Did Twitter Exec Censor #WhichHillary In Advance of Sunday Fundraiser, Key Primary? (dailykos.com)

An anonymous reader writes with the key claim of a story at The Daily Kos: In a truly egregious move yesterday, Twitter suspended the account responsible for #WhichHillary, activist @GuerrillaDems. Twitter also removed #WhichHillary from trending status, which is odd, considering the hashtag received more than 450,000 tweets in less than 24 hours. Twitter now says the suspension of @GuerillaDems was a mistake. Although this may just be a coincidence, it isn't the first time Twitter has exerted political control. Many users think it is a demonstrable conflict of interest, in light of Twitter Executive Chairman Omid Kordestani's Sunday, 2/28 fundraiser with Clinton. The Daily Kos itself offers at least a perfunctory caution that it's unclear "whether it was intentional removal, or algorithmic coincidence."

Comments

It is intentional

[NaCh0]

Twitter also scrubbed #JeSiusMilo when they unverified Milo Yiannopoulos from Breitbart.

Re:It is intentional

[frovingslosh]

I don't think the Republicans were the ones responsible for suspending an account that pointed out the two faced nature of the Democratic candidate. I also don't think it was the commie Bernie. Maybe you need to look a little closer to home, either the Which herself or #WarlockBubba.

Re:It is intentional

[Mashiki]

Does make you wonder just how many people they can exclude before they lose the benefits of the network effect.

Well they decided to do it with atheism, and with gamers, and now they're doing it against people who don't share their political ideology. Looks like they're doing a great job at making sure they want to become irrelevant like myspace. I wish them the best on that journey.

Re:It is intentional

[Crashmarik]

LOL you're full of crap. If Twitter wanted to prevent abuse they wouldn't have put Sarkeesian other abusers and doxers on the council. I can't imagine the level of mental gymnastics it took to overlook this.

Lets talk R.S. McCain here

https://reason.com/blog/2016/0...

Bow before the DEM anointed

[wbr1]

The Daily Kos itself offers at least a perfunctory caution that it's unclear "whether it was intentional removal, or algorithmic coincidence."

When ever did a twitter algorithm, remove a trending topic that was not hate speech?
This was almost certainly intentional. The only real question is was it paid for by Hillary or a staffer. We will likely never know.

Re:Bow before the DEM anointed

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you hear from your local SJW? Being against Hillary makes you sexist. It was hate speech. ;)

Re:Bow before the DEM anointed

[Crashmarik]

The Daily Kos itself offers at least a perfunctory caution that it's unclear "whether it was intentional removal, or algorithmic coincidence."

When ever did a twitter algorithm, remove a trending topic that was not hate speech?
This was almost certainly intentional. The only real question is was it paid for by Hillary or a staffer. We will likely never know.

Hate speech ? What's the opposite Good Think ? Think about it, if you still can.

Re:Private entity

[perlface]

Twitter has become a partisan hack site rather than a communication platform -- as is their right. Likewise, it is my right to have deleted my account. No worries.

now you see my true form

[Pseudonymous Powers]

A: Okay, Twitter is going to be a beacon of free speech. We're not going to censor it in any way, and we're going to fight anyone who attempts to like hell.

B: Great! I agree. This is going to be a great site!

A: Uh, okay, people are pretending to be other people for purposes of satire. We should probably add some sort of verification so that people can know tell the real person's account from the joke ones.

B: Makes sense.

A: Right, now let's just shut down those joke accounts, to minimize confusion.

B: Uh... wait.

A: And a bunch of people are being mean to other people. We'll just shut that down as well.

B: But--but--

A: Now, that may be unpopular, so we'd better organize a committee made up entirely of people on a single side of the political spectrum to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't.

B: Now just hold on a min--

A: Oh, and according to our committee, all the people on the other side of the political spectrum are the ones being mean. We'll just ban them outright.

B: [censored]

A: Actually, why don't we just start censoring things all the time for no reason, with no real justification or even a discernible pattern.

Re:Party Elites trying to shut down insurgents

[Locke2005]

In fact, the success of both the Trump and Sanders campaign are ample evidence that people are getting pretty fed up with this kind of bullshit. People don't like being TOLD who to vote for! This was the same phenomena that got me elected Student Government president in college; the corrupt dorm manager told everybody working for him and everybody living in the dorms to vote for his hand-picked candidate -- so they all voted for me instead!

Did Twitter Exec Censor #WhichHillary?

[fizzup]

Yes.

It is Always easier...

[Anonymous Coward]

to ask for forgiveness than to get approval.

All these "coincidences" surrounding Hill's campaign?

Re:Private entity

[Etcetera]

Didn't Citizen's United make it legal for a corporation to support a political candidate in any way they choose?
Twitter can refuse to provide service for the opposition (delete every post) if it choose to do so, and there ain't shit any one can do about it.

Absolutely. That doesn't mean inhibition of speech shouldn't be called out though.

An enterprising lawyer might make a case about the Communications Decency Act and that entities seeking safe harbor shouldn't just be protected from liability when exercising discretion, but said discretion should be held to something higher than an arbitrary standard... Older FCC-style "equal time" discretion or something... But that probably wouldn't go very far. The market should and will decide these things.

FTR, it's not just "Hillary" stuff, the recent SJW wisdom has caused random Conservatives to get disappeared as well:

http://nypost.com/2016/02/23/twitter-targets-trolls-but-winds-up-silencing-conservatives/

Twitter recently formed the Orwellian-named “Trust and Safety Council” to propose changes to the company’s use policies. The goal, according to a press release, was to find a middle ground between permitting broad free speech and restricting actual abuse.

But practically none of the 40 people chosen to be part of the council are all that concerned about free speech. In fact, most of them work for anti-harassment groups and seem likely to recommend further limitations on online expression.

Democrats are so ignorant

[frovingslosh]

Don't you even understand that the site pointed out the two faced nature of the bitch? The Republicans would not be the one to try to silence anyone over this. Only the Which herself or #WarlockBubba would do that. Now that it has been explained to you, do you still consider it a violation of the First Amendment and a dirty trick, or has it somehow now become a virtuous act?

All the tinfoil crackpot conspiracy theories true

[Anonymous Coward]

Well close to it,...........

They continue to censor hashtags in the name of "anti-harassment" the /extreme/* SJW's continue to dox people, harass them, incite having people be fired. Fools like WilW promote his shared blocklist which censors 11,000 people (As someone who got on that list for a single, very harmless tweet, I assure you, his list is ridiculous as is the concept of sharing a blocklist, thereby getting blocked by hundreds of others you've never interacted with, because "groupthink!!")
Continually hashtags are suppressed with auto-completion not working or not being listed as trending topics.
The /extreme/* SJW's continue to get away with lies / libel / hypocrisy, if you disagree with them or say "god you're an idiot" the return will be "did you just say you hate niggers and threaten to rape me?!" they (/extreme/* SJW's) continue to misrepresent what people say and HATE being disagreed with.

The PRIMARY message of SJW's, overall is one of being nice, not racist, not sexist and so on. Therefore of course debating with them, it's easily implied you're against those things. Problem is the /extreme/* SJW's hijack the cause and take it to extremes. Censoring debate of any kind.

I wish I'd never discovered any of this but the more I look into it, the worse it gets, these people are smart, they build contacts within communities in the name of "anti-harassment" and helping, once they have their teeth in, they control what's being discussed. Anything that doesn't fit the status quo, in almost any capacity "must be harassment and needs to go"

* NOTE: I have the /common fucking sense/ to not label ALL SJW's as extremist loonatics, MANY of them are perfectly normal, nice, people who just want a bit of equality, the bad ones, using bad methods are the problem here. I am capable of distinguishing the fact that "not all SJW's" are loonies. It's a real shame that the loony SJW's don't have the common sense to stop claiming "all men are rapists" or any other such thing.
(I hate to bring up gamergate, but as someone who has spent a fair amount of time reading on this, it's incredible how much vitriol has been spit at this group, with only a small fraction of them being dicks, don't let that stop a HUGE group of people and the media endlessly claim that it's 100% without question internet misogyny terrorism of the highest order though)

Anonymous post again unfortunately, lest someone tryu and get me fired or arrested.
(and the fact I feel compelled to post anonymously is a real issue on this, especially since "they don't harass" ...)