Twitter Is Limiting the Visibility of Prominent Republicans In Search Results (vice.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from VICE News: Twitter is limiting the visibility of prominent Republicans in search results -- a technique known as "shadow banning" -- in what it says is a side effect of its attempts to improve the quality of discourse on the platform. The Republican Party chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.'s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It's a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform -- and it's the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search, but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Democrats are not being "shadow banned" in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel's counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress -- including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan -- all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same situation in Twitter's search. Presented with screenshots of the searches, a Twitter spokesperson told VICE News: "We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box and shipping a change to address this." Asked why only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats, the spokesperson wrote: "I'd emphasize that our technology is based on account *behavior* not the content of Tweets."

Comments

Please for the love of god

[ArchieBunker]

Someone with top level DNS control route twitter.com to 127.0.0.1. I'm pretty sure violence would drop and IQ points would bump up.

Re:Please for the love of god

[msauve]

Also, the Bookface.

But more seriously, much of the problem is that people tend to only view "news" which supports their existing world view, which exacerbates the problem. Redirecting to localhost can do nothing but amplify that.

Why can't we be friends? Seems to me that regardless of which "side" you're on, government and politics is more of a problem than a solution. Live and let live.

Re:Please for the love of god

[ShanghaiBill]

Live and let live.

"Live and let live" is itself a political viewpoint, and not a very popular one. The Libertarian Party which espouses that philosophy gets about 1% of the vote.

Re:Please for the love of god

[hcs_$reboot]

Someone with top level DNS control route twitter.com to 127.0.0.1.

Yes, I've always dreamed to run my own twitter server!

Re:Please for the love of god

[hcs_$reboot]

There's no place like 127.0.0.1

Re: Please for the love of god

[Anonymous Coward]

More like "live and let die".

Re:Please for the love of god

[zifn4b]

Really? That just shows how ignorant you are about the values of Libertarianism. It values "Liberty" aka personal freedoom, aka:

- Land of the FREE, home of the brave
- Sweet land of LIBERTY
- With LIBERTY and justice for all
- Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness

Liberty baked into all the founding doctrines, songs and pledges of this country thanks to people like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. You should be thankful for Thomas Jefferson otherwise you might currently be in another Theocratic Collective like the one we ran from except this time founded on the values of the Quakers and the Puritans. How fun would that be? You remember why we fled England (more specifically the Church of England) right?

Before you go bashing a system of thought, at least educate yourself on what the belief system really is instead of just regurgitating memes about it. Then, if you still are still critical of things like freedom and liberty and think the state should control everything or some other form of collectivism, at least we can have a rational, logical and factual conversation about it.

Re:Please for the love of god

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was the CONSERVATIVES that resisted the end of slavery."

FTFY.

Nope, it was people that had no financial incentives to continue slavery, and a few people who were morally, and religiously opposed to it.

If you are making the incorrect assumption that the because Lincoln was a member of the Republican Party, he was therefore a conservative, you are extrapolating modern political terms and alignment to the past, which isn't correct.
It is like saying the Nazi's were liberals. True the Nazi's had Socialist as part of their name, but they formed a government with the german conservative party, who thought they could control the Nazi's.

In fact, I have a hard time determining what the word conservative means anymore. It certainly doesn't mean limited government, because conservatives continue to pass laws that increase the size of the government, and its interference in the lives of people. It certainly isn't for fiscal responsibility, because the tax law that was passed puts a massive hole in the federal budget, and will never pay for itself, despite the fantasy that the supply sider, Lafler curve spewing propagandists say. Low taxes, it depends on who you are, if you are super rich then yes. If you are anyone else, then you are going pay much more. Most of the conservative states have shifted their tax burdens to Fees, and consumption taxes, which of course shifts the tax burden to people based on the ratio of income to spending which shifts the tax burden regressively to the poor.

Re:Please for the love of god

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm... Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. Democrats widely supported slavery at the time.

I guess you can play the name game and say conservatives wanted to keep the status quo and liberals/progressives wanted to change, but you are applying modern terms to an event far in the past. The comparisons really don't hold up.

Re:Please for the love of god

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives?

13th Amendment: Abolished Slavery
100% Republican Support
23% Democrat Support

14th Amendment:
Gave Citizenship to Freed Slaves
94% Republican Support
0% Democrat Support

Re:Please for the love of god

[Sir_Eptishous]

Accuse your opponents of doing the bad things you are actually doing.

This is straight out of the Trump playbook, but you already knew that.

Re:Please for the love of god

[Sir_Eptishous]

I always get a kick out of conservatives(are there any left...? They've all morphed into authoritarians) who quote Rush, and try to imply Neil Pearts love affair with Ayn Rand in the mid 70s supports their neo-fascist world view. Hilarious, and utterly fucked.

Any true Rush fan who has read Neils interviews down through the years(and the lyrics since early 80s) knows his thinking has changed in that area. How about the lyrics from the Power Windows-Hold Your Fire albums, or Test for Echo or Clockwork Angels. Your worn out copy of Atlas Shrugged is about as relevant and inspirational as a pair of over worn and unwashed socks.

It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Aereus]

I'm sure they already know this, but the algorithm isn't designed to trip up GOP politicians. It says a lot more about how they choose to phrase their message and talk about issues, than any agenda seeking to silence them on Twitter.

When what you post is designed to be inflammatory and lower discourse and a system designed to combat that properly flags it, maybe its working as intended and you should look inwards? No matter where you stand, there are good and bad ways to engage in discourse. On all topics, with all points of view.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh really? And Maxine Waters is still visible? Perhaps YOU prefer how she expresses her views and what she encourages - along with the twit platform?
Were you really hoping that someone would buy that ludicrous explanation you provided?

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Anonymous Coward]

I donâ(TM)t care if he had an affair either. He has had lots. However with timing of the payment to silence the girl could make this a violation of campaign finance laws. That makes this a serious matter that does matter. Remember, Clinton was not impeached for having an affair but for possible perjury â" in a civil case.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[skids]

Who gives a flying fu*c?

It's quite obvious his supporters don't. They'll tell you he's a "flawed vessel" and they only put up with him for the policy and judicial appointments.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that if the only people who will support your policies and judicial appointments are rat bastards, maybe something is wrong with your policies and judicial appointments.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[steveb3210]

He said he didn't have an affair. He told us it was a made up story. Then we saw with our own eyes and ears evidence that in fact what he said didn't happen actually did. This is called a "lie" and some people prefer not to be lied to.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Anonymous Coward]

People have come to accept the hard fact that this is about the best you're going to get if you're looking for a politician who will take a stand against globalism and the TPTB.

Politics is a shitty game. Those in power will seek to keep everyone who won't keep them in power, out of power. You typically have to play the game in order to rise in the ranks. They'll weed out decent people, as those folks are a threat to their ill-gotten income and power. The game is rigged to require establishment support or money in order to play. The wild cards are the independent billionaires like Perot and Trump. Perot got death threats and dropped out. Trump's ego allowed him to persist.

Yeah, he's a "flawed vessel". Unfortunately, all of the alternatives were worse. To fix this system requires a complete reset. Cleaning out everyone in power and staring fresh in some manner that doesn't allow money to corrupt it. Good luck.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Mashiki]

So, can you explain why this has happened to Judicial Watch then? The only thing "inflammatory and lower the discourse" is that they bring forth embarrassing or criminal acts by the legal system or those in charge of it.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Jane Q. Public]

I'm sure they already know this, but the algorithm isn't designed to trip up GOP politicians. It says a lot more about how they choose to phrase their message and talk about issues, than any agenda seeking to silence them on Twitter. When what you post is designed to be inflammatory and lower discourse and a system designed to combat that properly flags it, maybe its working as intended and you should look inwards? No matter where you stand, there are good and bad ways to engage in discourse. On all topics, with all points of view.

Utter nonsense. This has been going on for a year, and only now mainstream media is picking up on it.

It's ridiculously simple, man: you simply tell your algorithm that the opposing view is "inflammatory" and there you go.

The bias has been very clear to anyone who uses Twitter on a regular basis.

It also appears in their appeal and complaint processes.

Anyone who thinks Twitter is unbiased either doesn't know Twitter, or is lying.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[quantaman]

I'm sure they already know this, but the algorithm isn't designed to trip up GOP politicians. It says a lot more about how they choose to phrase their message and talk about issues, than any agenda seeking to silence them on Twitter.

When what you post is designed to be inflammatory and lower discourse and a system designed to combat that properly flags it, maybe its working as intended and you should look inwards? No matter where you stand, there are good and bad ways to engage in discourse. On all topics, with all points of view.

That was my first thought but her account didn't really seem that bad.

I suspect the problem is that prominent racists try to avoid saying things that are obviously racist, so there's a lot of subtext and "draw the obvious conclusion" posts that are so hard for an algorithm to reliably flag as racist that you might as well not bother.

So how do you find those prominent racists to shadow ban? Well the trick is that there's a bunch of other racists who are so guarded in their language and are really easy for an algorithm to flag as racist.

So you steal a page from PageRank and realize that if a whole bunch of obvious racists are constantly retweeting someone in a positive context then you've probably found a prominent racist.

The problem that happened here is that White Supremacists really like Trump and the job of the GOP Chairwoman is to promote and defend Trump.

So all of her pro-Trump tweets are now getting retweeted by obvious White Supremacists and indicating to Twitter that she's some prominent White Supremacist, hence the shadow-ban.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[ShoulderOfOrion]

No it doesn't matter. Clinton's "impeachment" by Congress for playing cigar-the-intern was political theater that went nowhere and backfired on the Republicans. The same would be true in reverse for any attempt to impeach Trump for banging around, paying off mistresses and lying about it so Melania won't find out (and of course she knew about it anyway). Violations of campaign finance laws are the equivalent of speeding 5 over on the Interstate--everyone does it, hardly anyone gets convicted, and the most you get is a small fine. Congress (and the so-called news media that covers them) should really consider working on more pressing issues, like maybe doing something about out-of-control health care costs, revamping the immigration system, putting social security on solid footing--you know, all the stuff we actually elect them to fix.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[fafalone]

And I don't believe for one minute a Democratic president caught lying about an affair wouldn't be covered in the press. They want clicks, and that's way too juicy to lose out on the clicks to the right-media side, where any claim they wouldn't cover the other teams dirty laundry should be met with uproarious laughter.

Besides, depending on how the payments were structured and timed, there is absolute concern regarding campaign finance laws, which you don't get to break simply because it's a personal affair before holding office, and *any* potential crime by a president is big news, even at the 'it may or may not have been a violation and we're looking into it' stage.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[fafalone]

Sanders would be well positioned to win. But if he doesn't run, or (just as likely) the party tips the scales to force nominate another widely despised candidate like Warren, Harris, or god f'ing forbid Hillary again, all of whom they continue to insist can only possibly be opposed on the grounds of their genitals, and not their right-wing economics/pro-corporate positions, supporting abridgements of rights and due process in the name of national security, platforms heavy on identity politics pushing enhanced rights for a few while light on traditional liberal values like advancing civil rights and criminal justice reform for all*, and all the other wonderful positions that made Democrats stay home in such record numbers that we got Trump... yeah in that case it's going to be Trump 2020.

* - Not all of these apply to all of them; and in a previous thread after what someone else said I had retracted a complaint about this point in particular being applied to Warren; but I now reinstate it, based on her positions on identity politics issues being front and center, her positions on civil rights/criminal justice being harder to track down with only vague positions on her official platform, many of which seem to support large increases to custodial sentences for high level financial crimes better addressed through massive fines, then a pro-police organization proudly touting its awful legislative accomplishments which suggests a moderate with 64% rating (NAPO). Also on the natsec issue, she seems to only oppose the bulk collection PATRIOT Act provisions, and has not condemned its other terrible provisions (that I can find), so it's a yes to this category too.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[hai_Priesty]

While I don't know USA politics well enough to comment on this said politician, I seconded the sentiment. It appears to me there either is a lopsided algorithm (rules are set by humans after all and their bias can manifest unintentionally) or selective enforcement of rules after tweets have been flagged, or both. It may not even be Democrats vs Republicans but on based on ideal "values".

Otherwise, I don't comprehend why #K|||AllWhitePeople tweets are deemed okay (or at least for a good time being while it trended) but someone called a hunky female celeb a "dude" in the heat of their personal quarrel, and the said party gets banned permanently.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Mashiki]

Remember Leland Yee? No? He was a democrat that went out of his way to decry and try to ban violent video games. Know what's special about that? Nothing really, until he was caught trying to illegally sell military hardware to gangs in California, illegally smuggled into the US from SEA. That's still not the interesting part, the interesting part is that the media went out of their way to avoid labeling him with his party affiliation.

On the other hand, let's take Roy Moore is always labeled with republican. And that type of lie-by-omission has been going on for quite a while.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[The Cynical Critic]

Considering there's loads of left wingers who use the same kind of inflammatory language and pretty much exactly the exact same playbook that got Milo Yiannpolis (spelling?) banned and very rarely see any kinds of consequences for it I'm going to call bullshit on your assertion. They don't even have a problem with far-left publications and groups like It's Going Down despite promoting things like arson, violence during protests and trying to cause train derailments by sabotaging the rails.

Don't get me wrong, being a privately owned platform they've got every right to exclude whoever they want to, but at least they should be honest about who they're trying exclude and whose voice they're trying to tone down. I still wouldn't use the platform regardless if they were open about their biases and/or stopped being partisan, but that's just more reasons not to use a platform that has pretty much engineered any intellectual and/or in-depth conversations out of itself.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Opportunist]

You should remember that Clinton's impeachment was for lying, while in office.

If that was true, we could as well fence off capitol hill and declare it a prison. Less work.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Mashiki]

Problem though, about half of the republicans are RINO's owned by corporate handlers via donations. It's actually far worse among the democrats these days, don't believe me? Just look at which group is doing what. Republicans trying to push out RINO's are in the neighborhoods, asking what people want. They're challenging incumbents, that's good, and they're winning too. But look at the mess with democrats, some are running off to hollywood interests to have them craft their message. Some are simply ignoring challenges(one reason why Ocasio-Cortez won despite her pro-commie message), and some are simply ignoring the race believing that they'll win because pollsters are saying "blue wave." They're so out of touch that they think they don't even need to worry about it.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Opportunist]

So they're still the party of NO.

Well, they are after all a conservative party, and conservatives should be about consistency, so....

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Opportunist]

Honest politicians are a bit like unicorns. There's been lots of talk about it but so far none have surfaced.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[lessthan]

Come on, do your research.

Obamacare did limit healthcare cost growth, until the individual mandate was repealed. Socialized medicine would control those costs even more effectively. Every other developed country in the world does universal healthcare. They also have an average of 10 years higher life expectancies.

Compassion does not equal "open borders." We have always been a nation of immigrants (where the ones who have been here long enough to forget they were immigrants are racist against the new generation). Chain migration is just a cruel way of saying family migration. Put yourself in your own shoes. In a zombie apocalypse, if you could decide what family to save (limited to parents, spouses, siblings, and children), is there any you would be willing to leave behind?

The social security thing is too twisted an issue to address. As far as I can tell, it was designed to be "raided." The money is converted to government bonds and the government spends the money on stuff it wants, including current Social Security payments. If we continue to make money as a country (or raise our debt ceiling), the bonds are paid back. I am not a fan of this, but seeing how fiscally irresponsible the Republicans are, I would not want them making decisions about my Social Security anyway.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[ganjadude]

ummm you might want to check your math

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[dave420]

True, but seeing as the US is in spot #31 on that list and spends more tax-payers money on health per capita than any country above it, you can see something is inherently wrong with healthcare in the US.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[kilfarsnar]

Oh really? And Maxine Waters is still visible? Perhaps YOU prefer how she expresses her views and what she encourages - along with the twit platform? Were you really hoping that someone would buy that ludicrous explanation you provided?

Maybe you should buy Twitter, and then it will behave the way you want it to. Isn't private ownership great?

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[rogoshen1]

No. They do exist, they just never survive the primaries.

Just like moderates.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[ichimunki]

You cucks keep saying that if Hillary runs again that Trump will win for sure... I love that. I think she is a lying crooked scumbag almost to the same level as he is, but after a few years of Trump being president even I'd have to take a long hard look at being willing to vote for her to keep him from being re-elected. At least she'll appoint a handful of cabinet members who aren't complete shitheads and would nominate people for the Supreme Court that I could get behind. She did win the popular vote after all and only lost the EC by a slim margin (in terms of a few states that were very close). The only reason Trump won, and the only reason Republicans have a majority in the House is because of that ultimate gerrymander known as the Electoral College-- which is a holdover from wanting to give slave owners an "equal" say in the federal government. I get that there may not have been a federal government without this compromise, but the EC is a clear subversion of the will of the People from a time when most of the actual people in the USA weren't even allowed to vote.

The fact that Donald Trump managed to wrangle the Republican nomination in the first place is a clear sign that said party is a complete mess. If Dotard's friends in Russia hadn't managed to hack the DNC and get all those incriminatory emails out, I'm guessing that more voters would have turned out for Hillary. But now, instead of just the vague threat that Chump will win we have his actual record to think about. I have to think that the more apathetic left-leaning voters in 2016 stayed home because they didn't think it would matter-- the polls all showed Hillary winning. The idea that the Orange Buffoon would win seemed farfetched. But now? Even Hillary could probably win in 2020.

Of course, I hope she doesn't seek the nomination and that if she does that the Democrats choose someone else. They need some fresh faces at the forefront. They would do well, in my opinion, to pick some relatively unknown person with a zero-controversy background and fairly left-wing bona fides in terms of policy ideas. Of course, it would be sort of fun to see them run Warren. She would drive Trump insane. He'd be incapable of speech other than babbling the word "Pocahontas" incessantly.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[amiga3D]

Limit whose healthcare costs? It doubled my premiums and copays and more than doubled my catastrophic limit. The only people that made out from the Ocare fiasco were the Insurance companies. They got f*cking rich as always. Remember all those closed door committee meetings in Congress with Insurance Reps? That was us being sold out. Massive damage to help a minimum number of people with the Insurance companies reaping massive rewards.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[cyberchondriac]

Then why is Maxine Waters still visible, even after she called for physical violence among other things? How about Bill Maher, who suggested we might deliberately need to tank the economy (hurting millions of families)? Double standards.
Are you seriously suggesting there is a lack of vitriol and hatred from the Left, or that everything they claim is true and never false or spun into a half-truth?
Especially considering this happened to Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida right after his heated exchange with Twitter executives in from of the Judiciary committee, that's an interesting coincidence.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Daetrin]

Republicans trying to push out RINO's are in the neighborhoods, asking what people want. They're challenging incumbents, that's good, and they're winning too.

But look at the mess with democrats [...] Some are simply ignoring challenges(one reason why Ocasio-Cortez won despite her pro-commie message)

So if a Republican challenges an incumbent by communicating locally with a message that resonates with people it's a good thing and part of the fight against corruption. But if a Democrat does the same thing it's a mess and really it only happened because the incumbent was incompetent and entirely despite the fact that they had a different message?

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[strikethree]

The social security thing is too twisted an issue to address.

Back in the early 80s, Congress was so very very upset about having a hundred billion dollars just sitting there doing nothing. Those billions were money that was paid into Social Security. Well, Congress decided to "fix" that real fast. Now, instead of Social Security being paid out of the money that was paid in, they spend the money that is paid in and tell everyone that the people who deserve Social Security are a drain on the budget. *sigh*

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[dcw3]

The fact that only 7% of journalists identify themselves as conservatives (according to Washington Post...you can google it) should give you an idea of what does and doesn't get reported.

Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it

[amicusNYCL]

To put it simply, the problem with health care in the US is that there is a profit motive for people being sick. For-profit health care is a pretty sick concept.

You can see it by comparing the dollars per capita in health care. The US spends the most of any nation per capita for health care, mostly because our private expenses are sometimes triple other countries. Then you look at the total health care quality by country, and the US is something like 18th or 19th on that list. So, when you combine those, and consider that we are paying more than anyone else to barely be ranked in the top 20, our "health care quality per dollar" puts us barely within the top 40 countries. So we're getting less and spending more for it, and the reason is because there are so many people making money on this and there are so many laws in place to make sure that they keep making money and so many politicians who have been purchased to make sure the status quo stays like this. Polls from last year show that over 60% of Americans want universal health care in the US, the reason why those laws haven't been passed is because of the amount of money that pharmaceutical and insurance companies spend on "lobbying" in the US.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[asdfman2000]

Maybe you should buy Twitter, and then it will behave the way you want it to. Isn't private ownership great?

Today I learned publicly traded "private" businesses are supposed to be immune to criticism from anyone but billionaires. Good to know.

Please drop some more insightful commentary on us.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[dcw3]

Because it doesn't take a brain to be a journalist, nor to claim others are whining.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[amicusNYCL]

It's ridiculously simple, man: you simply tell your algorithm that the opposing view is "inflammatory" and there you go.

Man, that really is simple. "Computer, censor the view point that opposes my own." I didn't realize that programming had come so far, that's pretty impressive.

Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

You said "Its long been a tactic of the right to equate anyone who expresses disagreement with their extremism as extremists themselves", which was clearly the portion of the comment I was replying to, especially since I said I don't think Maxine Waters is an extremist. I'm not right-wing, nor am I a snowflake.

I don't think we should be tolerant of Nazis. But there's undeniably a tendency of the modern Left to misuse the label for dramatic effect.

Dog Whistling

[rsilvergun]

See here if you don't know what it means. It's why we call women on food stamps "Welfare Queens"; e..g the word Queen was associated with Black woman and homosexuals, both bugaboos of the right.

These folks are getting banned because they've tip toed a little too close to outright racism and white supremacy. The Dems aren't being Shadow banned because, well, they don't have to use tricks to talk about their message (when they have one that is, the right wing of the party's only message so far has been that we should all feel bad for electing Trump so pretty please vote for us even though we're going to keep doing the same crap that Trump does economically only with more labor imports).

Seriously, our media needs to stop giving equal time to both sides. At a certain point both sides are not bad. One side is legitimately wrong. 20 years ago we figured out that trickle down economics doesn't work yet somehow we forgot that when the name changed to "Supply Side" and Laffer kept shopping around his curve. The result is a tax cut that's gone 86% to the top 1% and is going to cause rampant inflation when the treasury raises interest rates to offset the over reving to the economy that dumping $1 trillion supply side caused. Where the hell is the media to call the Republicans out on this? Oh yeah, they're owned by the same guys who got the tax cut...

Re:Dog Whistling

[hyades1]

In other words, some less obedient hounds are finally paying attention to the right wing's dog whistle.

Re:Dog Whistling

[Mashiki]

So it's only "racism" if you're the person able to hear it then. Which of course is the entire premise behind the person who coined the phrase. That only the "woke" people are able to hear it because they're so special at being able to. What's that called kiddies? That's right! It's a purity spiral.

The Dems aren't being Shadow banned because, well, they don't have to use tricks to talk about their message

They don't? Oh boy did you miss 8 years of Obama or something. Or it could be, because the people who are banning them disagree with the message, because democrats and progressives are in a running purity spiral to show who has the most "pure" view. Of course, since that changes on a day-to-day basis, a person who's view is sufficiently pure or woke, can be tomorrows non-person. You only need to watch the DNC leadership debates for example, or various state level debates to see just how far this goes. Or the "woke" twitter mobs that have been going after peoples jobs for jokes like dongles, off-colour jokes, or wearing a shirt that they don't like.

Seriously, our media needs to stop giving equal time to both sides

Nice authoritarianism there, very nice. Wonder why people are fleeing the democrats and progressives yet? Anyone else remember when the left prided themselves on free speech, and equal points of view? Well it has been 30 odd years.

At a certain point both sides are not bad. One side is legitimately wrong.

Well people sure got a taste of what 8 years of progressive politics and hand wringing got them, it looks like they really didn't enjoy it. It also people don't particularly like the whole wokeness that the left are pushing with identity politics either.

Re:Dog Whistling

[fafalone]

You're trying to mix in legitimate complaints to dilute the fact that both sides really aren't always equal and that 'alternative facts' are not of equal merit to real facts. Let's start with that phrases origin; that Trump's inauguration crowd was bigger than Obamas... that's patently, objectively false, and the administrations 'alternative fact' stating otherwise should not be given equal weight. The position that humans don't influence climate change does not have equal merit, nor deserve equal time, to the administrations position that it doesn't (or that it's good, depending on that days version). The position that the tax cut wasn't predominantly a giant giveaway to the rich who received the lions share of the benefits is also an objectively false claim, not just another 'opinion' or 'alternative fact' that should be given equal time and weight. On occasion, there's a case like this that falls to the right; but let's not pretend they're not much more reliant on falsehoods to advance their agenda.
And you know what else stinks of authoritarianism? Labeling the free press the enemy of the people. Threatening to retaliate against critics. Using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to advocate companies fire your political enemies. Supporting civil asset forfeiture and ending inquiries and consent agreements related to police civil rights abuse. Strong authoritarianism is a trait shared among both major parties.

Re:Dog Whistling

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's not a free press. It's a corrupt press that openly supported Hillary and did everything they did to get her elected. The Democrats ordered the press to give coverage to Trump. The press obeyed. Wikileaks confirms, we have hard evidence. Is that a free press? It's something rotten at the heart of our society and it absolutely should be fought.

Re:Dog Whistling

[Mashiki]

Less ranting, I'll give you a chance to rewrite that first paragraph so it doesn't make my brain hurt from the insanity you just wrote.

And you know what else stinks of authoritarianism? Labeling the free press the enemy of the people. Threatening to retaliate against critics.

Nope. Authoritarianism would be shutting down the press, labeling it as an enemy of the public isn't. That's opinion, whether you like it or not. Want to know what was real authoritarianism against the press? When the Obama administration illegally wiretapped reporters phones, and used the intelligence apparatus to read their emails without a warrant. I'm sure you were jumping up and down screaming about this. In this case, anyone who isn't drinking koolaid already knows that the US press is compromised and comprised of people on the left, or far left. They don't wear it on their sleeves, they're shouting it from the rooftop. Don't believe me? That's okay. Even WAPO figured it out a few years ago, when they found that 96% of the reporters in the beltway were democrats, who donated to democrats, and wrote their stories nearly exclusively with a pro-democrat slant. And of course, there's also stuff from wikileaks for example. Of all those reporters taking DNC talking points/stories and publishing them directly or handing off their articles to people in the DNC to make sure they didn't paint them in a bad light. Strange that there seems to be a lack of that from the RNC isn't it?

Let me make this clear, this isn't the "sinclair broadcasting message" type of abuse. That was shit. Having reporters, hand off information to and from a political party in order to craft the "right kind" of message though? That's what's killing the media.

Using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to advocate companies fire your political enemies.

Sorry, I can't find any articles on that about Trump.

Supporting civil asset forfeiture and ending inquiries and consent agreements related to police civil rights abuse. Strong authoritarianism is a trait shared among both major parties.

You're not really going to get any huge complaints from me on civil asset forfeiture. But considering the previous president used those inquiries in order to strong arm police forces into not arresting people who committed violent crimes? You sure you want to go down this path and all that? Besides, you've got your body cameras now, which of course black activist groups are now screeching are a "civil rights violation" and all that.

Re:Dog Whistling

[AmiMoJo]

The Dems aren't being Shadow banned because, well, they don't have to use tricks to talk about their message

They don't? Oh boy did you miss 8 years of Obama or something.

This is such a bizarre non-sequitur I just wanted to highlight it as a perfect example of the bizarre world Mashiki lives in. I don't know how logic works there, it seems like saying "Obama" or "her emails" is some kind of rational argument in that universe.

Re:Dog Whistling

[Mashiki]

So... You think I voted for communists? I think there is still a British communist party but they didn't stand in my area.

Didn't say that. I said you voted for a boot to the neck, the only party not promoting that in the UK, is UKIP.

Specifically who do you think are communists in British politics?

Well Labor sure isn't short of it these days, they've even got the anti-semitism of the old(USSR) days running in the party to boot. So are you saying that you no longer want to leave the UK, and impose communism in the new host country you want to move to?

Re:Dog Whistling

[AmiMoJo]

Give us a specific example of Obama being racially divisive. An actual quote and a citation of where it comes from.

Re:Dog Whistling

[sabbede]

I've noticed that the only people who seem to hear these supposed "Right Wing Dog Whistles", are on the Left. That's a big problem if these dog whistles are supposed to be secret messages to the Right, because not only are they being intercepted, they aren't recognized by the intended recipients.

This is a rather strong indicator that what the Left calls the Right's "dog whistles", are in fact misrepresentations of statements by GOP politicians. Whether this misrepresentation is the product of blinding prejudice against the Right or intentional deception is not something I know.

Re:Dog Whistling

[Shotgun]

We're not sure what happened, but it appears the police acted stupidly.

Re:"our technology is based on account *behavior*"

[ScentCone]

Specifically what behavior?

Insufficiently doing what Nancy Pelosi says to do.

Re:Really poorly written article

[viperidaenz]

Private companies can do what they want.
However, they should also not lie to the public.
When they say "We are transparent about our political activity and contributions." and "We believe in free expression and think every voice has the power to impact the world.", yet they are "shadow banning" members of a single political party, things don't add up.

Quotes can be found here: https://about.twitter.com/en_u...

Re: So Slashdot got bought by Fox News?

[Anonymous Coward]

We read Slashdot from flyover country. Its not a liberal thang!

No, it's the content

[Okian Warrior]

I'm sure they already know this, but the algorithm isn't designed to trip up GOP politicians. It says a lot more about how they choose to phrase their message and talk about issues, than any agenda seeking to silence them on Twitter.

When what you post is designed to be inflammatory and lower discourse and a system designed to combat that properly flags it, maybe its working as intended and you should look inwards? No matter where you stand, there are good and bad ways to engage in discourse. On all topics, with all points of view.

Facebook blocked the political ads of Florida state representative Matt Caldwell, whose ad depicts Caldwell shooting a shotgun and talking about his support of the Second Amendment.

Everything about this ad was legal, appropriate, and not offensive in a violent, lurid, or sexual way. There was no innuendo or intent to deceive.

It's not "how they choose to phrase their message", it's the content, plain and simple.

Gun ownership has enough support in this nation to be a political issue that can be discussed, debated, and decided by the people.

If you are against gun ownership that's fine, but the political issue is legal and we should be talking about it.

Facebook is undermining the political process, the same way that the Russians did in *your* election.

Why does Facebook have to choose political sides at all?

Why can't their rules for allowed opinion be non political?

Re:No, it's the content

[SirAstral]

You have only fallen into his trap. You cannot allow yourself to be put on the defensive. You automatically lose. Instead go after his message.

When they make the claim, it's not what you said, it's how you said it... take a break. They just admitted that you are right but they still cannot let it stand because as Jim Carrey said to the judge in "Liar Liar"

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge Stevens: And why is that, Mr. Reede?
Fletcher: It's devastating to my case!

The truth is not the objective, controlling the narrative and using any excuse to marginalize what you said is. So in short, just being in favor of the 2nd Amendment means that no matter what or how you say it... you have already run afoul of their content filters.

Re:No, it's the content

[ShanghaiBill]

Facebook is undermining the political process, the same way that the Russians did in *your* election.

False equivalence. The Russians didn't censor anybody.

Re:No, it's the content

[pots]

First, and I can't believe I have to say this, Twitter is not Facebook. This isn't hard, it's right there in the name.

Second, Matt Caldwell is not Ronna McDaniel, or Donald Trump Jr.'s spokesman, or any of the prominent Republicans mentioned in the article.

Third, Facebook (which is not Twitter), apologized for misflagging Caldwell's ad and had it back up within hours of his complaint.

Fourth, Facebook’s advertising policy states that ads cannot “promote the sale or use of weapons, ammunition, or explosives." It's not hard to see why a political ad featuring a man shooting a gun and saying that he likes guns might be flagged for further review, with the idea that it could be promoting the use of weapons.

So not only are you lambasting Facebook for a minor mistake, you're using that mistake, Facebook's mistake regarding Matt Caldwell, as a counter to the grandparent's explanation of Twitter's treatment of a bunch of people who are not Matt Caldwell. And the glue that joins these two unrelated events together for you seems to be nothing but a persecution complex.

The grandparent argued that these people who Twitter has shadowbanned might have not been delisted for their content, but rather for the inflammatory nature of their rhetoric. I don't know whether this is true, but you have provided a wonderful example of inflammatory rhetoric.

Re:No, it's the content

[pots]

That is not the topic at hand. The ad was flagged for potentially violating their advertising policy, and ultimately reinstated when they determined that it did not violate that policy. This thread about Twitter is not the place to discuss the merits of Facebook's advertising policy.

For the record, there are many many examples of legal things which companies ban anyway. Pornography, which is perfectly legal, is banned with far greater ubiquity than guns are, and not because companies are trying to make some kind of political statement. If you can't think of a legitimate commercial reason why a company might ban guns, or pornography, or alcohol, or coming onto the premises without a shirt and shoes, even where those things are legal, and you instead just decide that it must be a big persecution conspiracy... then you are making the same lazy assumption that the parent made.

Re:Fake

[ScentCone]

I typed in the names of all the "shadow banned" people and they auto-populated into the drop down just fine and I don't follow any of them.

That's not how it works. Follow them, and then notice that even when they post stuff ... you don't see it. That's why this is so skullduggerous.

Of course they are

[DNS-and-BIND]

Twitter's CEO retweeted this article and commented "Great read". https://archive.fo/I5WqT

The next time you call for bipartisan cooperation in America and long for Republicans and Democrats to work side by side, stop it.

The best way to understand politics in America today is to reframe it as closer to civil war.

Why would Twitter want to help the enemy? When you consider your own people "enemy", then things are very far gone. Twitter is the de facto public square these days and having it under the control of the Left is going to turn out badly for everyone.

Re:Liberals

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the Russian retards are out in force tonight.

Only conservative Republicans affected

[Tough Love]

...the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility... only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats

Hmm, any chance there could be a causal relationship?

Re:Only conservative Republicans affected

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit - he was never a racist - he actually won award from people like Jessie Jackson for service to the black community.

If you think preferring 'legal' immigration to 'illegal' immigration is racist, you're part of that (crazy) problem.

Re:Only conservative Republicans affected

[cascadingstylesheet]

...the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility... only conservative Republicans appear to be affected and not liberal Democrats

Hmm, any chance there could be a causal relationship?

Your banning of your political opponents is itself proof that they are magically guilty of your own allegations?

Nice work if you can get it ...

Re:Liberals

[superwiz]

Where do you see it? Looking over your shoulder, AC?

The Internet...

[Karmashock]

""The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.""

The issue on top of everything else is that these people don't even have the courage to admit they've done it until they're caught red handed.

Shadow banning is inherently slimey. I've never seen a need for it.

If someone is out of control or breaking the terms of service then you ban them or whatever. Everything out in the open and above board.

But doing in such a way that they don't even know they were banned?

Slime.

Any admin that does that is slime.

Yes, I know the argument of "what if they make a million sock accounts and keep spamming whatever?"... This is basically an argument of laziness. It also says something about your account creation process.

There are a million ways to address the problem. Account tiers that mature over time for example deals with the problem. You could have low level accounts put at the bottom of discussions and higher level accounts put at the top. Have the tier be based entirely on seniority thus accounts that are made and destroyed every two seconds won't impact the community because they'll only be noticed most of the time after they've been around for some time.

The rate of maturation can be set at whatever rate the admins can keep up with... is a week long enough? A month? A year?

And that's just ONE of a dozen different solutions that is more honest and forthright than a shadowban.

...the only winning move is not to play

[Opportunist]

Frankly, whenever a political "discussion" (not so much in the classical sense of an exchange of ideas and debate, more akin to a Jerry Springer show) happens here on /., the only thing you can sensibly do is grab a bag of popcorn and watch both sides of the fence yell increasingly ridiculous bullshit at each other, and enjoy the growing amusement of how The Party managed to trick the population into going at each other's throat instead of addressing the problem.

The only thing that comes to my mind when it comes to US politics is this song.

c'mon

[cascadingstylesheet]

Does the /. zeitgeist even have a pulse anymore?

You know it's wrong, even if it favors your political tribe. Really, you do know it.

Re:Thanks for my favorite bias example

[werepants]

I think slashdot ate them as part of the "undo moderation" prompt.

Here:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/0...
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16...

Also, what's "ironic" about broken links in this context? Are you sure you understand the word?

When the party in question is promoting racism

[rsilvergun]

and violence then yeah, they do add up.

Alex Jones is a good example. He constantly talks about how evil George Soros is for being a billionaire but funny how he never calls the Koch brother's out. It is not a coincidence that Soros is Jewish. He talked about a left leaning political pundit drinking baby blood. It just so happens that again, the pundit is Jewish (blood libel). I've already given you the welfare queen example. And don't get me stated on "Some of them are good people"

If you want to be really scared look into some of the far right religious whack jobs that hang with our VP. They're Dominionists. That sounds harmless until you find out what it is. They want the Christian version of Sharia law and to take over the earth. When they talk about Holy Wars they are not speaking metaphorically...

I'm sorry, but there just comes a time to call a spade a spade. The Republican party has been openly cozying up with neo Nazis, white supremacists and hard right authoritarians. It's our media's job to call them out on it and so far they've shirked that responsibility in exchange for tax cuts for their corporate masters. Face it, you got sold out.