tweets. https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/Twitter-fact-checker-has-history-of-politically-charged-posts/

My over-arching point is that censorship is bad whether it comes from Trump, Twitter or anyone else. Yes, private businesses, to some extent, can do what they want. But it's a slippery slope when the main form of communication censors one political viewpoint.

Frankly I'm shocked you wouldn't feel the same way. Or are you only in favor censorship because the platforms are run by liberals?

You haven't made the case that conservative speech has been censored. Is Twitter the public's main form of communication? Is it the main form of communicating for politicians? For conservatives?

Perhaps conservatives should make their speech less racist, less hateful and more accurate, when using social media so as to avoid embarrassing public correction.

[heron, ASN, RN]

To me, the term censorship implies that the posts are eliminated. I question the intellectual honesty of referring to advice to fact-check a post as “censorship” when the post is then published as originally written.

The “looting/shooting” post is more nuanced and I need to think about it more. One can argue that POTUS should be subject to the same rules as the rest of us. However, if his posts are flagged/hidden, so should any others that break that rule. I don’t think that happens.

I puts me in mind of an incident a bunch of years ago over on the blue side. A self-described conservative poster accused liberal members of silencing her. When asked to cite the posts she regarded as silencing, she quoted posts that challenged her facts or disagreed with her reasoning.

Disagreement does NOT equal silencing!

I’m 70 years old this year ... my memory goes back a ways. I’ve been hearing self-described conservatives sounding off about “fuzzy-headed liberals” ever since Spiro Agnew coined the term. As a lifelong lefty, it’s not as if I actively seek out conservative sources unless I’m researching a specific issue. Yet, the conservative viewpoint has been front and center of the political zeitgeist for most of my adult life - at least since the late sixties.

Sorry, this victim narrative of “silencing” just doesn’t pass the smell test for me.

[TomPaine]

Toomuch, a simple Google search will yield numerous results of conservatives being shadow banned. That's the practice of letting them post but not showing that post to many or any of their followers. "It said that Twitter’s new strategy to make trolls less visible was accidentally ensnaring some Republican politicians, making it harder to find them in the search bar by not autofilling their account names. Vice reported that the affected accounts included those of Reps. Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Matt Gaetz; Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel; and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian."

Or the accounts no longer appear in search. I tried searching for Donald Trump Jr a few months back and his name didn't appear on instagram. He called them out on Twitter and it was back searchable a day later. I follow Candice Owens and rarely see her posts in my feed. I have to look her up to see what she's been posting.

These are small steps, not outright bans, but they prevent certain voices from getting their message out. My overall point is that this, and censorship, is bad and that we should let all voices be heard in the marketplace of ideas.

@heron, I've never heard the term "fuzzy headed liberals." I guess I'm too young! ?
Yes, fact checking is different than removing a post. But what happens when the fact checker has a clear political bias like the one at Twitter? Do you think he's going to fairly fact check both sides of the isle?

[toomuchbaloney]

20 minutes ago, TomPaine said:

Toomuch, a simple Google search will yield numerous results of conservatives being shadow banned. That's the practice of letting them post but not showing that post to many or any of their followers. "It said that Twitter’s new strategy to make trolls less visible was accidentally ensnaring some Republican politicians, making it harder to find them in the search bar by not autofilling their account names. Vice reported that the affected accounts included those of Reps. Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, and Matt Gaetz; Republican Party Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel; and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman Andrew Surabian."

Or the accounts no longer appear in search. I tried searching for Donald Trump Jr a few months back and his name didn't appear on instagram. He called them out on Twitter and it was back searchable a day later. I follow Candice Owens and rarely see her posts in my feed. I have to look her up to see what she's been posting.

These are small steps, not outright bans, but they prevent certain voices from getting their message out. My overall point is that this, and censorship, is bad and that we should let all voices be heard in the marketplace of ideas.

@heron, I've never heard the term "fuzzy headed liberals." I guess I'm too young! ?
Yes, fact checking is different than removing a post. But what happens when the fact checker has a clear political bias like the one at Twitter? Do you think he's going to fairly fact check both sides of the isle?

Getting your content hidden is often the sad result of sharing racist, hateful or inciting language or memes, obvious propaganda or outright lies. I follow some of the people you mentioned on Twitter. Some of them are well known for publishing and sharing racist or inappropriate content, Trump for instance.

Again, is inappropriate, fabricated, racist or hateful language synonymous with conservative speech? Because I read a ton of conservative content and commenting on FB and Twitter feeds.

[TomPaine]

Unfortunately inappropriate, fabricated, racist or hateful language comes from people of all political views. If you can't see that you're part of the problem.

Watch this video from John Stossel. He's not conservative or liberal but he acknowledges bias and shadow banning on social media. It's easy to say it's only racist or hateful speech that gets banned but that is not the case.

[toomuchbaloney]

45 minutes ago, TomPaine said:

Unfortunately inappropriate, fabricated, racist or hateful language comes from people of all political views. If you can't see that you're part of the problem.

Watch this video from John Stossel. He's not conservative or liberal but he acknowledges bias and shadow banning on social media. It's easy to say it's only racist or hateful speech that gets banned but that is not the case.

Sure. I've had content moderated on platforms. You may have to.

But not all people are whining that their political speech is being silenced because they get called out for inappropriate content. That victim status is apparently reserved for conservatives.

John Stossel is far from an unbiased opinion or credible analyst, but the attempt to make the whining seem reasonable is appreciated.

[nursel56]

11 hours ago, TomPaine said:

Google Yael Roth. He's Twitter's "fact checker" and has a long history of anti-trump tweets. https://nypost.com/2020/05/27/Twitter-fact-checker-has-history-of-politically-charged-posts/

My over-arching point is that censorship is bad whether it comes from Trump, Twitter or anyone else. Yes, private businesses, to some extent, can do what they want. But it's a slippery slope when the main form of communication censors one political viewpoint.

Frankly I'm shocked you wouldn't feel the same way. Or are you only in favor censorship because the platforms are run by liberals?

The only thing I'm shocked about is you keep saying Trump is censored when he isn't.

[heron, ASN, RN]

4 hours ago, TomPaine said:

@heron, I've never heard the term "fuzzy headed liberals." I guess I'm too young! ?
Yes, fact checking is different than removing a post. But what happens when the fact checker has a clear political bias like the one at Twitter? Do you think he's going to fairly fact check both sides of the isle?

Spiro Agnew was Richard Nixon’s Vice President until he was forced to resign after being convicted of tax evasion (a plea deal to avoid more serious charges). My favorite one of his was “nattering nabobs of negativism”.

By my memory, the current conservative victim narrative goes all the way back to the backlash against the civil rights movement and their campaign to take over the southern electorate. They have replaced fact-based, reasoned argument with pejorative labeling ... aka the politics of division. And it’s dominated the national conversation for most of that time. The current violence, both verbal and physical, is exactly what they’ve been working toward for better than half a century. So ... enough with the “silencing” fantasy.

To address your question, confirmation bias is a real thing, this is true. The only remedy I can think of is self-awareness and the conscious decision to seek all the available facts, not just those that support one’s personal position (“welfare queens” anyone?)

You just cannot turf that resposibility to someone else. Do your own homework. So the question of the fact-finder’s bias is one you have to answer for yourself.

[heron, ASN, RN]

Too late to edit, but in my previous post, in the sentence referring to civil rights backlash, it should have read “Republican campaign to take over ... “ not “their (conservatives’) campaign”. I try not to conflate republican with conservative ... not the same.

Carry on ...

[sirI, MSN, APRN, NP]

Quote

Twitter has flagged a tweet from the official White House Twitter account which reposted the text of a tweet President Donald Trump sent early Friday morning, saying "when the looting starts, the shooting starts," claiming the tweets violated its rules about "glorifying violence."

The tweets were in reference to the ongoing unrest in Minneapolis following the death of George Floyd.

Entirety: Twitter flags Trump, White House for 'glorifying violence' in tweets about George Floyd protests

---

Video of Governor Tim Walz's reaction to the tweet and his comments ...