Leftists are actually trying to say the leak shows that Twitter was promoting conservatives!

submitted by [deleted] from self.politics

Link

The delusion and insatiable need for narrative control knows no bounds.

Having a prompt that says "consult before banning" doesn't mean they have special privileges. This probably happens for a lot of famous and polarizing accounts, so they can't just be taken down by baseless mass flagging.

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Fiyanggu 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Talk about Big Brother! Can you imagine if they really were able to fully control the media? Everyone would agree the sky is green today or pink tomorrow.

[–]ShekelPa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean... they do fully control the media. These people are living caricatures of themselves.

[–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which is why the western world is a mess.

[–]WhenImBanned 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Prepare for bots posting that and awarding it all over Reddit. Only a moron would deny liberals ruled Twitter with bias. That's the whole reason why they are crying about Elon Musk buying it, they know they're losing their tyranny if they didn't they wouldn't care who buys Twitter.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

"Trends Blacklisted" they weren't allowed to be trending on people's feeds.

[–]Circlesbadnews 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Weird that the lefties skipped that part

[–]SeethingPeasant 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The left is truly retarded.

[–]WoodyWoodPecker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

...and we have a winnah!

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

The leaks didn't show much of anything.

Neither campaign team was favored according to what Taibi shared.

Its interesting that you're able to look closely at a picture and come to rational conclusions about it, though. I wonder how long that skill will stick around, if you want to argue that twitter leaks showed they favored the left.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

Although both parties had access, the Democrats were obviously heavily favored. Show me a liberal account that went through the same crap the conservative ones did.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

You're asking me to confirm your confirmation bias.

No, the democrats were not "obviously" heavily favored, you are making that up because it sounds nice to you. That wasn't in any evidence, but it doesn't need to be, because you liked the sound of it and now it's a fundamental part of your worldview

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

First of all, why are leftists saying that the "do not take action without consulting management" thing means they were boosting pages like Libs of TikTok? That's the main point of this post.

Secondly, I've seen that a number of conservative accounts were blacklisted. I haven't personally combed through the list of blacklisted accounts or trends, but I haven't seen any leftist accounts being blocked. If there are any, it would surprise me that this was done on the same scale, because a guy like Charlie Kirk with many followers was shadow banned, for example.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

why are leftists saying

Who is saying that? Why don't you ask them? Why the fuck would you ask me why someone did a tweet.

number of conservative accounts were blacklisted. I haven't personally combed through the list of blacklisted accounts or trends, but I haven't seen

Yeah that's called confirmation bias, dummy. Thats why you should go off evidence, instead of dumb blogs and tweets.

a guy like Charlie Kirk

Probably because he broke a twitter policy. Why don't you ask Elon? Don't you think if it was partisan, Elon would have told you by now.

"Elon's latest bombshell: Charlie Kirk was suspended because of political bias"

There's a reason youre not reading that headline, and it's not because Elon is holding out on the good stuff

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Leftists are saying this. You're here to defend leftists. It might not have been you, but it's certainly bears mentioning. That's a completely fair point for discussion, stop deliberately trying to find a fallacy when it's a completely relevant question. So cringe.

Yes, technically, I would need to comb through the list myself. But on the other hand, I haven't heard of any leftists accounts being shadow banned.

Furthermore, you claimed there was no bias. What's this based on?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

"probably because he broke twitter policy", it may not have been Kirk, but there actually is evidence that users WERE shadow banned WITHOUT violating any policies: https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601020845224128512/photo/1

So that's the opposite of what you just suggested.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Reply to me once please. Then we have an orderly conversation instead of multiplying threads every time you get a new idea.

First of all, did you link me to the correct thing here? You linked me to a screenshot which says this

the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions

That is directly contradictory to how you introduced it when you say

WITHOUT violating any policies

Anyway you are still asking me to answer for other people's comments. I didn't make those comments.

You're here to defend leftists

No I am not, I am here to tell you that the Taibi "twitter files" have no indication of bias.

Read what I initially wrote. I didn't say anything about defending any leftists. I said that neither campaign team was favored according to what Taibi showed.

Furthermore, you claimed there was no bias. What's this based on?

Well what are you basing any claim of bias on, first of all?

You're making an extraordinary claim so show your extraordinary evidence.

As for me, Taibi tweeted this

https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598828932395978752

10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored.

Oh no the trump white house is censoring the internet

Edit - oh remember how I wrote this earlier

Its interesting that you're able to look closely at a picture and come to rational conclusions about it, though. I wonder how long that skill will stick around

Funny how that skill is now evaporating isn't it

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

The link I showed says this: “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy." Anything beyond that is taking liberties. It doesn't matter if it's in a statement or not. And no sane person would ever believe that repercussions for people who didn't directly violate the policies could be done in a fair way.

Campaign teams? What about other political actors that weren't associating with those campaign teams? Did Kirk or LibsofTikTok have associations with the campaigns? It still matters if they were treated with bias whether it's related to the campaigns or not. That doesn't prove there is "no bias" in the grand picture of all political actors.

It's one thing to ask for evidence. It's another to pretend you have no agenda when you really do. You just don't want to engage with what leftists are asserting in the original post because it shows that you're letting them slide while being hypercritical of those on the right on the very same issue. And truth be told, I don't think Elon would be saying what he's been saying if it were truly an "unbiased" situation.

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The link I showed says this

I'm still not sure we're looking at the same thing. I am referring to your bariweis post a few comments up. It's the one that says

the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions

Anyway everything else you wrote is predicated on the notion that these accounts were punished for their politics, instead of receiving consequences for their actions in violation of twitter policies.

Campaign teams? What about other political actors that weren't associating with those campaign teams

Oh like trump white house staff?

Anyway which other political actors did you see in the Taibi leaks? Because I also looked closely at the leaks and didn't see anyone else reporting tweets to twitter for policy violation review. Only campaign staff emailing what I suspect was their ads account manager to complain that Donny saw mean words while sat on the toilet at 2am

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions

Be good faith bro. If we really tell the truth, you would never accept this criteria if it came down on against your side. And you know it. "Indirect" lol. But you're pretending not to know it for rhetorical leverage. Yet you come in here and act like the man that's going to expose everyone's fallacies. That's some bullshit. One set of rules for you and yours, another for everyone else. You'll hold opponents to the strictest standard, knowing damn well it would be a problem for you if "indirect violations" (defined by who?) were levied against your side. I want to treat everyone fair...but I hope I never get that desperate.

[–]SeethingPeasant 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

99.8% of use of censorship favored the dems. The Twitter files has exposed collusion between the fbi/dnc/big tech to attack and silence their political oppenants and to interfere and tamper with elections, and suppress evidence for democrats. You'd have to be blind deaf and dumb to say that the Twitter files haven't shown much. And Jim baker was fired because he was trying to comb through and delete any evidence of fbi/dnc involvement.

[–]Site_rly_sux 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

99.8% of use of censorship favored the dems

That wasn't in any evidence that we saw.

You have just invented a number because it sounds nice to you and works within a narrative that you're trying to tell.

Well I am talking about facts and evidence, not any nice narrative. So please don't create new numbers and add them to the story like they were always there.

In fact we did NOT see ANY evidence that one side was favored.

The Twitter files has exposed collusion between the fbi/dnc/big tech to attack and silence their political oppenants and to interfere and tamper with elections, and suppress evidence for democrats

You're absolutely wrong about that.

The files showed

  1. That large advertisers like both sides' election campaigns have some dedicated executive they can email with complaints. I wonder if any company you have worked for handles complaints from large customers and what you thought about it at the time

  2. That our law enforcement agencies work to stop the type of misinformation that causes violent in American cities like this time it happened

https://www.texastribune.org/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-page-organized-protest-texas-different-russian-page-l/

You're simply lying and creating new narratives that aren't supported by any evidence but sound nice to you, so you're adding them to the story, just like you invented and added a 99.8 number.

Jim baker was fired because

The one and only reason I've seen given is that Elon thinks Baker wasn't 100% sure Hunter laptop material was hacked when he gave the go-ahead to start removing it.

Not a bad decision at the time and he had every right to make it IMO. Just Elon shedding staff and causing a political stink for fun

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

it's the sabbath bro, wtf?

[–]Site_rly_sux 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

God was pretty clear when he told me directly that I could take off 99.8% of sabbaths to deal with weirdos spreading misinfo online

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good luck man. Fauci turned half of all Americans into government distrusting anti-vaxers.

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They also believe that facts are unfair.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are fucking liars. And they will say and do anything to win. And winning looks like the destruction of the US.