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.

Comments

Self discovery

[nospam007]

It's hard to admit to yourself, after the last account removals of Nazis, that you were one them.
Even if you didn't know it, the rest of us did.

Re:Self discovery

[Mashiki]

after the last account removals of Nazis

You mean the last account removals of people using the NPC meme, where twitter has refused to give any ban reason at all? But liberals and progressives were screeching that the NPC meme is 'dehumanizing' but conveniently forget that they've been labeling anyone who doesn't follow their ideology as nasi's, fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, and chalk full of misogyny? And if you're a minority that doesn't agree, you're an uncle tom, house ni**er(enjoy the lameness filter), race traitor, white supremacist, and so on? And that's been going on for years at this point.

How very interesting is that rational. Yep, looks like liberals and progressives have diminished actual words of "bad people" to the point where nobody really gives a shit, except for the people that think just like them. *Insert joke here about NPC's following the same program.*

Re: Self discovery

[c6gunner]

In terms of libertarianism (personal liberty) the US is way behind Canada and Finland.

lol. The rest of your comment was pretty silly, but you have to be completely delusional to believe that this specific part is even remotely true. I say that as a Canadian who's spent months at a time living and working in the US.

Re:Self discovery

[Darinbob]

Why? Are there commies on social media advocating for violent action?

Re: Self discovery

[Cederic]

That is both irrelevant and entirely missing the point.

social media companies have a political agenda and have the power to manipulate public opinion

Undue influence on public discourse is indeed a concern and although the print media carries a level of balance that isn't being achieved online.

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter is not a government entity. They can do what they damn well please. They don't have to obey the 1st Amendment. If he doesn't like it, he can quit using the service (don't we all wish)....

Re:So?

[Z80a]

Yes, they can, but they can't have the safe harbor provision as they show to be checking for every post with a system, so they should be liable for every single copyright infringement on the platform.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Illegally discriminatory - treating members of a 'protected class' in a way that cause the perception of them being treated differently from everyone else with which you do business.

So while banning bigots/conservatives/liberals/ or naughty people( however you define those) from your service is certainly discrimination, it isn't ILLLEGAL discrimination. Unless of coarse you define bigots etc. in such a way that some large majority of a protected class fit that category. Then you are subconsciously or systemically discriminating against a protected class ( for instance banning poor people will get you in legal trouble because a large percentage of some protected classes are poor).

now if it turns out most conservatives are poor and they are inordinately banning poor people , you might have a legal case for race discrimination. (disparate treatment)

Re:So?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Exactly, if I had mod points, I'd mod you up.

Conservatives that don't like it, well, this is the free market. This is what the free market DOES!

Re:So?

[penandpaper]

What impact can social media have on our elections? Apparently, a lot if Russian ads on Facebook are believed to swing 2016. Are you comfortable with private entities able to control elections to such an extent as to be able to silence people from national dialogue and get their preferred politician elected because the power they wield over people?

Here I thought the left was against large multinational companies abusing their positions of power over regular people. I don't know what the right answer is but I think we are in a precarious position as the technology matures to be able to, in real-time, silence and condition the dialogue people have. That is more dangerous to democracy than Trump or any president could ever be. It's even more terrifying that there are so many quick to support that kind of power for any kind of entity especially one without accountability or transparency. I don't care if it was Jesus Christ that is too much power for one company, platform, person, industry, government, anything to have.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

In some states (like California, where Twitter has its headquarters) it IS illegal to discriminate over political views.

On top of that, the Federal Courts have declared that the public has an interest in Twitter as a "public space", which in turn opens up Twitter needing to meet the same requirements as any other government public space (see the Trump blocking lawsuit).

Re:So?

[Mashiki]

Doesn't actually matter if they're not a government entity. Twitter has testified that they consider themselves the "new public square" for political discussion. They promoted that as well. There's been a whole assload of cases on this whereby a company presents itself as a public square, 1st amendment rules apply.

So really it boils down to this: Either the 1st amendment rules apply, in which case they're far more broadly protected and so are people. Or it doesn't, in which case they're not only curating content, but the people allowed to post there. In which case CDA S.230 no longer apply and they become liable for anything posted there. The "reasonable" defense section only applies if they allow access but don't actively curate, something they stopped doing a few years ago, when they made the change of how people become verified and in turn stated that they support the views of the people who are verified. This again is something they've openly stated.

Re:So?

[Puls4r]

You are incorrect. Twitter realizes that and they will respond to Trump in as polite a manner as they can.

Do you remember the banks that were "to big to fail?" It would be VERY easy for the government to declare these communication entities as "Too influential to go unregulated". You could crow about free speech. But the government WILL win if they choose to go down that route. And eventually they will.

Re:So?

[lgw]

Twitter is not a government entity. They can do what they damn well please.

That's not how it works in America (or anywhere, really). They can't e.g. ban you because you're Black. The more you open your business to the public, the more you have to bake that gay cake, like it or not. And there's a spectrum defined in law, from "group of people who all know each other" to "common carrier". For the former, the rights of the owners dominate, for the latter the rights of the customers dominate, and there are several stops in between.

Twitter needs to be held to some legal standard. Are they a common carrier? Then they must respect the first amendment rights of their users. Are they a publisher? They they get 100% control of content, and are 100% legally responsible for what they allow. So what are they?

Re:So?

[bobbied]

Twitter is not a government entity. They can do what they damn well please. They don't have to obey the 1st Amendment. If he doesn't like it, he can quit using the service (don't we all wish)....

Yes, as a Trump supporter, I DO wish he'd lay off his tweeting, at least for the most part. Some of it has been helpful, but the bulk of it has been anything but helpful or appropriate in my view. But one must also acknowledge that the media's reaction to these tweets has been at least partly responsible for the whole three ring circus. Trump is obviously the ring master, but the media are running around as the clowns at his request.

However, It's fair to state that there IS sort of a social movement brewing that is pushing to force 1st amendment like rules onto popular social platforms, even those which are privately owned and operated. Personally, I'm a bit conflicted about this kind of regulation, because that's what this will need to be, a law. On one hand I clearly see the political bias imposed by these platforms as a bad thing, but on the other I clearly understand that the 1st amendment doesn't apply.

I guess that my preference would be for a "hands off" policy and leave things as they are. Let folks like Trump complain about how unfair the sites moderate based on political bias, just take the complaints with a grain of salt. As much as these platforms are PR shamed into trying to justify their bias, the net effect is the same as a regulation and a whole lot less complex and expensive to boot.

SO... Let Trump complain. I think he's correct, Twitter is biased. However, I'm not supportive of laws or regulations that try to enforce any political parity on social platforms. IF Trump's PR war on Twitter causes them to be less biased, great! I think it's a waste of his time, but I'm more concerned about his accomplishments and policies than his Twitter rants.

Re:So?

[fahrbot-bot]

Yes, they can, but they can't have the safe harbor provision as they show to be checking for every post with a system, so they should be liable for every single copyright infringement on the platform.

Copyright infringement in 140 / 280 characters or fewer? It's possible an entire, or substantial part of a, work could be tweeted in under that, but otherwise it would probably fall under fair use -- all assuming no source was cited and/or it wasn't shown to be a simple quotation.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you comfortable with private entities able to control elections to such an extent as to be able to silence people from national dialogue and get their preferred politician elected because the power they wield over people?

You mean like Fox "News"

Re:So?

[Sarten-X]

Here I thought the left was against large multinational companies abusing their positions of power over regular people.

As someone who's often left-leaning, that's almost completely wrong.

The left is very much in favor of large companies (and states) having power over regular people. The key is that it's a highly-regulated power, managed by someone with the regular people's best interests in mind, because history has shown that the regular people very rarely understand how to actually accomplish their goals. Those that do aggressively pursue their goals will usually end up doing so by preventing others from pursuing theirs.

Now, on the other hand, the left is strongly opposed to anyone (company, individual, state, or otherwise) having any power that can be used to oppress anyone. If technology can silence a particular idea, then there must be rules in place to prevent its use in that way. Without those rules, the technology is better left unbuilt.

This is, of course, very idealistic. Benevolent dictators usually don't keep either adjective for long. People don't realize the negative impact until well after the damage is done. That's why the left also tends to favor bureaucracies with strong checks and balances, to prevent any individual (or small groups) from undermining the protective regulations.

It's even more terrifying that there are so many quick to support that kind of power for any kind of entity especially one without accountability or transparency.

You sound like a leftist. /s

Re:So?

[Z80a]

There's the image and video embedding services.
Also the grey area of links for copyrighted material.

Re:So?

[farble1670]

There's been a whole assload of cases on this whereby a company presents itself as a public square, 1st amendment rules apply.

Sounds interesting. Can you link some references? Make sure and include an "assload" of them.

Re:So?

[Mashiki]

Why don't you just try your favorite search engine. I'd suggest using the search phrase "extended 1st amendment protections." You'll learn something interesting...providing of course the search engine you picked isn't curating your results.

Re:So?

[walterbyrd]

Honest question: is twitter a publisher or a medium. It makes a huge difference.

If twitter is a publisher, then they may have the right to reject some tweets. But, that also means they are responsible for *everything* that is tweeted.

If twitter is a medium, then they do not have the right to delete tweets that have the wrong political opinion.

It seems to me that twitter - and facebook and google - want to have it both ways.

Re:So?

[Mashiki]

Yeah too sad I guess in your world then, it's much easier to turn around and be handed information then it is to actually find it on your own and feeling a measure of success in learning about it as well.

Google is your first problem, enjoy your curated results.

Re:So?

[JackieBrown]

It's hard to compare the two platforms as the same.

You have Fox on one side and CNN, MSNBC, and the network news on the other side.

On the social media side, you have twitter and facebook - both companies lean to the left.

Re:So?

[farble1670]

Google is your first problem, enjoy your curated results.

Just so you know, you are the one that suggested I:

try your favorite search engine

Who in their right mind would have tried to use Google after that? But okay, so Google is tainted. Where should I search? Amazingly, you don't offer that info either. I guess that's another thing I need to research on my own right?

This is fun. Where do we go next?

Re:So?

[JackieBrown]

The more you open your business to the public, the more you have to bake that gay cake, like it or not.

The problem with this is that religion rights is a constitutionally protected issue as well.

Re:So?

[sexconker]

Nononono get out of here with your facts. You aren't supposed to use the liberal CA rule that defines political ideology as a protected class. That's a cudgel for liberals to use, it's NOT FAIR to apply the law equally. And what are you doing pointing out the recent decision that jeopardizes our overlords and their ability to kick us out of their "open" platform discriminatorily? YOU AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING ATTENTION!!!

Re:So?

[lgw]

Yes, that's my point. There's a legal spectrum: on the one end, the rights of the owners win, on the other, the rights of the customers win, with most businesses in the middle somewhere.

Re:So?

[eaglesrule]

Thank you, Brother, or Sister, or Nonbinary Fraternal Sibling, for your kind words of wisdom and understanding.

It matters not that our thumb on the scale for political discourse on the platforms that hundreds of millions of people use for online communications, for surely we are on the side of goodness and light and that will never change.

Our bias is the only valid one, due to our own enlightenment. We do not see it as maintaining an ideological echo chamber, for surely there can only be one Truth. Therefore our views need not be challenged, only affirmed, since by default they are necessary and beneficial for a functioning society.

It is simply unfortunate that there are closed minded people that reject us, but we can provide discipline. Sometimes public shaming and excommunication for expressing views not in accordance with our faith is simply necessary. After all, the priesthood is to serve the flock and to know what is best for it, and thus all actions are justified in serving that purpose.

Re:So?

[DRJlaw]

Yes, they can, but they can't have the safe harbor provision as they show to be checking for every post with a system, so they should be liable for every single copyright infringement on the platform.

Prove it. Show me anything in the CDA or DMCA that conditions the safe harbors upon a lack of "bias" in the material that a service carries.

I'll even give you the links to the relevant CDA and DMCA provisions because you're not going to find them.

-IP/Technology Attorney

Re: So?

[Zero__Kelvin]

NPR tweeted the US Constitution in it's entirety, tweet after tweet after tweet. So yes, it is possible.

Re:So?

[Sarten-X]

For right-leaning social media, you have 4chan /b/ and Reddit r/The_Donald... though those might be more accurately titled anti-social media.

Re:So?

[DRJlaw]

Doesn't actually matter if they're not a government entity. Twitter has testified that they consider themselves the "new public square" for political discussion. They promoted that as well. There's been a whole assload of cases on this whereby a company presents itself as a public square, 1st amendment rules apply.

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.

ls down to this: Either the 1st amendment rules apply, in which case they're far more broadly protected and so are people. Or it doesn't, in which case they're not only curating content, but the people allowed to post there. In which case CDA S.230 no longer apply and they become liable for anything posted there.

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.

The "reasonable" defense section only applies if they allow access but don't actively curate, something they stopped doing a few years ago, when they made the change of how people become verified and in turn stated that they support the views of the people who are verified.

Pure fiction.

Re:So?

[kellymcdonald78]

Then there should be a massive untapped business opportunity to launch Conservatwitter

Re:So?

[DRJlaw]

Are they a publisher? They they get 100% control of content, and are 100% legally responsible for what they allow.

They're an interactive computer service, and get reasonable control of content on a good faith basis with 0% responsibility for what they allow.

CDA section 230(c):

(c) Protection for âoeGood Samaritanâ blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liabilityNo 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; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

Re:So?

[farble1670]

Citation?

Let me try to help. Say your neighbor starts running down the street yelling "Your wife is a whore!". Do you think:

1. Everyone should believe him, because he said it. Until you prove otherwise, she is a whore.
2. People should disregard him, or at least ask him provide evidence.

The choice is of course self evident to sane people.

People can play these "all assertions need evidence" games all day long. It benefits no one, particularly in the information age and when most citations are simply links to other people that have also made the same assertion with no citation themselves.

i'm confused what you are saying. Are you arguing we should believe nothing we read, or everything we read? Or should we flip a coin? In lieu of evidence we can trust or at least put some weight on, a coin flip is the best we can do.

Or do you think we should believe whatever supports our internal narrative about the world? Like, Twitter is a bunch of libtards trying to bring down Trump?

Re:So?

[DRJlaw]

If twitter is a publisher, then they may have the right to reject some tweets. But, that also means they are responsible for *everything* that is tweeted.

Wrong. The CDA permits them to screen out the overtly and covertly racist drivel that passes for the sort of material suppressed for "bias" that Trump is complaining of.

(c) Protection for âoeGood Samaritanâ blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability 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; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1)

Re:So?

[El Cubano]

Really, Slashdot readers? +5 Interesting!?!?!

The left is very much in favor of large companies (and states) having power over regular people. The key is that it's a highly-regulated power, managed by someone with the regular people's best interests in mind, because history has shown that the regular people very rarely understand how to actually accomplish their goals. Those that do aggressively pursue their goals will usually end up doing so by preventing others from pursuing theirs.

You have paternalism, elitism, classism, and corporatism (maybe some other -isms that I missed) all wrapped up into one. Let me rephrase your statement:

The left is very much in favor of un-freedom.

If anything, history has shown that while people do at times make the wrong decision, both individually and at the levels of various local/national political entities, they often are able to accomplish their goals. What happens, though, is that sometimes once they accomplish their goals they realize that maybe they should not have accomplished their goals.

Discounting for the moment revolutions that have been fomented by other countries (notably the US poking around in Latin America and the Caribbean), in the last few hundred years you have had significant revolutions in the US, Russia, France, Cuba, Venezuela, China, and others. Each of those seems to be a very clear example of the people accomplishing their goals, with some turning out better than others. Cuba and Venezuela, however, seem to also be shining examples of "buyers remorse".

What you describe is what we have seen Cuba and Venezuela turn into, with the government controlling not just big business, but also small businesses and individuals. Surprise surprise, people there found out that they were not so fond of losing their self-determination (i.e., liberty) to the government even though they gave it away to start with!

Re: So?

[fahrbot-bot]

NPR tweeted the US Constitution in it's entirety, tweet after tweet after tweet. So yes, it is possible.

Sure, but wouldn't each tweet count separately? (Obviously, in the his example, the US Constitution isn't copyrighted and, if it was, it would have expired...)

Re: So?

[Zero__Kelvin]

No, it would not, just as breaking up a document into TCP packets before transmitting it does not, they can be reassembled on the receiving end.

Re:So?

[gDLL]

Nobody says we can't protest, even if perfectly allowed.

Re:So?

[lgw]

What you cited doesn't really back up what you said, unless you want to abuse the notion of "otherwise objectionable" to include "any content I disagree with". Of course, that's exactly what many social media sites do: e.g., we find ads supporting the pro-life position objectionable, so we ban them. They're pretending to ban on "objectionable" instead of "political speech we disagree with".

Seems like a great time for the legislature to fix that. Remove that option, force large social media sites (those that are effective monopolies of their space) to either accept content from all political positions, or be considered a publisher, at the choice of the site.

Re:So?

[BlueStrat]

Then there should be a massive untapped business opportunity to launch Conservatwitter

Gab.ai, MINDS.com, Bitchute.com, etc have begun growing their userbase at a nearly exponential rate since the purge of conservatives by the major platforms began. In 5 years FB/Twitter/etc may become as relevant as MySpace.com is these days.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Strat

Re:So?

[DRJlaw]

What you cited doesn't really back up what you said, unless you want to abuse the notion of "otherwise objectionable" to include "any content I disagree with". Of course, that's exactly what many social media sites do: e.g., we find ads supporting the pro-life position objectionable, so we ban them. They're pretending to ban on "objectionable" instead of "political speech we disagree with".

Funny how you treat political speech, especially from the Trump right, as incapable of being objectionable and gloss over that when most posts are moved the objectionable content is cited. "I disagree that that's objectionable" neither makes it so nor takes it outside of the broad "good faith" standard that it applied.

Re: So?

[SuricouRaven]

Creative use of technology can't ignore the law, but can result in long legal disputes.

There was an old P2P network which I forget the name of that tried to avoid copyright infringement through maths. Rather than transmit copyrighted work, it split the work into two blocks - one of random noise, the other of that noise XORed with the data. Stored separately, so that neither party storing it could have the work in any meaningful way, but a downloader could reassemble it from blocks of random data.

The express intention was to create something of such legal ambiguity that any attempt to prosecute could take years to work out in court.

Re: So?

[Zero__Kelvin]

Anyone can challenge anyone. That doesn't change the fact that what I wrote is correct.

Re:So?

[AmiMoJo]

I think you mean liable for the content, but that's now how safe harbour works. For example the phone company monitors for suspicious activity to prevent abuse of the network, but isn't responsible for what you say on the phone.

In any case they are not checking every post. They rely on users reporting material and a blacklist of banned images (mainly non-consensual stuff), but they don't for example have pattern matching or AI reading the text of every post.

Re:So?

[AmiMoJo]

You are both wrong.

The left is more socialist, which means more regulation, state ownership and an economy that works in the interests of the people. Corporations are expected to consider the interests of society and individuals.

So in Twitter's case they would be expected to keep people safe from interference and influence from threats such as Russia, and most socialist governments regulate their democracies e.g. with spending limits and limits on media use during elections.

At the same time they would promote freedom of speech and political discourse because that benefits democracy and therefore society. That means allowing everyone to participate, unless they are trying to stop other people participating.

Re:So?

[AmiMoJo]

It doesn't matter what they consider themselves. It matters what they are.

This document from the ACLU sets out some examples of "traditional public spaces" where the 1st applies. Note that there are many exceptions, including schools, colleges and national parks. So it's not at all clear that Twitter would be considered a "traditional public space", and in fact it seems pretty unlikely if private spaces like colleges and government owned ones like national parks are not.

Re:So?

[AmiMoJo]

Then they must respect the first amendment rights of their users.

Do they not respect those rights though? Their ToS are clear that you get banned for abuse, which the Supreme Court has ruled is not protected by the 1st.

Do you have any evidence of systemic (i.e.not isolated mistakes) actions that would be violations of the the 1st from Twitter?

Re:So?

[Aighearach]

I can haz idea, or I can haz link to somebody with idea? I can haz search engine?

Re:So?

[lgw]

When we're talking about political ads, it's pretty clear that it's disagreement with the position being advocated that's the cause for the ad being removed. That's why this nebulous idea of "objectionable" doesn't work out. Whatever the excuse, if you are significantly more political ads blocked from one side than another, then you're making an in-kind donation to one party. This is outlawed for radio and broadcast TV, even while allowing their original content to be as biased as they like.

Re:So?

[Cederic]

I'd much rather pursue the platform/publisher approach.

Force them to declare as a platform - no moderation based on viewpoint - or as a publisher - responsible for everything published on their site.

Right now they're seeking platform protections while acting as a publisher and that's why the current legal frameworks are failing.

Re:So?

[Citizen of Earth]

Twitter is a communication monopoly that operates as a "public square", which means its users have the First-Amendment rights on its "property". If it want to change its status to "private publisher", then it will become liable for all of its content, but its abusive behaviour still makes it liable for anti-trust prosecution. I wonder whether this issue will reach Trump's Supreme Court before or after Ruth Bader Ginsberg croaks next year.

Re:So?

[DRJlaw]

Whatever the excuse, if you are significantly more political ads blocked from one side than another, then you're making an in-kind donation to one party.

Name one FEC decision that fits that fact pattern. I'll wait. For a long, long time.

You appear to like to manufacture your own rules. Your problem is, neither I nor the rest of reality are obligated to follow them, so we don't.

Re:So?

[Sarten-X]

What you see as "elitism", I'd call "meritocracy". The biggest difference is who's allowed to be in that ruling group.

In an elitist system, you're defined by how much money you have, or your family connections, or even what color your skin is. In a liberal-ideal meritocracy, absolutely anyone can get the same power as anyone else.

For example, if you want to get a college degree, there will be a way to get one, without any more hardship than anyone else would face. Scholarship grants would cover the financial cost. Access regulations ensure that your acceptance is based on test scores and grades, not whether your parents attended an ivy-league school. Once you get your degree, that's your ticket to the "elite" status. You can go and participate in any discussion those credentials would open for anyone else.

It's interesting that you've chosen Cuba and Venezuela as examples, since they highlight one of my points. Both Cuba and Venezuela have had historic endemic corruption. That public corruption undermines the effectiveness of any equality regulation, because the elite class can simply buy their way out of compliance. In American politics, open corruption is still something to be shunned on both sides of the aisle. A good example is Rod Blagojevich, whose corruption was (rightly) curtailed by the checks and balances built into the governmental system. This is what makes America a great country, where we expect corruption to be caught.

As for self-determination, that is perfectly intact in the leftist ideal. You can pursue any path you want, as long as you aren't hurting anyone else (even unintentionally). Yes, this often means a bit more hassle to run through the regulations, but in the spirit of equality, you'd have access to a government service to help you comply with the regulations. After all, it'd be unfair to expect a novice to understand and follow the same rules as someone who had grown up in the field.

Now, that also touches on another important concept: welfare. The leftest ideal also includes support for those who cannot support themselves. Again, this stems from equality. Even the poorest members of our society deserve a safety net, just as the wealthiest can afford to cover their mistakes or external catastrophe. Still in the interest of self-determination, it is up to the individual to decide whether they want to take advantage of the programs (some exceptions apply, where participation prevents harm to others).

In short, the left says "you have the opportunity to do anything except harm others", while the right says "you can do anything you can pay for". Frankly, for the sake of my descendants, I prefer the former.

Re:So?

[Sarten-X]

humility and compassion for those that you actually see as being weak and/or stupid (everyone but you, right?).

Quite the contrary... that certainly includes me.

There are a good many fields in which I have no knowledge, to the extent that even an unguided attempt to learn might be catastrophic. An example that comes to mind is sailing. I understand the physics and concepts involved, but to go alone to open water would be irresponsibly dangerous, to the point where my adventure would just be a burden on the Coast Guard, and if they aren't fast enough to find me, it'd be a burden on my next-of-kin.

To continue the example, I am suggesting that to be permitted to sail open water, one should be required to pass a certification exam. The contents of that exam should be chosen by someone like the Coast Guard rescuers, who would be the most qualified to know what leads to catastrophe in that area.

As a species, we humans tend to look at short-term goals and easy solutions. We make choices based on emotions and ease, then when things don't fall in our favor, we blame God or other people, to avoid the fact that we did something incredibly stupid completely by our own choice.

Re:So?

[lgw]

The "manufacturing of rules" is precisely what I'm advocating for. Perhaps you were missing that? The allegedly conservative majority in the legislature needs to fix this problem with new law. My point is that this is similar to how other media works, but we haven't thought through how "social" media should be allowed to work. Publisher? Platform? Some hybrid?

Re:So?

[gDLL]

This is what makes America a great country, where we expect corruption to be caught.

Correct, and how do you think this came to be ? And if you have it now, it doesn't mean it can't go poof.

In short, the left says "you have the opportunity to do anything except harm others", while the right says "you can do anything you can pay for". Frankly, for the sake of my descendants, I prefer the former.

Because you do Not comprehend the implications. The "opportunity to do anything" at others expense MEANS YOU ARE HURTING OTHERS because you are robbing them of their reasources. Your descendants would spit on your grave if they suffered what you would have inflicted on them.

Re:So?

[Kielistic]

Abstractly speaking a "benevolent dictator" is probably the most efficient form of government. Likewise it is also the least reliable and least stable.

Much like the most efficient way to gain wealth is winning the lottery. It will certainly grant someone wealth but you would never recommend your children plan their future based on the assumption of winning the lottery.

Re:So?

[Sarten-X]

...how do you think this came to be ?

The first step took about 200 years, during which time the government in charge was full of what we'd call "corruption" today. That caused some rather angry folks to sign a short document condemning that government and its practices. Shortly thereafter, many of those same angry folks wrote a larger document detailing their replacement government, designed to prevent exactly the mistreatment they had seen firsthand, perpetrated by government officials who weren't subject to the laws they enforced.

As I recall the legend, the most important thing that George Washington did was to pass the office of President peacefully over to John Adams, establishing publicly that Presidents (and by extension, all elected officials) were indeed subject to the rules of the Constitution. That vision was respected and expanded over the next 225 years or so, and the core principle of having checks and balances to prevent abuse has never really been challenged until recently.

And if you have it now, it doesn't mean it can't go poof.

Oh, it certainly can. The system only works if it is used consistently. If any branch of government refuses to act as the check on any other branch's power, it allows corruption (or even the appearance of corruption) to fester. That, in turn, lets others try increasingly-blatant corruption, continuing the downward spiral. The only solution at that point is a concerted (and very public) voting effort to remove the corrupt and negligent politicians from office.

Many times through America's history, there have been politicians who were corrupt in various ways and to various degrees. They came from all parties, and from all demographics. Eventually, they were exposed and removed from office lawfully. Faith in that process is precisely why the public can have faith in America as a nation.

YOU ARE HURTING OTHERS because you are robbing them of their reasources

That's only true if the resources and consumption are both finite and constant. While there are certainly a lot of finite resources, their consumption is usually flexible, thanks to many processes that benefit from economies of scale. A few that come to mind are shipping, logistics, infrastructure, and insurance coverage. Their efficiency increases as more people make use of the service, in many cases to the point where the per-unit cost of service is actually reduced with a higher load.

Your descendants would spit on your grave if they suffered what you would have inflicted on them.

Gee, it sure is good, then, that the left also tends to support using renewable resources and high-efficiency technology, and opposes letting the climate change unchecked. My descendants will have all the resources they need to do whatever they want to my grave.

Re:So?

[gDLL]

You are missing the first point but not by much, and the second by 20 kilometers.

The only solution at that point is a concerted (and very public) voting effort to remove the corrupt and negligent politicians from office.

AND how did *this* came to be... keep going step by step until you reach individual autonomy/responsability.

While there are certainly a lot of finite resources, their consumption is usually flexible, thanks to many processes that benefit from economies of scale.

This is classical maxist thinking, and is ENTIRELY clueless of how the economy works. It's not about the finite products, it's about WHO produces them. If your answer is not ROBOTS then we come back to THEFT.

Re:So?

[Sarten-X]

You are missing the first point but not by much, and the second by 20 kilometers.

Perhaps if you have an actual point to make, you should state it. Asking open questions just makes you sound like you have no idea what you're talking about, and hope the conversation will stumble into your historical fantasy.

This is classical maxist thinking, and is ENTIRELY clueless of how the economy works. It's not about the finite products, it's about WHO produces them. If your answer is not ROBOTS then we come back to THEFT.

As I recall, Marx was actually the one who cared about who was running production.

As for robots, that's a trivial distraction. Robots are an extremely labor-efficient production tool, but they don't actually change much of the production economics. What robots save in labor, they cost in energy, maintenance, and initial investment. They also have no significant impact on the efficiency of the final product, so the resource consumption of one's lifestyle is unchanged.

Re:So?

[gDLL]

Perhaps if you have an actual point to make, you should state it.

I was too subtle, I appologise, the US got where it is by having a small state, non-state-interference, and generally personal accountability. THAT has lead to what US has. All these are counter to nanny state centralist etatist paternalist marxist fairy tale utopias.

into your historical fantasy.

Talk about historical fantasy? We will build a a new society, a new man! Long live the USSR/China/Poland/Checkoslovakia/Yugoslavia/Romania/Bulgaria/Germany/Venezuela/N.Korea/Cuba/Vietnam/whatever-the-f-you-want. 100 million dead, is that enough fantasy for ya? Still not real yet?

As I recall, Marx was actually the one who cared about who was running production.

Not sure what you mean by cared, but yes he did care just like a thief would care about the mark of a heist.

Wow

[phantomfive]

Can we keep this stuff off here please? I don't mind if there is some evidence to back it up (like even a blog post showing how it was hard for someone to sign up). Furthermore the headline is even wrong, he didn't accuse them of bias, he dropped the question, "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.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

/. is a left-wing news site.

Re:Wow

[rickb928]

Possible discriminatory account deletions and manipulations by Internet social media platforms seems like both:

'News for nerds' - tech stuff potentially being used to manipulate news and opinions is pretty geeky, even though it's also mainstream...

'Stuff that matters' - seems like Twitter in particular messing with your followers might matter to some of you. Or not, but I betting the interest is nonzero.

And you can expect even the non-right-wing news sites to run the story, perhaps with a different analysis.

Re:Wow

[El Cubano]

"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.

Re:Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile the comments are all from right wing autistic neck beards.

Re: Wow

[phantomfive]

I want to point out that your post is already better than tfa, in that it presents evidence (it may be lousy evidence in that it's an anecdote, but at least it's something).

Re: Wow

[phantomfive]

Present the evidence please, or gtfo. There is enough crap innuendo going around the internet these days.

Re: Wow

[phantomfive]

It doesn't belong here because there's no story. If Trump tweets "did aliens use Apple computers to build the pyramids?" It also is not a story, despite involving technology

Re:Wow

[alvinrod]

Given the number of other threads that devolve into shit flinging in one direction or the other over Trump (or just politics in general), maybe it's not a bad idea to have one of these stories every now and again with some thinly veiled connection to technology so that everyone who wants to argue about has a place to do so and the other comment sections can be free of their off-topic discussion.

Maybe it could get it's own special little section with some other features. Moderation can be changed so that he only options are "+1 Validates My Beliefs" and "-1 Fuck You I Disagree" or something along those lines. Anyone who wants to, is free to join in, but if they don't even want to observe the trash fire, they can just skip over the story entirely. Maybe even feel a little bit smug about doing so.

Re:Wow

[penandpaper]

Should we be concerned with the power social media has over the dialogue and elections?
Even if there isn't a bias, are you comfortable with those private companies able to decide who is worthy of speaking in the preferred manner of the POTUS in an unaccountable and nontransparent way?

I am baffled that /. of all places is mostly comfortable with a few tech companies having that kind of power because of one person they don't like. "There are no bad tactics just bad targets" seem like the M.O. for many these days and one that will come back to bite us in the ass.

Re: Wow

[lgw]

An anecdote is solid evidence when it comes to the behavior of algorithms. When you're talking about a group of people, individual examples don't mean much because they aren't very predictive. An algorithm is different. Once you know how to beat a PacMan level, you know how to beat it every time.

That point of evidence proves that, at that point in time, Twitter's algorithms only banned people for criticism of some races, but not others. Can we agree that's not cool? That code that is capable of e.g. banning criticism of Aryans while allowing the same criticism of Jews should be made incapable of doing so?

Re: Wow

[rickb928]

Forgive me, please, but evidence for what?

Re:Wow

[farble1670]

I don't mind if there is some evidence to back it up (like even a blog post showing how it was hard for someone to sign up)

Exactly. And Twitter denied it, other than admitting there was a problem with their autocomplete results which they said they had a fix on the way.

In a statement to CNBC, Twitter said it does not shadow ban users. "We are aware that some accounts are not automatically populating in our search box, and shipping a change to address this," the company said.

https://www.usatoday.com/story...

So not only did they deny shadow banning R's, they denied doing it at all.

Re:Wow

[thegarbz]

he didn't accuse them of bias, he dropped the question, "Total bias?"

Oh wow. You don't understand Trumpspeak.

Re:Wow

[AmiMoJo]

They said it was a mistake, they corrected it, and it's the only example you have despite considerable time having elapsed since so we can only conclude that it's not systemic.

And for the record I could provide you with a bunch of links to left leaning users getting wrongly banned. Fuck ups happen. Trump was banned for a few minutes once, is that part of your conspiracy?

Re: Wow

[Farmer Tim]

I disagree: if he tweeted that because he seriously believed it was possible it would indicate he’s batshit insane, and that’s a pretty significant story.

Re: Wow

[Cederic]

I find it highly amusing. On another site I challenged someone's racism towards white people and half a dozen people chimed in to accuse me of racism.

So I posted, "Racism is bad, don't be racist." and got accused of lying. Meanwhile the people calling me racist all continued to demand racism towards white people.

Right now the law agrees with me. It had fucking well better continue to do so. Sadly when it comes to sexism there are already substantial movements to limit protections to just half the population.

Re:Wow

[Cederic]

So not only did they deny shadow banning R's, they denied doing it at all.

Then their lies were investigated and..
https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/06...

Come on, keep up.

Why can't they have a bias?

[Vegan Cyclist]

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?

Re:Why can't they have a bias?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could become a question of size. At one point in time there was this idea of a 'fairness' when you were talking about large public entities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine#Origins

They were eliminated under Regan, but the idea of why they were needed still remains the same.
Perhaps the republicans will re-instate them and add internet service providers to the list. Of coarse they would have to decide the FCC had the right to regulate internet providers.

It does beg the question, given the extreme bias of many news agencies and social networks, ( some right some left), if there isn't some kind of better way.

Re:Why can't they have a bias?

[penandpaper]

Twitter was partly ruled as a public forum because of Trumps twitter feed and response system. Twitter can arbitrary ban people from taking part in that public forum with zero transparency and zero accountability. Are you comfortable with a single company having that kind of power because #resist Trump?

Re:Why can't they have a bias?

[lgw]

If I ran a website with a political bias, would that be breaking any laws?

There's a difference between a publisher and a common carrier. Social media companies of course want to have it both ways. But that's not good for society, and shouldn't be allowed. Either be a publisher, with total control over (but also total responsibility for) what you publish, or be a common carrier (you can't discriminate, which means any legal problems are those of your users).

Europe is starting to come down on the side of treating social media like publishers, gradually ratcheting up the degree to which they hold these corporations responsible for their content. I'm not sure that's the right side to come down on, but they don't get to be on the fence.

Still the Bias is there.

[Zorro]

Anyone that argues there is no Bias is just lying to themselves.

Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

I was elected king or whatever, biggest election in any country ever, and now people are questioning me. Nobody ever questioned Obama. Obama was so bad I was always questioning him, as were many of the best people. Everyone is saying how well I am doing, really, and nobody is questioning me, so why are all these people questioning me?

Re:Trump

[Livius]

biggest election in any country ever

I guess I just don't follow Indian politics closely enough.

Shadowbanning is insidious.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the same as when a user mutes another user. It's not an obvious ban or block.

If your account is shadowbanned you yourself are only going to know it from inference. Your followers won't know it either. And you are cut off in large part from getting new followers because now you don't show in search results. Also your account (not just a specific tweet) is flagged as sensitive content.

Affirmative Action

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the SV companies should implement an affirmative action policy to recruit conservatives? The irony is a nice touch.

Yeah. And? ... There is no bias-less mind.

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter is just a really really dumb site to create way too small messages to each other or to the world.
But it's still a site, run by people. And those people still got brains. Not good brains, of course, given that their "invention" was "Let's limit message length! Oooh! Aaah!”. But brains.
And brains are literally just bias machines. That is their whole point. They take input, and bias it, based on all previous input. For the purpose of finding and using patterns in said input, to achieve goals.

So accusing them of bias, or an agenda, is like accusing water of being wet.

If he doesn't like it, he can make his own website. I mean he's the freaking president! It's not like he would have a problem signing an executive order or something!

Seriously, who cares?

[PeeAitchPee]

This kind of shit is just fodder for asshats on both sides of the aisle that lets them whine about how oppressed they are and how bad the other tribe is. Fuck 'em both.

It didn't, though...

[Sarten-X]

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%.

Re:It didn't, though...

[Crashmarik]

Are you trying to outdo the real George the Third ?

He is only said to have writen "Nothing Important Happened Today -July 4 1776"

Re:It didn't, though...

[Sarten-X]

It wasn't 2%. It was 0.02%. 1/5000th of his follower count.

Sure, they could have been active participants...... but it's far more likely to have been bots, killed off in a normal purge.

So?

[RyanFenton]

Any valid human perspective has bias.

Sometimes, you hear a perspective, understand it completely, and reject it as false. Then, you're biased against that perspective.

Communicating the reason for that bias, and reevaluating that bias are valuable parts of being an open-minded functional person.

Skepticism is bias - and it is very important to a functioning society to avoid several forms of stagnation. The problem is closed-mindedness, not bias.

The problem is also using all of these concepts as bludgeons without any attempt to bring understand with them.

Ryan Fenton

This is about establishing a narrative

[rsilvergun]

when you're objectively wrong it's important to keep pushing an opposing narrative. The American right wing figured this out in the 80s.

At the end of the day strip away the nonsense about "Culture War" this and "PC that" and you're left with what really matters: economics. And when it comes to economics the media is united on the side of the right. Low taxes (for capital, labor can still pay taxes, I mean, somebody's gotta pay 'em, amiright?), minimal or no regulation, free trade when it's good for profits (but not for pharmaceuticals, that would be a job killing regulation). The right own Sinclair who own just about every TV station in the country. They own Fox news. Hell, they own CNN and MSNBC if you pay attention to economics instead of social issues.

I guess it bothers me to see the right wing playing the victim card when they've got all 3 branches of gov't, billionaire elites and virtually all the media that matters on their side. What bother's me is that they can peddle this nonsensical persecution complex and get away with it. It's Orwellian Double think, exactly the kind of thing they're supposed to be against...

Re:This is about establishing a narrative

[3seas]

Sounds like you are suggesting there is a Jewish influence at the White House.

Re:This is about establishing a narrative

[Anonymous Coward]

Hate to break it to you, but amongst your other errors Clinton isn't left wing. Clinton would have been very much at home in the Reagon Republican party of the 80s.

Re:This is about establishing a narrative

[El Cubano]

Facts have obviously fallen out of fashion around here. From the opening paragraph of the same CNN article:

Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama condemned disgraced Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein on Tuesday, marking their first public comments on the matter since reports of his alleged predatory behavior broke five days ago.

You will note that Clinton, Obama, and plenty of other progressives wasted no time criticizing Trump for waiting more than five minutes to repudiate the Unite the Right rally. Yet they waited five days to repudiate Weinstein. In the day of the 24/7 news cycle, waiting five days to make a statement on something, especially when you criticize your opponents for waiting too long to make their own statements, makes everyone wonder why you even bothered.

So, yes, based on that, Clinton did not actually condemn Weinstein.

Re:This is about establishing a narrative

[Whorhay]

Those two events are very different. The Weinstein thing was all accusations coming from some of his victims. Should those political figures have issued statements more quickly instead of waiting five days, probably. But the delay isn't really all that surprising given the relationships they had with him. Trump and the nazi rally are a different animal entirely. From the outset there was photographic and video evidence of that shit show. There was never any doubt about what happened and Trump didn't have any personal relationships with any of the concerned parties. As the sitting president all he needed to do was hold a press conference and condemn the violence, instead he went out of his way to compliment both sides.

Ask the Chinese people

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the Chinese people what it is like to filter out dissenting opinions. Don't agree with the left party? It's removed, or you are. Optional or forced, it's the beginning of hell.

I'd like it like my news, unbiased.

Also, as someone whos family was screwed over by the Nazis AND commies, trust me you don't want to go down that biased path.

Twitter admitted it a while ago

[mi]

I don't mind if there is some evidence to back it up

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...

Will he ever post anything positive?

[McPierce]

That's all I ask. His every tweet is something negative, an attack or an accusation that someone is mistreating/maligning/abusing him.

Has he nothing to contribute?

Re:Will he ever post anything positive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump’s most powerful tool is that he knows how to wield victimhood. He knows how to offer victimhood to the people who have the least claim to it.

Re:Will he ever post anything positive?

[SuricouRaven]

Have you seen his twitter? Only about half of them are attacks or accusations. The rest are links to videos of him giving rally speeches and news stories about how great he is.

Re: Will he ever post anything positive?

[McPierce]

So the answer is a resounding no.

Re:FALSE

[Plus1Entropy]

"Sorry, it's against our religious views to serve Nazis."

-Twitter

This site could use a cleanup as well

[cHiphead]

What the hell has happened to the /. comments section over the past 10 years? This place has gone fucking crazy with right wing crybabies. Used to come back here to see reasoned and thoughtful discussion even while the trolls were prevalent, but now it's just some bot-esque echo chamber of crazy people. It's like the bots and crazies that infested local newspaper comments section added this site to their target lists for propaganda.

Re:This site could use a cleanup as well

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This site could use a cleanup as well

[DigressivePoser]

What the hell has happened to the /. comments section over the past 10 years? This place has gone fucking crazy with right wing crybabies.

Well for one thing, many of the articles discussed in the comments section are political in nature. That brings out the crazies from all angles - not just the right wing. Purely technical discussions still have enough merit where I can learn a thing or two from them.

For the politically charged stuff, take a left or right wing comment of similar quality and see where moderation goes - it favors the left in most cases. I see it over and over again and from my right of center point of view, it gets frustrating. At least here on /. a well reasoned comment will get modded up no matter which direction it came from.

Re:This site could use a cleanup as well

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear hear, the tolerant left has spoken: this site needs a cleanup! Shall that cleansing be NKVD-style, bullet to the back of the head of anyone deemed to be counter-revolutionary, or just something a little softer like good old-fashioned censorship?

Re:This site could use a cleanup as well

[eaglesrule]

Actually, I think you're right. It's a matter of preserving the tradition of free speech for the benefit of a free society, and now there is the resounding chorus of "its a private company they can do what they want".

What happened to the people who taught me that burning the national symbol was a protected form of speech?

Re: This site could use a cleanup as well

[oobayly]

Nobody's calling all right wingers cry babies, just calling out the right wingers who are cry babies.

Take for instance a right wing colleague who is the biggest snowflake I know. He lives to get angry about shit that doesn't affect him, he claims to not be bothered by gay people, but rants about anything gay-related in the news. He whines "what about my free speech" but gets annoyed when others use their right to free speech.

I don't think he's the epitome of the right wing, but the fact that he is the type of person he purports to hate amuses me to no end. This is who we are calling out.

Re:This site could use a cleanup as well

[Cederic]

I disagree. In the US there seems to have been a shift out of the centre ground.

The issue isn't that the overton window has shifted, it's that it's fragmented and too many extremists (of all types) are too easily finding people to support their idiocy and platforms from which to foment it on others.

Re:Bias is Pretty Blatant Anyway

[Plus1Entropy]

No, they admitted under oath that their automated system deleted 48% of the tweets. Breitbart didn't omit those details, why did you?

Also, why continue to vote for the Republicans in charge of that committee who failed to do anything after Twitter admitted that? They don't advocate for you, so why do you still support them? They took the side of big business, as usual, yet I doubt you're gonna vote to remove any of them from office in 2 weeks, are yah?

Twitter is the problem

[PopeRatzo]

I'm glad that President Trump is focusing on his number of Twitter followers as one of his supporters in Florida is arrested for a terrorist attack on his prominent critics.

He's definitely showing leadership and has his priorities straight.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/...

Re:Twitter is the problem

[PopeRatzo]

So, a New York thug who moved to Florida. Most of those are DNC loyalists, but it will be interesting to see how the rest of the details progress. Maybe this is an exception. Either way, if it's him, lock him up.

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.

Re:Twitter is the problem

[Mashiki]

Funny, I didn't hear you complaining about leftwing terrorism. You know like the democrat who shot up the congressional baseball game. Or the other democrat who sent ricin through the mail and tried to kill a bunch of people including Trump's kid. Oh yes, very "right wing terrorism." And sure didn't hear you whining about Holder saying "kick them when they're down." Or Waters telling people to get into the face of other people - funny how progressives and democrats suddenly started doing this right after she said it.

No no, it's ALLLLLLLLLLlllll right wing terrorism.

Re:Twitter is the problem

[PopeRatzo]

You got a link to the Broward county voter registration lookup site to prove that registration? The guy is a convicted felon who probably can't even vote.

Well, the very conservative Washington Examiner is reporting it, so I guess it could be fake.

But you will also note that the story doesn't say he was a convicted felon, only that he had been arrested before on felony charges, and did jail time, but not necessarily for the felonies.

https://www.washingtonexaminer...

Re:Twitter is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL. "Chased by a leftwinger with a gun" ROFL. Holy crap that's laughable. You need to get back to your loonbin.

Re:Twitter is the problem

[cascadingstylesheet]

I'm glad that President Trump is focusing on his number of Twitter followers as one of his supporters in Florida is arrested for a terrorist attack on his prominent critics.

He's definitely showing leadership and has his priorities straight.

https://www.abcactionnews.com/...

Systematic bias in a communications medium probably is more important overall than one lone wacko (whether acting alone or used by someone as a false flag).

(Were you this concerned about a democrat "supporter" shooting real bullets (instead of fake bombs) into a bunch of Republican lawmakers, BTW?)

Re:Twitter is the problem

[PopeRatzo]

Except they weren't bombs. They were obvious fakes meant to LOOK vaguely like bombs.

They were confirmed to contain explosives. That's bomb enough to get a terror conviction, you know.

Re:Twitter is the problem

[Mashiki]

LOL. "Chased by a leftwinger with a gun" ROFL. Holy crap that's laughable. You need to get back to your loonbin.

That's open evidence submitted to the court, there's also multiple news articles on it. Sure is showing how ignorant you are though, or perhaps your taste in news sources.

Re:Twitter is the problem

[Cederic]

To be clear, the left is in fact less violent than the right and this is an indisputable fact

I dispute it.

Violence and terrorism is wrong.

I find this surprisingly hard to agree with too. Rather than 'wrong' I think I'd prefer 'to be avoided' or 'rarely justified'.

Happy to state explicitly though that the recent posting of bombs to political figures in the US _and_ the shooting at a baseball game were both wrong.

I am biased

[Plus1Entropy]

Against Nazis and white supremacists. Uh oh, slashdot didn't delete my comment, it must be biased too!

I mean, what are the chances that Nazis and KKK members are hated by most of society, and that it becomes reflected in a platform used by large portions of society?

Re:I am biased

[Mashiki]

Against Nazis and white supremacists. Uh oh, slashdot didn't delete my comment, it must be biased too!

Are you biased against black supremacists? How about democrats that demand that laws shouldn't be enforced?

I mean, what are the chances that Nazis and KKK members are hated by most of society, and that it becomes reflected in a platform used by large portions of society?

Well that's a funny thing, because there's more black supremacists and communist agitators like BAMN, antifa and so on then actual nazi's or members of the KKK these days. Out of curiosity, are you against them as well? Twitter isn't.

Re:I am biased

[Dragonslicer]

Against Nazis and white supremacists. Uh oh, slashdot didn't delete my comment, it must be biased too!

I mean, what are the chances that Nazis and KKK members are hated by most of society, and that it becomes reflected in a platform used by large portions of society?

My first thought was basically this. Does Twitter's political bias cause them to ban people who post things about less industrial regulation and lower taxes, or are they banning people that post about how much they hate blacks, Muslims, and "teh gays".

Re:I am biased

[eaglesrule]

What are the chances that the labels used as an excuse for censorship grow ever wider to encompass ever more people, to the point where those labels have lost all traces of their original meaning?

Nah, that never happens.

Re:I am biased

[Livius]

...there's more black supremacists and communist agitators... are you against them as well?

Absolutely.

Re:I am biased

[Plus1Entropy]

Funny. I'm not worried that the "Nazi" label will ever encompass me at all. I'm also not afraid of anyone in my past accusing me of sexual assault.

If you are, maybe some introspection is due. Maybe other people aren't the problem.

Re:I am biased

[Plus1Entropy]

Do you think Islamic terrorism or Christian terrorism is a bigger problem? I would say the former, personally, is currently a much bigger problem. Obviously, however, I'm against both.

Much in the same way, white supremacism is a much bigger problem than black supremacism. But yeah, I'm against both.

I dunno what laws you think Democrats don't want enforced. Probably the ones that disenfranchise people you don't like voting. Unjust laws shouldn't be enforced, and should be resisted. The country was founded on that very idea. I'm not a Democrat, that's a personal conviction.

Re:I am biased

[Mashiki]

Do you think Islamic terrorism or Christian terrorism is a bigger problem? I would say the former, personally, is currently a much bigger problem. Obviously, however, I'm against both.

In the last month there has been nearly 900 people killed in the name of islam. I can only find one person killed in the name of christianity, and it was in an african backwater. Let's be realistic here, there have been more buddhists killing people in the name of it, then there has been of christians.

Much in the same way, white supremacism is a much bigger problem than black supremacism. But yeah, I'm against both.

Really? So BLM which now has black supremacy in various facets of it's ideology, and is responsible for multiple homicides in the last years are the bigger problem?

I dunno what laws you think Democrats don't want enforced. Probably the ones that disenfranchise people you don't like voting. Unjust laws shouldn't be enforced, and should be resisted. The country was founded on that very idea. I'm not a Democrat, that's a personal conviction.

You mean like immigration laws? Cause there's a bunch of democrats that want to remove it, progressives too. Unjust laws, like voter ID that's granted by the government?

The US wasn't founded on unjust laws, it was founded on unjust taxation. Do they even teach you that in schools today?

Re:I am biased

[Mashiki]

Absolutely

Good to hear. Now, explain why with the bomb case, the media is all over it saying it's Trump's fault. But when a democrat/progressive commits fake hate crimes, shoot people, try to kill members of congress. They aren't blaming the democrats.

Re: I am biased

[Mashiki]

If you think there are more racist black people than racist white people,

Really? Why don't you go take a trip down memory lane and look at all of the people promoting "kill whitey" in say twitter.

Re:I am biased

[Cederic]

They were shadowbanning elected political representatives, if that helps answer you.

Re:I am biased

[Plus1Entropy]

Taxes are laws, genius.

Re:I am biased

[Plus1Entropy]

Oh, and I also just realized, you probably don't understand which of 2 things "former" and "latter" refer to. They probably taught you that in school, too.

Re:I am biased

[Mashiki]

Taxes are laws, genius.

No, taxes are not laws. Easy to show who's never taken a law class in their life.

Re:I am biased

[Mashiki]

Oh, and I also just realized, you probably don't understand which of 2 things "former" and "latter" refer to. They probably taught you that in school, too.

Apparently more so then you, otherwise you'd have added something constructive.

Re:I am biased

[eaglesrule]

Funny. I'm not worried that the "Nazi" label will ever encompass me at all. I'm also not afraid of anyone in my past accusing me of sexual assault.

Perhaps because you are a nobody; a person of no influence or relevance. At the very least, lacking in imagination or experience. Your safety bubble unfortunately does not extend to people living in the real world.

Besides, by lumping conservatives in with KKK members and neonazis, you've succinctly demonstrated how labels do not have strict interpretations and how well they work as an excuse for censorship.

Maybe when it is "free speech-nazis" that are getting kicked off the platform will you be the least bit concerned. Somehow I doubt it.

Re:Bias is Pretty Blatant Anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the US Senate a good enough source for you? https://www.lgraham.senate.gov...

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[dbrueck]

If you are going to pass over the far left by saying it's not 'substantial', then the same could be said of the far right. It's the same on both sides: both extremes are absurd but both represent a tiny slice of the demographic that generally leans left or right. Both sides get a disproportionate amount of airtime relative to the number of people actually in those extreme groups.

Who the fuck cares, anyway?

[Rick Schumann]

Does anyone who actually matters use Twitter or any other so-called 'social media' anymore? I don't think so.
If YOU are still using 'social media' then you should re-think that.

Re:Who the fuck cares, anyway?

[Whorhay]

It boggles my mind that Trump has 55 million followers. Honestly the idea that anyone would have that kind of numbers is just crazy. I get that a sizeable chunk of that is probably people that aren't fans of his but just want to keep abreast of whatever crazy shit he's spouting, but still. That is just an impossibly large group of people lending an ear to someone.

Re:Who the fuck cares, anyway?

[eaglesrule]

Wait a minute. One minute ago we're suppose to care that foreign adversaries influence elections through social media trolls and shills, and the next minute we're not supposed to give a fuck?

Oh wait, I get it. It doesn't matter because it isn't the other that has wrested this control for themselves. Carry on.

Re:Who the fuck cares, anyway?

[Rick Schumann]

Uh, NO, I'm more or less on record that I think so-called 'social media' is bullshit, cancerous, and anyone with an IQ above room temperature should get the hell off it, stay off it, and be actually social, instead of ersatz-social. The fact that Trump vomits all over Twitter constantly more or less proves I'm right.

Re:Who the fuck cares, anyway?

[eaglesrule]

It's fine that we're part of the cool kids club that don't use social media, however that doesn't negate the fact that hundreds of millions of people actually do.

Besides I like that Trump uses Twitter. I'll judge what he says for myself, rather than through some filter that only gives lip service to journalistic integrity.

SHOCKED! Not that shocked.

[MadCat221]

Wingnut president accuses media outlet that doesn't bark at the GOP moon of "Political Bias". News at 11.

Is it political bias

[mark_reh]

if you shut down lies, hate, and bullshit? There are probably plenty of others who get the boot, too, but the GOP is particularly enamored of spewing outright lies, hate, and bullshit, so it just looks like they are being targeted. If they don't like getting filtered or banned, maybe they should try not lying so much. Duh.

Re:Is it political bias

[eaglesrule]

the GOP is particularly enamored of spewing outright lies, hate, and bullshit, so it just looks like they are being targeted

As someone who tries to remain skeptical and abstain from the kool-aid, I have to say the sheer amount of projection from the left is fascinating. It's as if always being the accuser makes one immune to criticism or self awareness.

Re:Is it political bias

[mark_reh]

I'd say the sheer amount of denial of reality from the GOP and their followers would be fascinating if it weren't so tragic.

Re: Is it political bias

[Cederic]

How about Cedric Richmond or Marisol Alcantara, both of whom have publicly been racist in their roles in congress and the senate (respectively).

Shit, just do a google search for the number of democrats decrying "stupid white people" for electing Trump.

Tough Cookies. Set up your own platform Trump

[Hey_Jude_Jesus]

Twitter is free to associate with whom ever they please. They can kick the Jerk of a President off their platform. It is called free enterprise also.

Re:FALSE

[lgw]

Nope. They lost any such protection the moment they went public.

A partnership or closely held corporation has most of the rights of the owners. If the owners share some religious belief, they get some degree of protection from being compelled to act against that belief, as it should be. But a publicly held corporation is nothing like that. The act of opening up ownership to anyone with money renounces any protections for being a group of people united in faith.

Which, by the way, is the right answer to balance free speech with preventing campaign donations. Public corporations (i.e., almost every big one) should just be banned completely from donating to politicians or PACs. Including donations in kind, like only allowing ads from one political side (just as e.g. radio stations are barred from doing).

@Jack Likes Nazis

[jsepeta]

There's your bias: Jack likes Nazis and shameless hustler criminals like Trump who support his service, so of course he won't ban Trump no matter how many people on BOTH SIDES want the Orange Julius Caesar to STFU.

Re:So do media companies

[jsepeta]

Faux News? They've never been a NEWS station, reporting facts and following journalistic practices or ethics. They have always been the mouthpiece of the GOP, and recently, disinformation from Russia. So while nobody needs a gag order more than Fox news, we're never gonna' get it until they go tits up after being sued for inciting violence and civil war - which is not likely to happen under our far-right Supreme Court.

Follower growth

[pz]

I have studied the growth of followers and signups. I am reminded of the oft-used phrase:

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

If you think your signups are slowing down, (1) check that your metrics are working correctly, (2) check that your assumptions of an unlimited pool for signups are still valid, (3) understand that things change.

Foreshadow of the next bomb victims?

[bussdriver]

More likely, if Faux News echos this then Trump will echo back and fools caught in the feedback loop will have another target of their hate. The whole time while all parties point elsewhere or worst case at each other but they will never accept responsibility (not likely even false statements saying they accept responsibility.)

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[dbrueck]

No, it is not. The far-right in America is represented by the 30% who watch fox news and attend Trump rallies.

You're making the two-fold common mistake of (1) assuming everyone on the other side of the divide are all the same and (2) assuming everyone on the other side holds the most extreme views. The reality is far closer to a bell curve - on either end you have a tiny portion of wackos, while a huge majority clusters around the middle.

Less than 1% of the US watches Fox News (https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-top-basic-cable-networks-for-july-2018-are/372335 vs https://www.google.com/search?...).

I don't know how big Trump rallies get, but in a quick search I couldn't find any with more than a few thousand, but even if you're generous and assume an average attendance of 10k, about one tenth of 1% of the US attends Trump rallies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_post-election_Donald_Trump_rallies - 50-ish rallies in 2018 * 10k/rally).

Further, attending a rally or watching Fox News are not things I'd do, but they don't make someone be "far right" any more than watching CNN/MSNBC and/or attending a Clinton rally make you "far left".

The far-left by your notion believes in radical ideas like balanced budgets and providing a social safety net which prevents Americans from victimized by the wealthy.

Really? I told you that? When?

No, the far-left by my notion supports antifa, worships at the altar of identity politics and safe spaces, preaches tolerance of any view that matches their own and harsh intolerance of everything else, and disincentivizes every form of honest work (either through the most extreme guaranteed safety nets or blatantly unfair progressive 90%+ tax rates).

But guess what? I don't believe everyone left of center holds the most extreme views. Everyone left of center is not an antifa nutjob. But the same is also true of those right of center - there is a short distance of opinion between the vast majority of the people in this country.

Just because moderates are on the opposite side of the spectrum that the current American right, does not in any way may the far left.

You're deluding yourself, but if you can provide some citations, go for it.

But above all, you're missing the larger point, which is that lumping together everyone on the other side of the line, whether they be just a shade over or the most extreme, is a really terrible political strategy (doesn't matter if you lean left or right). It all but guarantees that nothing gets done. If you want to win elections and steer the country, then a far better strategy is to move from "you voted for candidate X? You are by definition evil/stupid! There is nothing more to say!" to "wow, the extremes are nutty! Forget 'left'and 'right', let's form a coalition made up of even-keeled people".

This is a winning strategy, but will always be beyond your reach as long as you continue with your present mode of thinking.

Slashdot's population aged

[rsilvergun]

for one thing there's bots and trolls. As silly as it sounds /.ers are a key demographic. We're old enough that we vote reliably. We're also old enough to have something to lose and fearful of losing it. We've been through a ton of layoffs thanks to tech outsourcing so we're highly receptive of "us vs them" messaging. That makes us an ideal and fertile ground for that kind of politicing.

As an added bonus we're mostly men, and men are feeling pretty well crapped on lately. We granted women equal rights but there's some fundamental imbalances that need to be addressed. Men want women more than women want men. That means when they're no longer property they gain a kind of leverage over men. Also women have lots of effective birth control options while men have two, one of which is difficult if not impossible to reverse. Demagogues use the resentment from that tilting balance of power to generate a backlash and create a movement that you can use to your advantage. You see this overtly with Trump's "Locker room" talk and passive-aggressively with Jordan Peterson's Lobsters.

TL;DR; We're bitter, angry, underpaid with no job security and we can't get laid. We're perfect fodder for a right wing uprising.

Re:Slashdot's population aged

[ichimunki]

"There is no stereotype of an anti-social loner woman."

Um, crazy cat lady, for starters.

Re:Slashdot's population aged

[Cederic]

As a crazy cat lady I disagree with you. While I sub the cats in for a human relationship it's because humans are too much fucking work for too little reward.

Whereas I got woken up this morning by a cold wet nose offering warm furry comfort and all she wants in return is a cuddle and regular feeding.

Re:Slashdot's population aged

[Cederic]

I don't think most aging technology professionals are bitter or angry, and they're certainly not underpaid.

Job security is no worse than it's been for well over a decade (currently in a sweet spot) and jobs have always been available even if they've lacked long term security.

Getting laid isn't exactly hard either.

So no, I disagree that Slashdot posters are perfect fodder for any sort of uprising, let alone a right wing one - I think they have a broad set of political views.

While there are certainly concerns over sexism and racism that doesn't in itself lead to an uprising.

In other "news"

[k2r]

Old cat pees on bed. Again. And looks into different direction.

Seriously, how is $TRUMP accuses $NON-TRUMP of $STUFF_HE_DOES_NOT_SO_SECRETLY still any news?

More likely ...

[fahrbot-bot]

Trump and some other Republicans have complained that Facebook, Alphabet's Google and Twitter have censored or suppressed conservative voices.

... the companies simply removed bot accounts pushing propaganda. As the accounts of actual people, like Alex Jones, they apparently violated the companies' Terms and Conditions. Not really a 1st Amendment issue as companies and individuals can limit whatever they want on their platforms - for any reason.

Trump Should Have Been Banned From Twitter

[BrendaEM]

A person is using twitter to launch personal attacks against others.

Boycott Twitter.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[JackieBrown]

You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing European definitions to American ones.

It's about as accurate as us stating Europeans have no right wing since they don't line up with our perception.

But you know that.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[farble1670]

Twitter never really suggested it had no bias, it's always been fundamentally far left in leaning.

Post your references, AC troll. It's not the responsibility of decent people to prove your retarded statements false.

Conservative voices

[Arkham]

a.k.a. liars and idiots.

Home of the nationalist, the white supremacist, the flat-earther, the fascist, the religious zealot, and the neo-nazi. These are some really awesome people and we all need to hear what they have to say....

Re:Bias is Pretty Blatant Anyway

[penandpaper]

No, they admitted under oath that their automated system deleted 48% of the tweets.

Does that really matter?

Are you comfortable with self learning algorithms censoring political topics in the national dialogue on an arguably (partially ruled by the courts) public forums along political lines that isn't accountable and isn't transparent in the hands of a single company/industry?

What could possibly go wrong with that kind of precedent.

Examples?

[joppeknol]

Is there any evidence of twitter deleting accounts where a person politely argued for a well-researched reasonable point-of-view without inciting hatred, using swear words, or using facts that aren't based on anything?

If not, I would think that right-winged persons would be happy to have the nut jobs filtered out from their point of view. Sure the others might dominate in numbers, but it would also show that right wing are, on average, more reasonable than their unfiltered counterparts.

I'm seriously interested. Can someone point at examples?

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[Oswald McWeany]

The far left is now everybody slightly to the right of center. By today's standards Reagan and Ike were both communists when you actually look at their platforms relative to the Ayn Rand worshiping Republicans of today. (And Reagan was a McCarthyist. )

Indeed, I'm a centrist and the far right on here frequently have called me a liberal or lefty just for not liking Trump. It reminds me of the Bush era and the "if you oppose the Iraq war you're a traitor" verbiage. It's political propaganda "if you're not for the President you're part of a dangerous radical left".

Re:Bias is Pretty Blatant Anyway

[rickb928]

Actually, 'blaming' the algorithms isn't avoiding responsibility at all. This is all their stuff. They are responsible.

Hah!

[Rick Zeman]

If Twitter had a bias, Trump would have been removed long ago for all of his flagrant violations of their terms of service. I

What the bleep?

[rsilvergun]

No, how in Pete's name did you get that from anything I wrote?

Um... Trump didn't repudiate Unite the Right

[rsilvergun]

or the violence until he was called out for saying both sides were bad. He never had any intention of repudiating them until it turned into bad press. It was roughly on par with the remorse you get when a kid's caught stealing cookies. Probably less. The kid at least understands his parents are mad. Trump was just reacting to the situation. Like a Pavlovian dog but for racism.

Re:Um... Trump didn't repudiate Unite the Right

[El Cubano]

So, how is that different from Hillary Clinton waiting to "condemn" Harvey Weinstein? If it takes 5 days of "et tu Hillary?"'s to get her to say something ... well, it is reasonably to conclude that she had no intention of saying anything until it turned into bad press.

Re:Um... Trump didn't repudiate Unite the Right

[Richard_at_work]

Simple - ones a retired politician who lost her last election, the other is supposedly the current President of the United States of America.

One automatically carries orders of magnitude more responsibility than the other when it comes to this.

And yet Trump supporters still like to use Hillary as if she is an equal to Trump - but only an equal when it benefits the Trump agenda, that is.

Re: Who said Twitter has no bias?

[c6gunner]

The far left is now everybody slightly to the right of center.

That's an absolutely idiotic claim. Unless you've redefined "center" to mean "slightly left of Fidel Castro".

If you took the average left-leaning person from the 1950s and brought them to present-day america, they'd be voting Republican in no time. If you took the average left leaning person from today and transported them back to the 50's, they'd be seen as dangerous lunatic. Even the commies of yonder-year weren't on board with much of what the left espouses these days; the only commonality they have is wanting to steal and redistribute other peoples money.

So how about we break up Sinclair Media

[rsilvergun]

and while we're at it hold Fox News to the editorial standards that used to exist where you can't mix news and editorializing? How about all those billionaires and their unlimited money? Money is speech after all and they've got unlimited speech and power. Ready to start taking away their central power?

Sorry, but you're not fooling anyone. You're in favor of centralized media control when it suits you. You're opposed to it when the slightest resistance is detected.

Here's the thing, you won. You won everything. You control every branch of government. Even the Democrats are mostly right wing now thanks to the Overton window shift. The right own everything. Now you've just got to live with the consequences. Your guy Trump just called himself a Nationalist. He praises dictators for seizing power. He put a pro-torture woman in charge of the CIA. That's all gonna come home to roost soon. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory. In the meantime can you stop acting like you're some oppressed minority? You're not. You won.

Re:So how about we break up Sinclair Media

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Fox News a public forum as implied by GP for social media?

Fact?

[rsilvergun]

You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

Seriously though, this post truth world is starting to creep me out.

Overton Window shifted

[rsilvergun]

we changed the definition of "far right" from "guys who want to shut down Social Security/Medicare, stop funding public schools and do away with clean water regulations" to "Neo-Nazis".

Meanwhile we kept the definition of the far left as "Women who want to cut off men's penises and seize all private property".

The number of "far right" didn't change. They used clever rhetoric and their control of mass media to pretend their ideas weren't radical and hammered that point home until folks were fooled into it. There is a substantial far right in America, we just got tricked into pretending there isn't.

Re: Overton Window shifted

[astrofurter]

And we changed the definition of "neo-Nazi" from "someone who advocates literal Nazism" to "anyone a Democrat happens to disagree with today".

His poll numbers still don't drop

[rsilvergun]

so I guess he's winning. This is a problem the left has. We like to explain and we like to be right. But being right and explaining don't win debates. There's a whole world of nasty little debate tactics that you can use to win when you're objectively wrong. Google the "Gish Gallop" for one of Trump's favs, but there are dozens, if not hundreds.

Re:His poll numbers still don't drop

[PopeRatzo]

so I guess he's winning.

He's still consistently the least popular president in modern times. If that's winning, then I guess so.

Re:His poll numbers still don't drop

[Cederic]

We like to explain and we like to be right.

I fear your problem is that you can't explain why you think you're right. Which is precisely why

But being right and explaining don't win debates

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[BringsApples]

Well put, all of it. I'd only add that the concept that says, 'you're either left or right', is false. I'm far from a Trump-supporter, but I do agree with some of his views, and look forward to some of the things that he's trying to do, coming to fruition.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[apoc.famine]

But above all, you're missing the larger point, which is that lumping together everyone on the other side of the line, whether they be just a shade over or the most extreme, is a really terrible political strategy...

A major issue is that lack of criticism of one's voluntarily adopted party often comes across as condoning their actions.

If people aren't willing to differentiate themselves from horrible people that they voluntarily associate with, how do you not lump them together? Nobody is forcing you to be a Republican or a Democrat. When you voluntarily adopt one of those labels and stand silently while other members do shitty things, how, exactly, does one figure out "how far over the line" you are?

If you can't criticize the group you run with, that's a serious problem, and you probably shouldn't be running with that group. Unfortunately, politics seems to run on tribalism, and that is largely responsible for this situation.

Sorry, I was bored

[WillAffleckUW]

I turned in a few thousand on that day, because they were obviously fake accounts.

This set off the heuristics checks on the accounts related to them, which were also fake.

Geesh, doesn't he have other things to do?

Aware of "facts" yet unaware of their import

[tepples]

From 17 USC 512(c)(1)(A) in your second link, it appears that a provider that has not yet received a notification of claimed infringement can avail itself of the OCILLA safe harbor only if it:

(i) does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;
(ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent;

I think the legal theory was that a provider that proactively polices its users' material for copyright infringement may become considered legally "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" without practical ability to recognize said "facts or circumstances" as such. It's the same reason that some companies' legal departments discourage their employees from reading patents: as a willful blindness strategy to avoid treble damages and attorney's fees for willful patent infringement.

Re:Aware of "facts" yet unaware of their import

[DRJlaw]

I think the legal theory was that a provider that proactively polices its users' material for copyright infringement may become considered legally "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" without practical ability to recognize said "facts or circumstances" as such.

No, the legal theory was:

witter is not a government entity. They can do what they damn well please. They don't have to obey the 1st Amendment.

Yes, they can, but they can't have the safe harbor provision as they show to be checking for every post with a system, so they should be liable for every single copyright infringement on the platform.

Where the "checking" had nothing to do with checking for copyright infringement but rather "political bias."

The argument was that if a service implemented a political bias that they'd lose the copyright safe harbor. "Political bias" is not red flag knowledge of copyright infringement under 17 USC 512(c).

Re:Aware of "facts" yet unaware of their import

[tepples]

In the course of looking for political bias, a reviewer would also inadvertently come across "facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent". But because they are trained in looking for political bias, not copyright infringement, he or she wouldn't know what to do with these "facts or circumstances". Because the reviewer has seen the infringing post, the company is legally deemed "aware", despite that the reviewer isn't looking for that sort of misbehavior.

Re:Aware of "facts" yet unaware of their import

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the legal theory was that a provider that proactively polices its users' material for copyright infringement may become considered legally "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent" without practical ability to recognize said "facts or circumstances" as such.

No, the legal theory was:

witter is not a government entity. They can do what they damn well please. They don't have to obey the 1st Amendment.

Yes, they can, but they can't have the safe harbor provision as they show to be checking for every post with a system, so they should be liable for every single copyright infringement on the platform.

Where the "checking" had nothing to do with checking for copyright infringement but rather "political bias."

The argument was that if a service implemented a political bias that they'd lose the copyright safe harbor. "Political bias" is not red flag knowledge of copyright infringement under 17 USC 512(c).

Regarding constructive knowledge, at issue is not whether a service provider had a general awareness that a particular type of item may be easily infringed; but whether the provider was aware of, but chose to ignore, red flags of blatant copyright infringement. If investigation of “facts and circumstances” is required to identify material as infringing, then those facts and circumstances are not “red flags.” In determining whether the service provider was aware of a red flag, the subjective awareness of the service provider of the facts or circumstances in question must be determined. In deciding whether those facts or circumstances constitute a red flag, a court must consider whether infringing activity would have been apparent to a reasonable person operating under the same or similar circumstances. - https://www.legalteamusa.net/dmca-requirements-knowledge/ - with court case citations

Company implements a service that involves humans monitoring and reviewing all social media posts for "political bias" or any other fucking reason.
Company stumbles upon social media post that blatantly infringes copyright under reasonable person standard, lets say a post of a camcorder recording of a movie playing in a theater in its entirety.
Company doesn't do anything because that was not why they were reviewing at the post.
Plaintiff proves that Company already knew about the post and reviewed it but did fuck all and sues them into the ground for copyright infringement.

Seems really dangerous to be reviewing social media posts from the company standpoint.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[marquisdepolis]

But above all, you're missing the larger point, which is that lumping together everyone on the other side of the line, whether they be just a shade over or the most extreme, is a really terrible political strategy (doesn't matter if you lean left or right). It all but guarantees that nothing gets done. If you want to win elections and steer the country, then a far better strategy is to move from "you voted for candidate X? You are by definition evil/stupid! There is nothing more to say!" to "wow, the extremes are nutty! Forget 'left'and 'right', let's form a coalition made up of even-keeled people".

This is a winning strategy, but will always be beyond your reach as long as you continue with your present mode of thinking.

Completely agree with the sentiment here, though it fails the reality test. Which is probably why Obama won with it. However he got demonized by a large majority on the right on pretty much every issue, which tried to paint his Reaganite ideas as "far left". FWIW Hillary tried the same approach and failed (I know I know, people hated here for something evil she had done).

Also may I point to the current president, and a large number of Senators, who played the exact opposite strategy, of constantly repeating the other side is "by definition evil/stupid", and won handily.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[deadwill69]

Well said. Now if we can just get people to believe it so we can start talking again!

No, and funny that

[rsilvergun]

they don't seem to allow comments on their articles, relying on Facebook and Twitter for community outreach. And they seem to be doing just fine with that.

This is the problem with "the left"

[rsilvergun]

I'm a lefty, and I'm deeply opposed to companies being able to regulate people. The "state" only gets the power to regulate in as much as they are granted that power by Democracy. e.g. all meaningful power derives from Democracy. "Meaningful" here means the ability to control access to food, shelter, healthcare, education and free speech

And here we have the problem with the left, we can't agree on anything. We're a loose knit coalition at best. The right, OTOH, and highly organized around two coalitions: Evangelical Religion and Laissez-faire capitalism. Since these two don't have much overlap the Evangelicals can get what (enforcing their religious beliefs to appease God) they want and the capitalists what they want (low taxes and little to no regulation or worker's rights).

Meanwhile the left will argue endlessly on appropriate gender pronouns...

FALSE

[gDLL]

because history has shown that the regular people very rarely understand how to actually accomplish their goals.

May I just flag this as 100% false and genocidally dangerous.
But parent is honest about his views, honesty is a merit.

What do you expect

[gDLL]

slashdot is kindergarten playground for sheltered adult juveniles, of course you get paternalism and elitism.

You're mixing up your amendments

[rsilvergun]

1st amendment rules don't apply. 14th amendment ones do. Along with the Civil Rights act. Those are different things. Twitter cannot discriminate against protected classes. Feel free to make political views a protected class. During the Bush Administration several factory owners fired workers for pro-Obama bumper stickers and it was perfectly legal. If you want to expand the scope of the Civil Rights Act nobody on the left is gonna stop you.

Now, my question is are you doing this on purpose as part of a deliberate effort or did you fall for the propaganda from someone else doing that? Either way everyone on this forum reading your post got had. If you're part of the group that got tricked then congrats, you now know you've been tricked. Now go do something about it.

Your guy Trump just called himself a Nationalist.

[gDLL]

You are either : 1) Nationalist 2) Imperialist(/globalist) 3) Anarchist.
Do you have another option ?

Trump's no King

[rsilvergun]

Think about it. He's big, orange and has really small hands relative to his body size. He's the God Emperor.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[dbrueck]

I'd only add that the concept that says, 'you're either left or right', is false.

Agreed. Or even, it's that very mentality that has exacerbated the problem.

free speech

[gDLL]

just wait until you find out about a thing called television...

Re:Conservative censorship

[gDLL]

Do you routinely have imaginary dialogs ? What else do the voices say ?

Re:Society is bias against nationalism.

[gDLL]

And who "produces" the baseballcourt shooter ?

If you don't like nationalism, then you probably like imperialism. Little other choice.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[dbrueck]

You are simply saying that people should just lie down and let the loudest, most extreme faction have control.

LOL, this may be one of the best reading comprehension fails I've ever seen.

NATIONALISM

[gDLL]

You are either a 1) Nationalist 2) Imperialist (globalist) 3) Anarchist.
be honest, come on.

btw to play devils advocate, you do realise that when no other choice is left people prefer fascists over communists, right ? This should make you look in the mirror.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[cayenne8]

However he got demonized by a large majority on the right on pretty much every issue, which tried to paint his Reaganite ideas as "far left". FWIW Hillary tried the same approach and failed

REally? Seriously?

I was around with Reagan as president....and I don't see a single parallel between him and Obama/Hillary.

They are both FAR left of him from my memory of his days as president.

Re:FALSE

[AmiMoJo]

But they do serve Nazis. Lots of them. People complain about it all the time but Twitter will only take action if the Nazis break their ToS, which are extremely lenient.

Re: Who said Twitter has no bias?

[zidium]

Yeah, that's what happened to me. I used to vote Libertarian and Democrat, but now I feel compelled to vote Republican.

Re:Nice slight of hand there

[mi]

So, you are seeking to contradict me on the basis of the synonyms I chose? "Right wing" and "Right-minded" are the same things, dear. Interchangeable synonyms, like "sex" and "gender".

Nor is there a difference — in this context — between the terms "umpire", "referee", as well as "judge" and "arbiter".

And they're generally pretty fair because of how the rules work

The rules work because these moderators (yet another synonym) are picked to not have their own affiliation with either side. This is a concept long-known in the world of sports — next time you watch Olympics or World Cup, pay attention... Never is a match judged by arbiters from the same country as one of the teams, for example. Indeed, often the referees are from a different continent.

But we don't have to limit ourselves to the domain of sports. For example from a different world, you and the majority of Twitter employees would always point out the inherent unfairness of any criminal conviction, rendered against a Black by a White jury...

Don't like it? Make some rules.

Quite amazing for you to insist on it being "pretty fair", while still inviting me to "make some rules" to address the unfairness...

No, Twitter is not fair, we both know it, Jack Dorsey knows. No, it is not for the government to make rules for them — that would be tyranny.

Lastly, my disliking something is not a good enough reason for me to demand it legally banned — this is something you, a Left-minded, would do good to understand (if not accept).

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[dbrueck]

The sentence is actually an assumption from your point of view too. Even though I agree that the majority of people tend to be cluster together in the middle, the bell curve you are talking about may not be what you think. In other words, the bell curve you are talking seems to be focusing only the majority in the middle. However, in reality, it may be leaning toward one side than the other. If you say 90% of the population are in the middle of the bell curve, it is still correct if the tip of the bell curve is half way through to one side. I highly doubt that if you draw a line divided at the tip of the curve, you would see close to 50-50 as your assumption seems to indicate.

Oh I don't disagree - I'm not making any assumption about that at all. I'm simply talking about the relative sizes of the groups - those generally at the extreme ends of the political spectrum versus the rest. The extremists are relatively minuscule in number. Heck, if you don't even look at extremes, but just look at who considers themselves solidly one way or another, neither party has anywhere near a majority (unaffiliated voters outnumber registered D's or R's).\

Then they should put it in the rules

[poity]

Don't have a set of rules you show, and another set you enforce.

Re:Nice slight of hand there

[Enigma2175]

So, you are seeking to contradict me on the basis of the synonyms I chose? "Right wing" and "Right-minded" are the same things, dear

No, those are not synonyms. From https://www.dictionary.com/bro... (the only definition, I'm not cherry picking):

right-minded [rahyt-mahyn-did]
adjective
having correct, honest, or good opinions or principles.

Being conservative has nothing to do with having correct, honest or good opinions. Try not to be so patronizing when you are wrong-minded, dear.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[Highdude702]

Thats why you have to be an extreme centrist. O.o

Re: FALSE

[Highdude702]

You must hate new technology.

Re:Nice slight of hand there

[mi]

right-minded [rahyt-mahyn-did] adjective

I deliberately Capitalized the word "Right" — to avoid any allusions to "correctness".

I choose my words carefully. I suggest, you do the same, dearest.

Re:FALSE

[Aighearach]

Well, you're sorta right; they can't cite that case. They have to say something else instead, like, "We won't do business with nazis because they're harmful to our community." Done.

Re:Nice slight of hand there

[Enigma2175]

Capitalizing it doesn't make it change its meaning. You used it wrong, claimed it was a synonym when challenged on it and then doubled-down on your stupidity when shown proof. You certainly have the conservative mindset down pat.

Yeah, I do

[rsilvergun]

Democratic Socialist.

Re:Yeah, I do

[gDLL]

That's not a valid option. You either believe nations should be organized in states, or multiple nations should live inside the same state, or no state at all.
So what's your answer friend ?

Re:Nice slight of hand there

[mi]

Capitalizing it doesn't make it change its meaning

Yes, of course, capitalization changes meaning — here are some more examples.

Everybody's got a left hand, very few people have a Left idiot-nephew, that they are embarrassed to talk about.

Yeah, dear, one of us really is stupid, but it is not me...

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[jcr]

There is no substantial 'radical left' in America

So, those "antifa" assholes don't exist? How about the Bernie Bro who opened fire on the Republicans' baseball practice? Or whoever mailed the envelope of ricin to General Mattis?

Why do you even bother to lie about something so obvious?

-jcr

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[q_e_t]

However he got demonized by a large majority on the right on pretty much every issue, which tried to paint his Reaganite ideas as "far left". FWIW Hillary tried the same approach and failed

REally? Seriously?

I was around with Reagan as president....and I don't see a single parallel between him and Obama/Hillary.

They are both FAR left of him from my memory of his days as president.

Obama, compared to the world in general, is centre-right, on a par with, say, David Cameron in the UK. Hilary is somewhat to the right of Hilary Clinton, and Reagan was maybe a tiny smidge to the right of Clinton. Reagan backed some US military interventions, as did Clinton, but was also heavily opposed to nuclear weapons (not public knowledge at the time). Reagan talked of 'Welfare Queens' but did relatively little to welfare compared to Bill Clinton (different Clinton, but pretty much the same policies as Hilary). Reagan did boost the military budget, though, and cut taxes.

Re: Who said Twitter has no bias?

[q_e_t]

If you took the average left-leaning person from the 1950s and brought them to present-day america, they'd be voting Republican in no time.

The 1950s, when there were a number of unions, some large, in the USA that were avowedly (soft) Marxist and had significant working-class support? The 1950s when the Republican president warned of the military-industrial complex? Those 1950s?

Re: Who said Twitter has no bias?

[c6gunner]

Yeah, the 1950s, when homosexuality and abortion were illegal, divorce was a dirty word, prayer and the pledge of allegience were still a required part of the school curriculum, and "social justice" was a euphimism for the public lynchings of accused criminals. Those 1950s.

Re:Bias is Pretty Blatant Anyway

[Plus1Entropy]

The reason it matters is because of the implication of why the tweets were removed. If it was automated, then it means that the tweets triggered existing pattern recognition and got flagged as bots/spam. If it wasn't automated, the implication is that Twitter was doing some sort of impromptu damage control for the Democrats.

I almost guarantee the GP I originally responded to believes the latter.

Re: Who said Twitter has no bias?

[JabrTheHut]

The 1950s, where companies weren't people, the concept of marital rape didn't exist, the Republicans running a deficit were treated the same as the Democrats running a deficit, and it would have been considered un-American and illegal to conduct mass spying operations against the US population.

The good news is that Trump is doing everything he can to ban abortion, Pence is doing everything he can to ban homosexuality, and between the two of them God help women...

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[cayenne8]

Obama, compared to the world in general,

Well, there's your first problem, you are comparing L/R in the US to L/R in most of the world. To the US, most of the world is all far left.

So, if discussing L/R in the US, let's keep it to use comparisons only, as that what the rest of the world thinks isn't that important to us here....if you like that stuff in EU, have fun with it, but it doesn't have anything to do with the conversation of political spectrum in the US.

Re: Who said Twitter has no bias?

[q_e_t]

when homosexuality and abortion were illegal,

And when there were active campaigns to get that changed.

divorce was a dirty word

But divorce was common for the well-off, but due to lack of rights for women, it was hard for many women to cope outside marriage.

"social justice" was a euphimism for the public lynchings of accused criminals.

Or when social justice was a term used by those on the left to promote, well, social justice.

prayer and the pledge of allegience were still a required part of the school curriculum,

Ruled by the Supreme Court not constitutional to require this in 1943.

How many nations inside state

[gDLL]

How many nations inside the state, please answer in integers.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[Oswald McWeany]

The truth, of course, is that we need to increase taxes *and* cut spending substantially, but that's not a platform either side agrees with.

Long term, yes. Or- at least, the growth in national debt needs to be smaller than the growth in tax revenue. As long as debt increases more than tax revenue does- we're going to be continually paying more towards debt repayment than using it for improving the country.

As long as debt increases as a percentage faster than revenue does we're robbing future prosperity for present day prosperity.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[Kyr Arvin]

But above all, you're missing the larger point, which is that lumping together everyone on the other side of the line, whether they be just a shade over or the most extreme, is a really terrible political strategy (doesn't matter if you lean left or right)

It isn't? It seems like it works really really well. Getting "your base" really fired up with a good turnout is the key to winning elections these days. Much of the middle is apathetic and doesn't turn out to vote, and people who don't vote at all might as well not exist.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[Kyr Arvin]

Decrease spending and taxes > Increase spending and taxes > Increase spending and decrease taxes. I guess I can't get decreasing spending and taxes, but at least the Dems want to increase taxes to pay for their stuff. That's a heck of a lot better than issuing a tax refund that's added to the national debt.

Re:Who said Twitter has no bias?

[dbrueck]

But above all, you're missing the larger point, which is that lumping together everyone on the other side of the line, whether they be just a shade over or the most extreme, is a really terrible political strategy (doesn't matter if you lean left or right)

It isn't? It seems like it works really really well.
Getting "your base" really fired up with a good turnout is the key to winning elections these days. Much of the middle is apathetic and doesn't turn out to vote, and people who don't vote at all might as well not exist.

I think the fact that it is a strategy that is being used is not the same thing as it being a good strategy. :) The closeness of recent presidential (and the upcoming midterm) elections says that the exact opposite is true: both sides try to rile up their base and then hope they can eke out a win.

One problem is that it's hard to keep your base whipped up over time (which means it's also expensive). Another is that if your base is similar in size to the other base, the result comes down to razor thin margins. About 1 billion USD was spent by candidates in the 2016 US election and the result was nearly a coin toss (Clinton lost Michigan by 0.3%, NH by 0.4%, Wisconsin by 1%, PA by 1.2%, etc.) - those margins are too close to predict (within just about any prediction's margin of error), so it's not a reliable approach.

Gallup polling shows less than 30% say they are Dems, less than 30% say they are Reps, and over 40% say they are neither. That's a huge potential pool of votes if you can come up with a message that resonates with them. But if you demonize the extreme and then imply that everyone on the other side is the same, you're creating enemies from potential allies.