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

[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]

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[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

[AmiMoJo]

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

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...

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

[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:Liberals

[Anonymous Coward]

I see the Russian retards are out in force tonight.

...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.

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.