Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Accuses Twitter of Political Bias (bloomberg.com)
President Donald Trump has accused Twitter of targeting his followers for removal from the social media platform, amid complaints by conservatives that social media companies have been discriminating against right-wing voices. From a report: "Twitter has removed many people from my account and, more importantly, they have seemingly done something that makes it much harder to join -- they have stifled growth to a point where it is obvious to all," Trump said in a tweet Friday. "A few weeks ago it was a Rocket Ship, now it is a Blimp! Total Bias?" Trump and some other Republicans have complained that Facebook, Alphabet's Google and Twitter have censored or suppressed conservative voices. Democrats have called that a diversion from concern over Russia's use of social-media platforms to influence the 2016 presidential election and over the proliferation of offensive content. In his opening remarks during a meeting with state attorneys general in September, Attorney General Jeff Sessions raised concerns that social media companies have a political agenda and have the power to manipulate public opinion, according to Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh.
So what? It's their platforms, why can't they have a political bias? If I ran a website with a political bias, would that be breaking any laws? I wonder if Trump properties have a 'bias' to who they rent to? Is Trump willing to speak up there as well if commercial entities can't have a political bias?
Nothing significant happened.
According to the results of a quick Google search, Trump lost a maximum of 11,230 followers from his high of 55,287,639, a grand total of 0.02%.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
"Total bias?" So basically what happened is "Trump asked whether Twitter has bias." And of course all right-wing news sites will run with the story.
You say that like the bias is imagined. Here is one recent example.
Here, I'll save you the trouble of reading it: Candace Owens, a black woman who is a conservative, took anti-white racist tweets by the newly hired member of the NYT editorial board, Sarah Jeong, and replaced "white" with "black". Result? Twitter did nothing to Sarah Jeong for her original tweets, but locked out Candace Owens' account for violating Twitter's rules. Twitter claims it was a "mistake."
This sort of thing has happened enough times that it sure seems like there is a bias problem.
There is. Twitter CEO admitted prevalence of Left among the employees, to the point, where the Right-minded do not feel safe expressing their views.
He then proclaimed, that "need to remove our bias from how we act and our policies and our enforcement" — which is like a Boston referee promising to not favor Red Sox...
So, yes, Twitter are biased, that's a fact. It is also a fact, that it is legal for them to have such a bias.
Finally, I think it is self-evident, that they should not be biased — both for reasons we have the First Amendment in the first place (the Amendment does not apply to them, but the reasons do), and because it hurts their business. And here Jack Dorsey agrees with me, thankfully...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Is the US Senate a good enough source for you? https://www.lgraham.senate.gov...
He also drives a van covered with Trump stickers and is a long-time registered Republican. Sorry, guys, but this is exactly what it seemed to be: a MAGA-chud hopped up on Trump's violent rhetoric, going down the list of people Trump has criticized on Twitter and sending them pipe bombs. More right-wing domestic terrorism.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Sorry, no, the fact that the Republican need to rely on gerrymandering, encouraging people not to vote by putting barriers up (3 hour lines to vote, dropping people from voters lists, etc), Russian manipulation, etc. to win indicates that their isn't a huge population of conservatives (or at least current Republican version of conservative) voters.
Pretty sure they've revoked that policy at this point. Just because they promoted that at one time does not mean that they're locked into it for all eternity.
No. The CDA expressly says otherwise. 48 USC 230(c)(2):
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of --
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
Pure fiction.