Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

YoungDan23 t1_j1dp1wl wrote

Reply to comment by Status_Fox_1474 in Twitter secretly boosted US psyops in Middle East, report says by datamigrationdata

>a completely honest and not-at-all suspect creation

I suspect the visibility filtering (ie blacklisting) without users knowledge was also made up too?

−6

Status_Fox_1474 t1_j1dtthx wrote

You mean filtering the Libs of TikTok, an account that often doxxes people and encourages armed right-wing protests to threaten LGBTQ activities and teachers? The same account that was followed by the man who shot up a Colorado Springs gay bar? Because I'm pretty sure that account had numerous suspensions for violations -- fuck, I bet that Bongino and Charlie Kirk also had a ton of violations and suspensions. And instead of those "repeat offenders" being booted from the platform, there was a big sign saying they could not be removed without getting approval from the absolute heads of the company. This is their complaint.

But let's talk about the actual report. This isn't a trove of documents. It's a bunch of cherry-picked data -- including the possibility that whoever is supplying this information to Weiss is able to read users' direct messages? Holy shit, that's huge news!

10

YoungDan23 t1_j1dzjpv wrote

>You mean filtering the Libs of TikTok, an account that often doxxes people and encourages armed right-wing protests to threaten LGBTQ activities and teachers? The same account that was followed by the man who shot up a Colorado Springs gay bar? Because I'm pretty sure that account had numerous suspensions for violations -- fuck, I bet that Bongino and Charlie Kirk also had a ton of violations and suspensions.

I see you conveniently skipped one. I don't disagree those people shouldn't be on the platform. Now are you going to address the first name you scrolled over - Jay Bhattacharya who is a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine? All because he said COVID lockdowns were bad for children (which turned out to be 100% true).

This after Twitter executives, including Jack Dorsey, the head of legal and head of product went as far as saying shadow bans (VF) wasn't a thing and the platform only looked at behaviour? Jack Dorsey even said the same in front of the US Congress. Now what do you suppose they did with other dissenting voices on COVID in 2020?

They were caught in their own web of lies. That's the thing about liars, it doesn't matter if you catch them in 1 or 100, trust has been breached.

The worst part about it is I fucking hate the conspiracy theorists types (Joe Rogan, for example) and this is the tiny crumb they needed to prove what they were saying the last 3 years was in fact at least partially true.

2

ExasperatedEE t1_j1etbco wrote

> All because he said COVID lockdowns were bad for children (which turned out to be 100% true).

Prove it.

Also prove that the supposed harm to children greatly outweighed the lives saved among adults.

Your kid being slightly more likely to get the flu does not outweigh the lives of 100 elderly teachers at their school.

2

Status_Fox_1474 t1_j1e18qr wrote

>I see you conveniently skipped one.

Screw that. I'm not going to answer each case one-by-one. I don't have all the time to go through that to start talking about the dude who spent all his time on Twitter saying everyone will be fine if we walked around with masks -- which was basically called completely stupid and dangerous by a judge. Especially if the dude is now taking a lot of money by being a right-wing cause celebre. By the same token, if Twitter thinks it's a good idea to blacklist a hypothetical "Let kids play with unlocked guns!" whatever. People will complain about that too.

>The worst part about it is I fucking hate the conspiracy theorists types (Joe Rogan, for example) and this is the tiny crumb they needed to prove what they were saying the last 3 years was in fact at least partially true.

That's what conspiracy theorists do. They twist whatever they can, and the conspiracy theorists respond by pointing out that they should have the absolute right to spread misinformation -- and be rewarded for it! (It's not just that they're punished. It's that they're not rewarded for their misinformation. It's why Joe Rogan can claim that he's being canceled whenever he's criticized, despite him making a shitton of money thanks to Spotify.

0

ExasperatedEE t1_j1et2sa wrote

Am I supposed to be upset at them protecting people from medical hoaxsters pushing ivermectin, and protecting LGBT people from right wing extremists?

Filtering trending tags is also not "blacklisting". Anyone who is subscribed to those people would still see their posts. Twitter is under no obligation to boost people's posts on the front page if their views do not align with their values.

As Elon said, freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.

1