Slashdot Mirror


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."

23 of 726 comments (clear)

  1. Please for the love of god by ArchieBunker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Please for the love of god by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Please for the love of god by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's no place like 127.0.0.1

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re: Please for the love of god by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More like "live and let die".

    4. Re:Please for the love of god by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      We'll make great pets
  2. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  3. Dog Whistling by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Dog Whistling by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Dog Whistling by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Dog Whistling by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. Re:"our technology is based on account *behavior*" by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Specifically what behavior?

    Insufficiently doing what Nancy Pelosi says to do.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  5. Re:Really poorly written article by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  6. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by steveb3210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  9. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by quantaman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  10. Re:No, it's the content by pots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:No, it's the content by pots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by hai_Priesty · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  14. c'mon by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re: It's not the content, it's how you say it by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:It's not the content, it's how you say it by kilfarsnar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --
    "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)