Social Media, Top Stories, Who Controls The Platform?
comments 137

It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals

This is a response to “Who Controls the Platform?“—a multi-part Quillette series authored by social-media insiders. Submissions related to this series may be directed to pitch@quillette.com.

Many conservatives believe that social media companies are biased against their views. This includes Donald Trump, who last year accused Twitter of “shadow banning” Republicans, and promised to “look into this discriminatory and illegal practice.” A few months later, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey made a categorical denial of any bias while testifying before Congress:

Let me be clear about one important and foundational fact: Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially.

Recently, Mr. Dorsey appeared on two different podcasts, on which he similarly denied any bias against the right.

Not everyone is convinced. A June, 2018 Pew poll found that 72% of Americans believe that social media companies censor views they don’t like, with members of the public being four times more likely to report a belief that such institutions favor liberals over conservatives than the opposite. Podcasters Joe Rogan and Sam Harris both received backlash from their respective audiences for not pressing Dorsey hard enough on the censorship issue.

Until now, conservatives have had to rely on anecdotes to make their case. To see whether there is an empirical basis for such claims, I decided to look into the issue of Twitter bias by putting together a database of prominent, politically active users who are known to have been temporarily or permanently suspended from the platform. My results make it difficult to take claims of political neutrality seriously. Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump.

I began my analysis by compiling a list of every prominent individual or political party known to have been banned from Twitter since its founding. As a proxy for prominence, I used the criterion of whether the ban was important enough to warrant coverage in mainstream news sources. With the help of two research assistants, I searched both conservative and liberal media sources.

It is possible that I missed certain cases. In order to ensure reproducibility, I have made the data on suspended individuals and groups available online. And I invite readers to contact me if I missed any cases or made any errors. But given the wide variety of sources we used to compile the database, it is unlikely that any oversights would be substantial enough to meaningfully change the results.

I included only those cases in which the identity of the banned individual or entity was clear. Sometimes, Twitter removes an account because a user is thought to be engaging in a program of disinformation—for example, accounts allegedly run by agents of the Russian government that purport to identify with one side of the American political spectrum. To exclude such spurious cases, I designed my own database to include only unambiguous cases of identifiable individuals or organizations from English-speaking western democracies believed to be engaging in political advocacy in good faith. I counted individuals who are primarily known for their political activism, such as Milo Yiannopoulos; and others who are famous for other reasons but who also regularly comment on politics, such as the actor James Woods. As my main interest is political bias within the U.S. political spectrum, I also excluded terrorists and other Islamic extremists such as ISIS supporters.

Twitter debuted in 2006. Yet I could not find a case of the company suspending or banning a prominent person before May 2015. While this may be due to deficiencies in reporting, it also may reflect Twitter’s claim at the time that it was “the free speech wing of the free speech party.” The following chart shows the number of monthly suspensions from 2015 to January, 2019.

I found it difficult to establish the extent to which any of the suspended individuals or groups clearly supported Republicans over Democrats or vice versa. Classifying them along the left-right axis is also problematic, as there are some figures that neither side would be eager to claim. Most prominent individuals who were suspended did express a preference in the 2016 election, however. And by restricting our analysis to this subset, and counting how many supported Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, we can create a rough measure of whether there is bias, albeit one with a small sample size.

As noted above, of the 22 suspended individuals, only one was a Clinton supporter. This was actress-turned-activist Rose McGowan, who temporarily lost access to her account in 2017 for posting someone’s private phone number. Note that this is an unambiguous violation of Twitter’s rules, so the platform had little choice in this case. The platform does not seem to have suspended a single prominent Clinton supporter based on the substantive content of his or her expressed views.

Of course, the existence of this disparity does not prove that Twitter is actively discriminating against Trump supporters. Perhaps conservatives are simply more likely to violate neutral rules regarding harassment and hate speech. In such case, the observed data would not serve to impugn Twitter, but rather conservatives themselves.

Luckily, through the use of standard statistical methods—similar to those commonly applied to calculate confidence intervals in the physical and social sciences—one may determine that the underlying population disparity (i.e. the disparity between liberal and conservative behavioral norms) would have to be quite large in order for there to be any significant likelihood of observing a randomly constituted 22-point data set characterized by the above-described 21:1 ratio. Indeed, assuming some randomness in enforcement unrelated to bias, one would have to assume that conservatives were at least four times as likely as liberals to violate Twitter’s neutrally applied terms of service to produce even a 5% chance (the standard benchmark) that a 22-data point sample would yield a result as skewed as 21-1.

Are prominent Trump supporters more likely to break neutrally applied social media terms of service agreements than other voters? Perhaps. But are they four or more times as likely? That doesn’t seem credible.

Indeed, it is not difficult to find cases of liberals engaging in speech that appears to cross the line while not being punished for their transgressions. This includes the case of Sarah Jeong. After she was hired as an editorial writer for The New York Times, it was discovered that over the years she had posted dozens of messages expressing hatred and contempt of whites. When conservative activist Candace Owens copied some of Jeong’s tweets and replaced the word “white” with “Jewish,” she was suspended from the platform. Perhaps realizing how hypocritical this looked after they had not taken any action against Jeong, Twitter allowed Owens back on, but only after she deleted the offending tweets.

Interestingly, if you search “Sarah Jeong” in Google, you get no auto-complete suggestions regarding her controversial tweets, despite this being the source of considerable infamy. On Bing and Yahoo!, “Sarah Jeong racist” is the first offered search suggestion when her name is typed in. While one could argue that individuals’ worst moments shouldn’t follow them around forever, it is difficult to imagine a big tech company suppressing unflattering information about a conservative in a similar manner.

Another particularly shocking case is that of Kathy Griffin, who demanded that her followers make public the names of the Covington High School students who were falsely accused of aggressively harassing a Native American activist. Despite this explicit call to harass minors, she has not been sanctioned by Twitter.

Left-wing activists on college campus regularly engage in the practice of de-platforming—including the use of violence or the threat thereof as a means to prevent someone from speaking. Victims of this practice typically are conservative figures such as Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter. At Berkley, when Milo Yiannopoulos tried to give a speech, a large mob threw stones and fireworks at police officers, and attacked members of the crowd. Around the same time, commentators noted that during the 2016 president campaign, when Bernie Sanders visited Liberty University, the evangelical institution run be Jerry Falwell, Jr., his message was met with “polite skepticism.”

Are we to believe that while prominent figures on the left encourage uncivil and even violent tactics, both on and off college campuses, their online behaviour is, with the solitary exception of Rose McGowan, universally exemplary?

Harassment and the advocacy of violence are serious issues, and there is nothing morally objectionable about social media companies removing this kind of content from their platforms. However, such laudable objectives should not be used as cover to prosecute ideological campaigns. While social media platforms are private companies, anti-discrimination laws generally allow legislators avenues to address businesses that exhibit unacceptable biases in how they treat the public.

It is unthinkable that we would allow a telephone or electricity company to prevent those on one side of the political aisle from using its services. Why would we allow social media companies to do the same?

 

Richard Hanania, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. Follow him on Twitter @RichardHanania

Featured Photograph by Kevin Krejci

137 Comments

  1. Sydney says

    Re the title, NOBODY who interacts in any conservative ways (my Twitter engagement spans the political spectrum) EVER thought they were IMAGINING it. It’s absolutely clear.

    How Jack Dorsey gets away with speaking out of both sides of his mouth on this topic (“…social media is a human right…”) is beyond me. Islamists, left-wing anti-Semites, pedophiles, and every sort of freak roams with impunity, but conservatives are shut down on a VARIETY of platforms. (Paypal’s totalitarian terms of service and Orwellian system of thought regulation is among the most chilling and repugnant). Case in point: Common-sense conservative Laura Loomer.

    • Sydney says

      Whoops, I meant Patreon’s totalitarian terms of service and Orwellian system of thought regulation (clearly seen through the deep dives of Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin). However, Paypal and others have also shut down conservatives; so, honestly, the rest is just in the details.

    • Groucho says

      I’m taking a bath and am not going to dignify morons by reading thru all these responses whether they have valid points or not. Anyone who equates supporters of trump with needing equal consideration for their points of view should be rhetorically shot. You do not have the equivalent right to falsely shout “fire” in a crowded theater. You should have to pay a price for such destructive heresy

      • Steve Zen says

        “Whether they have valid points or not.” That says it all. You have made up your mind and nothing else matters. Not additional facts or information. You wouldn’t make a very good detective now would you?

      • SJDES says

        “Anyone who equates supporters of trump with needing equal consideration for their points of view should be rhetorically shot.”

        And, who’s going to do this rhetorical shooting? You? lol

  2. Mason says

    None of the Blue Check Marks who were calling for the doxxing and murders of the Covington students and their families were punished. There can’t be a more clear example than this.

    • Groucho says

      And you can find blond haired people who think the world is flat. Those stupid blondes

  3. E. Olson says

    These results don’t surprise me, but let’s be objective in assessing the reason why. After all, everyone knows only the Right is evil and needs to have their tweet privileges revoked, while only the Left offers the reasonable and mainstream view on all issues. For example, no one in 1939 would have objected to assassinating Hitler, and Trump really is Hitler. Climate change really is going to kill everyone in 12 years, so tweets calling for the jailing of deniers should be celebrated not banned. Similarly, it should almost be seen as a public service to tweet that the Jews control the US government with Benjamins. And how could any reasonable person be against tweeting support for the right to abort a clump of 9 month old cells?

    • Craig WIllms says

      @E
      I know you’r pushing the envelope to make a point. The thing is you’re not wrong. Its like we live in topsy turvy world. The leftists expertly use projectionism as a tool. They scream racism (every ism) smearing anyone to the right of them and whip up a frenzy- and then get a pass when they soil themselves with racists behavior of their own. Somehow the right to life crowd trying to save unborn babies are the cruel monsters and the Governor who signs legislation allowing the killing of unborn babies gets a standing ovation. It’s a sick world.

      • E. Olson says

        Craig – I wish I was pushing the envelope, but every one of my “outlandish” examples of Leftist opinion are frequently expressed in the mainstream media, and by (D) politicians and celebrities with virtually no criticism except by members of the deplorable, hateful, and deplatformed Right.

        • Laurence says

          Wait, I didn’t know that the entire Democratic leadership’s condemnation of Ilhan Omar’s tweet (whose anti-Semitic tinge came from the fact that she suggested Republicans were motivated by money from the pro-Israel lobby, not that Jews control the government, like Trump-supporting white nationalists claim) actually praised it as a public service?

          By the way, I was being charitable to your whinging victimhood narrative and its pouty, resentful overtone.

          Leaving aside how patently wild your characterizations were, zero of the other “examples” provided of prominent Democratic figures and news outlets like the New York Times saying what you claim they do, and then being celebrated for it, allow the rest of us to evaluate a specific case.

    • It’s easy to make rediculous statements about the right…while also pointing out specific problems with the “system” How bout you get off your ass and come up with solutions. Bitching does nobody any good.

  4. Why does Quilette have a Patreon button? After Patreon’s blatant discrimination against individuals purely on political belief system was made evident so clearly.

    At least switch to SubscribeStar?

    Then it won’t look so hypocritical as to what your articles profess you stand for?

    • Daniel Farnsworth says

      What you’re advocating is exactly the problem. We’re policing everybody’s associations, replacing the discussion of ideas with “who do you stand with?” I’m tired of asserting identity and image. Why can’t it be enough to think Patreon made a mistake? Why do I have to be the solution, delivering punishment and shame, for a problem I didn’t create?

      That’s what all this de-platforming is in the first place, liberal narcissists trying to solve problems that aren’t theirs to solve, i.e. everybody besides themselves. Conservatives, per their usual daftness, think that they can fight back by reversing the outrage. This codependent abusive relationship playing out on a global scale can’t be won by trying to fix other people.

      • Foyle says

        Patreon, paypal, twitter and others could have easily remained neutral platforms. They have, to their shame, chosen the path of bias and partisanship. That’s not a ‘mistake’, it’s furtive policy formed with malice of the noble-cause-corruption type. They should be censured for that, and baring unlikely bipartisan legislative action hitting their income/patronage and promoting competitors in whatever ways are viable is the only way to do that.

        • Steve says

          @Foyle, I actually think “the inmates are running the asylum” at most of these places. SJWs have infiltrated positions that are responsible for censoring content and are having at it.

          • Angela says

            I have also heard this theory pretty well argued. That the staff at some of these tech companies is composed of so many fringe SJWs that the bosses are basically facing widespread employee mutiny if they dont “do the right thing”.

          • Angela says

            Basically what started happening at collehe campuses yesterday has moved on to the tech world today.

          • Angela says

            Dont get me wrong most of the employees arent fringe SJWs, but the problem is most are either basically sympathetic to SJW basics or are too terrified of facing massive backlash for speaking out against them.

          • @Angela “Basically what started happening at collehe campuses yesterday has moved on to the tech world today.”

            Today is starts in the Democrat-Union Public schools here in the states. It’s amplified in universities and colleges.

      • Dan Love says

        @Daniel Farnsworth

        “Patreon made a mistake”. I do not think you are well informed. It’s not “a mistake” when it’s dozens of mistakes and Patreon backs them all up, correcting none of them. No one here would judge any platform for making “a mistake”.

        You mention ‘replacing the discussion of ideas with “who do you stand with?” I’m tired of asserting identity and image.’ and ‘Conservatives, per their usual daftness, think that they can fight back by reversing the outrage’.

        But it has worked so well when their opposition has done it – really, really well. As a nonconservative, I can’t fault conservatives for trying a strategy that has worked incredibly well.

        The largest and most powerful corporations humanity has ever seen adopt and enforce an ideology that would have been considered extremist at any other time except in the last 4 years.

      • Peter from Oz says

        Daniel
        I’m going to stand with you on this point. I detest left wing ideas, but I think the best way to defeat them is to argue against them, not to stoop to the cheating and political tricks that so many leftists use.
        The fact is that the left have to use those tricks, because in reality their arguments are against nature and reason. We on the right don’t really have to do that, because our arguments are sound and reasonable.
        In my opinion the mirage of leftist ”victory” is a mile wide and an inch deep. It only takes a few people to stand up and cry ”enough” and whole mirage will vanish.
        If Patreon or some other outlet bans common sense, then start a new outlet for yourself. But don’t whine about it. Get on with getting your ideas into the market.
        SInistra delenda est

        • Too funny. Better check your bow tie is on straight, Peter from Oz.

          Have you not been actually paying any attention whatsoever to current events in the real world?

      • Hermes says

        @Farnsworth

        You’re absolutely right, sticking to the centre and maintaining dialogue is the way out of this quagmire.

        However, mistakes should usually bring repentance, judgement and change of behaviour/outlook to insure that same mistakes won’t be made again. If you carry on making the same mistake again and again, in evolutionary sense you won’t get far.

        Hence, when an individual or an entity makes a “mistake” it is expected to learn from it and improve, but if it gets away with it it’s unlikely to learn a lesson. And if a company makes the same mistakes continuously it’s only natural for competition to arise and for users to switch to competitors who won’t make the same mistake. Free market.

      • Why would you say Patreon ‘made a mistake’ when they haven’t reversed it and have repeatedly attempted to justify it? That’s not what a mistake is.

    • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

      @Louai Munajim

      Areo just offered a non Patreon donation solution so I coughed up. As soon as Claire does the same she’ll get a chunk of my money too.

    • Erick Crago says

      People have already tried that. Paypal pulled its payment options from Subscribestar causing a huge storm. This S8tstorm goes pretty deep. I am glad Peterson, Roegan, and Harris pulled their payments from Patreon. The problem are the availability of viable alternatives.

      Oh, and SubsrcribeStar is a Russian Conspiracy haven populated by the alt-right. I mean, mainstream media wouldn’t lie about such things, would they?

  5. ccscientist says

    What is striking to me is Twitter (and others) banning prominent conservatives like Candace Owens. Really?

  6. Thanks for doing this! What has been so maddening is not to be able to prove what you know you are seeing. I saw people lose 2/3 of their followers overnight. Sometimes a few thousand would appear again but not the total. Shadowbanning was big and that happened to many following the prominent check mark people. Suddenly, I had to look for them. This really impacted people who used twitter to promote their other sites.

    I think it’s on its way out as soon as Trump is gone. I don’t miss it. Well, maybe James Woods.

  7. jimhaz says

    Rather happy to see Alex Jones/Infowars and Roger Stone banned permanently.

    Milo not so much. Meghan Murphy banning seemed unfair.

    Overall though, I’m not concerned about these twitter bans – but I think Trump is utterly horrible and I think both the politically far right and far left are more or less just professional liars and scammers.

    The Patreon ones are more of an issue.

    • Space Viking says

      I dislike banning in general. Sure, someone using a social media platform to conduct criminal activity or who uses tactics to chill discussions like spamming or doxxing needs to disappear. But given these joints allow account holders to block others, there’s really no harm in an Alex Jones shouting from the rooftop about crisis actors or Ilhan Omar ranting about “Da Joos!!!”. Don’t want to see such things? Block them!

      • @ Space Viking: Alex Jones ranting about “Da Joos!!!”? He never does that, which is why antisemites don’t like him.

        @Jimhaz: Whether you like Alex Jones and Roger Stone or not, if they can ban them the internet, they can ban you and anyone else. Terrorism, actual and direct incitements to physical violence, child porn, and spam are pretty much the only sane reasons for a ban from monopolistic social media that I can think of.

    • Meghan Murphy is now suing Twitter over the banning: https://meghanmurphylawsuit.com/

      Complaint filed in the Superior Court of California: https://meghanmurphylawsuit.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Complaint_endorsed.pdf

      The information in this excellent Quillette article could be very useful in her lawsuit. One of the allegations appears to be that Twitter is essentially engaging in false advertising by holding itself out as an impartial ‘free-speech’ platform, when Twitter’s politically biased censoring suggests that this claim is a bold-faced lie.

      Joe Rogan and Tim Pool would also be interested in the information in this article. Anyone want to tweet (heh) a like at them? My account is currently suspended and Twitter won’t tell me why or respond to my appeals.

      • D-Rex says

        @M
        Yep, and there was a good interview with Meghan on a Femsplainers podcast so I went to her website to donate to her legal case. While there, I clicked on one of her articles to read the comments from these radical femenist types and found her resonses to be quite balanced and supportive of men, contrary to some of the comments on her article here.

  8. Space Viking says

    When the Sarah Jeong kerfuffle started brewing I came across a number of people who dealt with her on Twitter (she’d already gained a bit of notoriety with her activities at The Verge). Many of them said they lodged complaints but she was never sanctioned. Given Jeong averaged 30+ tweets a day before she got hired by New York Times, a Twitter “time out” would have been obvious but it never happened.

    About the time this matter was dying out, some inconvenient info suggesting liberal bias at Google, Twitter, and Facebook started coming out. One of the interesting tidbits I noticed is apparently most of the staffers at these companies held little Sarah in very high regard and endorsed her twisted world-view. To me this confirms their bias and explains why they do what they do.

  9. Lightning Rose says

    Whining is for Dem “victims.” Instead, conservatives need to invest some money in a startup (uncensored) platform of their own. Trump himself and the righty media wonks would be on it like a duck on a June bug if you could pull them the numbers. Don’t get mad–get EVEN. And make a fortune doing it! It’s only the American way.

    • Deirdre Seim says

      Oh please, no one whines more that those on the far right–Constantly crying about how the “media” is oppressing them–Jesus, you already have your own 24 hour propaganda network and dozens of right wing radio nuts. Most of the right will only be happy when all media is just like Fox News.

      • Always good to have a reasonable leftist label conservatives as “far right”, then make a claim that was never mentioned in the article.

        Keep it up, Deirdre. You’re only driving more people to the Right.

        • Deirdre Seim says

          The article, is itself, an exercise in whining with faulty statistical analysis to give it a veneer of science.

          • Deirdre, care to apologise for labelling conservatives as far right? Then making board claims for which you have no evidence?

            Do tell us why the statistical analysis isn’t up to your standards.

          • N Wilcox says

            Enumerate what was ‘faulty’ about the statistical analysis, aside from the caveats listed by the OP? That would help people evaluate your charge.

        • Jack B. Nimble says

          @Zidane

          There’s a lot NOT to like in this article, even beyond the statistics.

          “…….I found it difficult to establish the extent to which any of the suspended individuals or groups clearly supported Republicans over Democrats or vice versa. …. Most prominent individuals who were suspended did express a preference in the 2016 election, however. And by restricting our analysis to this subset, and counting how many supported Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, we can create a rough measure of whether there is bias, albeit one with a small sample size…….”

          But the title refers to conservatives! Not all conservatives supported Trump in 2016; some endorsed Clinton or stayed neutral. Remember the “Against Trump” issue of National Review?

          “…..While social media platforms are private companies, anti-discrimination laws generally allow legislators avenues to address businesses that exhibit unacceptable biases in how they treat the public……”

          Only if the bias refers to a ‘protected’ class, at least in the US. Restaurants, for example, can block patrons who are dressed inappropriately provided the ban doesn’t disproportionately affect a protected class. And remember those gun shops and shooting ranges that advertise ‘no Hillary or Obama supporters allowed’? Governmental attempts to enforce ‘equal access’ based on political views are unworkable and might just reinforce the bias, depending on the ideology of the judge or legislator.

          “…..It is unthinkable that we would allow a telephone or electricity company to prevent those on one side of the political aisle from using its services. Why would we allow social media companies to do the same?…..

          Because media companies are NOT regulated monopolies that are required to serve all customers who pay their bills. Power companies and [formerly] cable and telephone companies are given monopoly access to customers, with the understanding that they will provide universal service within their area. Social media alternatives like Gab are available for those who object to Twitter.

          “…….Perhaps conservatives* are simply more likely to violate neutral rules regarding harassment and hate speech……”

          *He means Trump supporters, and it needs to be emphasized that Trump’s campaign, like his administration, is all about rule and norm breaking, including verbal abuse and borderline hate speech. This rule breaking is what attracted some voters to Trump rather than to Clinton [who was very much the establishment/normative candidate in the election]. So it is credible that Trump supporters on average are more likely to violate Twitter’s speech rules than are Clinton supporters.

          And the statistical analysis? Unless we know the proportion of liberals versus conservatives versus apoliticals in the base population from which the 22 cases were drawn, the analysis is meaningless. Maybe conservatives are more likely to use Twitter? That could account for some or all of the bias. How would we even know what the political composition of the base population looks like?

          And even in the unlikely circumstance that the base population has exactly equal numbers of liberals and conservatives, using 5% as the significance level versus 1% requires further justification, as does the use of what is apparently a ‘one-tailed’ analysis [the author is vague on this point].

          • Zidane says

            @Jack B. Nimble

            Yes I see your point, the title is misleading. It does imply one thing and purports to measure the other. Statistically speaking, you’re more likely to be leaning conservative if you voted Trump and more liberal if you voted Clinton. Conservative and Liberal aren’t the right terms though, it’s more of a Right/Left issue which is framed in politics, I’ll give you that one. Although, it is shocking(I know) that you are more likely to come across right-leaning articles on this site.

            “He means Trump supporters, and it needs to be emphasized that Trump’s campaign, like his administration, is all about rule and norm breaking, including verbal abuse and borderline hate speech”

            Slippery language. Define hate speech and provide examples of borderline hate speech from ONLY Trump supporters. Is it like almost saying a naughty word? Do you not see bias in what you’ve written?

            “So it is credible that Trump supporters on average are more likely to violate Twitter’s speech rules than are Clinton supporters”

            No it’s not. You assume there is such a thing as hate speech and one side participated in it much Much MUCH more than other. The war on Pepe the frog? The basket of deplorable? The “racist, bigoted, misogynist, homophobic, islamophobic” speech that Clinton gave? Give me a break!

            “Governmental attempts to enforce ‘equal access’ based on political views are unworkable”

            First of all, if that was true you wouldn’t be able to hold free and fair elections, Your view on how free and fair they are might differ from mine, it’s safe to say you haven’t experienced freer and fairer elections anywhere else. That’s kind of a point of USA, isn’t it? Equal access without government coercion?

            Second, If you do believe in hate speech, should a social media platform like Twitter prevent it by banning those who engage in it? I’d say no. But if you say yes, surely you’d agree that many left-leaning pundits get away with incredibly outlandish statements on Twitter and if you’re pro hate speech being banned on social media, you’d be pro banning those pundits too. The issue is one sided. There aren’t many articles and much outcry about left-leaning pundits being censored online. I’d rather not see anyone being banned.

            “Because media companies are NOT regulated monopolies that are required to serve all customers who pay their bills.”

            Again, slippery language! Social media companies are not media companies.Facebook is trying to cram itself into “we’re not a traditional media company” brackett to avoid legislation, but Twitter is certainly not a media company. And media companies are certainly require to serve all customers who pay them. Do you mean social media companies?

            “Social media alternatives like Gab are available for those who object to Twitter”

            Absolutely, there are a number of platforms available and I hope free markets will balance out the competition. The issue goes deeper than that when social media companies are engaged in dialogue with political establishment, which is what you are seeing at the moment. It’s fairly obvious without statistical analysis that a prevailing censorious left-leaning ideology is forming social media’s stances on many social issues.

            “Unless we know the proportion of liberals versus conservatives versus apoliticals in the base population from which the 22 cases were drawn, the analysis is meaningless. Maybe conservatives are more likely to use Twitter?”

            No it’s not. Not if what you wanted to measure Trump vs Clinton supporters, which is what writer’s analysis did. It’s uni-varied but no meaningless. The title of the articles is misleading, we’ve established that. And if the article was framed in a more apt left/right argument it would make more sense. Although preference for left/right probably has little to no affect on your Twitter usage. Unless you’re banned from it. Which is statistically more likely to happen if you’re favourable to Trump’s policies and his outlook on the world.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            @Zidane

            “……Define hate speech and provide examples of borderline hate speech from ONLY Trump supporters….”

            My comment referred–not to his supporters–but to the Trump campaign and administration; my comment also included verbal abuse. Remember Trump’s disparaging, sexist comments toward C. Fiorina and M. Kelly, among others? And his rule-breaking includes non-verbal behavior like not releasing his tax returns, continuing to run his businesses hands-on while in office [resulting in massive conflicts of interest–see his inauguration, for example] and potentially declaring a ‘national emergency’ over a policy question [border wall]. Good grief, even Trump’s supporters agree that he takes a non-traditional approach to governing, which they love and equate with ‘honest speaking’ and ‘draining the swamp.’ And Trump supporters are the first to agree that Hillary was the status quo candidate.

            But rule breakers tend to attract other rule breakers, which is why his administration has seen so many resignations over ethical issues. And my point is that Trump is modeling how conservatives can break the rules [which they imagine to have been created by liberals] and mostly get away with it.

            “…….“Governmental attempts to enforce ‘equal access’ based on political views are unworkable”

            First of all, if that was true you wouldn’t be able to hold free and fair elections…..”

            I was speaking about private companies that serve the public, like restaurants and gun shops. Governments are different from private enterprises. Governments SHOULD offer equal access and equal treatment for public services, like the post office, highways, elections, etc. But notice that even here the government often discriminates. For example, in most states not everyone who wants their name to appear on an election ballot can run for office–there are generally qualifications to be met, usually including a filing fee. And there are typically qualifications to be met before someone can register to vote. All of these government functions offer opportunities for politicians to game the system, whether for financial or political gain.

            “…….Social media companies are not media companies.Facebook is trying to cram itself into “we’re not a traditional media company” brackett to avoid legislation, but Twitter is certainly not a media company. And media companies are certainly require to serve all customers who pay them……”

            Your argument is totally backwards. Traditional media companies in the US enjoy protection under the 1st amendment, and they can censor all they want. They are certainly NOT required to accept advertisements from any customer who is willing to pay their standard rates and are NOT required to run any particular letter to the editor that a subscriber submits.

            Is Twitter a media company? I don’t use Twitter and don’t care about the answer to that. I also don’t particularly care if the government regulates Twitter, although I think that government regulation of speech is generally a bad idea [because it offers opportunities to game the system].

            Bottom Line: ‘Universal access’ is the appropriate model for utility companies that have been given an exclusive franchise to offer service [power, water, etc.] to a defined geographic area, with the requirement that their rates and performance will supervised and regulated by the government, typically a public utilities commission. Twitter, Google and Facebook aspire to universal access, but only because it increases the value of their advertising, not because they view themselves as public utilities. They are near-monopolies but NOT regulated monopolies. Big difference.

          • Alistair says

            Hey Jack,

            As a statistician who has dabbled in this area a bit, I’ll bet you $500 that a re-analysis on the above lines won’t change the result; Twitter is biased against conservatives. Interested in taking it? Maybe we can have Clare hold the sum in escrow.

            Fair warning; there are MORE liberals on twitter than in the general population: 57% to 46%.

            https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2013/twitter-is-more-liberal-more-conservative-than-public-opinion/

            Interested in the bet?

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            @Alistair

            I’m willing to stipulate that the author’s arithmetic is correct; it is the assumptions that are problematic.

            Do Twitter users skew liberal? Your linked data are from 2012! I can suggest two reasons why old data are unreliable:

            Trump effect: Trump’s use of Twitter may have drawn in hordes of his supporters to Twitter starting in 2015, so they can follow his tweets in real time.

            and

            Obama effect: Obama may have encouraged a generation of young adults to become liberals starting in 2009, and we all know that young people adopt new tech sooner than old people.

            Are Twitter users in 2019 more likely to be liberal than the base population of average citizens? I don’t know and you don’t know.

            Assuming that Twitter users are X% Liberal, Y% Conservative and [1-X-Y]% OTHER is just that, an assumption. I believe that the author assumed that X=Y=50%, but his methods are not transparent.

            Also, assuming that there is no difference between Liberals and Conservatives in ‘bad behavior’ on Twitter is just that, an assumption. I’ve presented some plausibility arguments why rule-breakers might be attracted to Trump, but the simple truth is that no one knows what is really going on in the minds of Trump supporters.

            Here’s an analogy that might help:

            Why are more men held in US prisons for violent crimes than women? Is it because of bias in the legal system? Are women seen as more sympathetic defendants or is something else going on?

            To prove a legal bias, we would have to show:

            [1] Men and women are equally abundant in the base population [a no brainer, obviously]

            and

            [2] Men and women are equally likely to commit violent crimes.

            Assumption [2] is probably false, but the evidence supporting it [without using data on incarceration rates, which would be circular] is not obvious. Maybe we can cite data showing that, in other primate species, males are more violent than females on average??

            To make the analogy work, replace ‘men and women’ with ‘liberal and conservative’ and replace ‘commit violent crimes’ with ‘violate Twitter’s rules’

            Bottom Line: Keep your money in your wallet.

    • Space Viking says

      Nah. That’s like saying the solution to an electric company bypassing a neighborhood for whatever reason is to have some enterprising soul come in and start an electricity provider to service it.

  10. Farris says

    A Wisconsin prosecutor conducted massive SWAT style raids on homes of republican opponents based upon specious legal theories. Though throughly discredited the prosecutor and his allies faced no consequences.

    The IRS illegally targeted Tea Party groups. Yet no one suffered any real consequences.

    Twitter operates with impunity towards conservatives without repercussions.

    Conclusion: Little to no risk, high reward. Altering this paradigm is the only way to bring a cessation of this nefarious conduct.

    • Bubblecar says

      “Twitter operates with impunity towards conservatives without repercussions.”

      Are you suggesting they’re breaking the law? Aren’t they free to make their own decisions in these matters?

      If you don’t like them, feel free to boycott them. But unless you’re very much opposed to free enterprise (as many on the Right seem to be these days), what other “repercussions” do you think they should be facing?

      • Barrett says

        @bubblecar

        The statement you quoted doesn’t infer criminal activity, punishment perhaps.

        In an interview with Joe Rogan, Jack Dorsey stated that access to social media is akin to human right. Now, if that is your stance, it’s fairly difficult to make a case for permanent banning. Once all social media platforms start to work on tandem in banning certain people from all of their platforms, as happened with Alex Jones for example, the earlier statement about social media being a right sounds false.

        Certainly the answer is more competition and we are seeing that now. However, majority of silicon valley is operating as a cartel and have too much control over people’s lives and it will only get worse until something like an ‘Internet Bill of Rights’ comes into force.

        As for what kind of punishment should Twitter face, loss of users, loss of revenue, loss of influence seems obvious. Countries and governments have Twitter accounts, which is an issue, I don’t like that at all. Although Twitter would die in a matter of days if President Trump’s switched to an alternative platform.

        • Bubblecar says

          I don’t use Twitter, Facebook or any of that stuff and I don’t feel in any way deprived, or lacking in “human rights” as a result.

          There are many ways of of expressing one’s views on the internet without being herded into this or that profit-orientated corporate platform.

          • So you argue that because of your lack of need or patronage, it is ethical and legal for a de facto monopoly to deny service.

            OK.
            Next time you have horribly damaged yourself and you arrive at A&E… you are told,
            “Look, we don’t really like you, and would like you to go elsewhere. Plenty of other places in this town.
            We’re also at end of shift, so we’re awfully busy treating people we like.
            Maybe we can see you next month?
            And none of us currently have sucking chest wounds, so why should we care?
            You are in the minority here, and frankly, all that blood is terribly embarrassing and unsightly….”

            Hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum?
            Sure.
            In a different class?
            No.

            The issue is far larger than twitter.
            In the U.K. it’s actually gone as far as thousands being arrested and charged for Twitterbased hate crime.

            This is indeed the same class as a life threatening and immediate danger.

          • @Bubblecar: What you say is akin to someone saying, “I have solar panels, a well, and I grow my own food. The electric company cutting me off, the water company telling me to go to Hell, and my inability to buy anything at Kroger, Walmart, or any other store in my city doesn’t make me feel deprived or ‘lacking in human rights’. You might be living “off the grid,” but most of us aren’t.

          • Barrett says

            @bubblecar

            Good for you, I don’t use any social media either. Although it’s irrelevant to your original question of whether they broke the law and reprecussions.

          • Tekyo Pantzov says

            If you have a blog on Google’s Blogspot, they de-index anything you write that isn’t politically correct. De-indexing means that your post is not detected by search engines. It’s a form of censorship.

      • Farris says

        A boycott would be a repercussions. Protests, negative press and any other method by which consumers express dissatisfaction. I understand how by utilizing examples of criminal conduct in conjunction with Twitter’s bias my lead one to infer I was calling for government action. Such is not the case. I was merely trying to show patterns of misbehavior and suggest that these patterns will continue until addressed by appropriate counter measures (in the case of Twitter repercussions should be from the agrieved consumers).

      • Erick Crago says

        Several issues here.

        1) They are lying about their censorship. Which was the ENTIRE point of the article. Or more precisely, either Twitter is lying or the remote odds of it being accidental are true.

        2) There is a lot of collusion in Silicon Valley. Facebook and Twitter have deplatformed people at almost exactly the same time. Payment providers are forcing alternative payment companies like SubscribeStar to ‘toe the line’. This is clearly anti-trust collusion.

        BTW – Lawsuits have been filed regarding the anti-trust nature of statement #2.

        It is precious how people who are on the upside always tell the downstream people they are either being paranoid, or there is nothing to see here. Now, they say start your own platform. Even after collusion becomes apparent. It is hard to fight one 800 pound gorilla. How about a dozen?

      • Scott Vega says

        Since they’ve become a monopoly of public discussion they should be regulated to ensure neutrality and free speech is allowed.

  11. Rob88 says

    Similar problems on Facebook. I posted a sentence by Che Guevara, no problem. I posted the same sentence, attributing it to Mussolini. Banned for 30 days

  12. Bubblecar says

    “But are they four or more times as likely? That doesn’t seem credible.”

    “Doesn’t seem credible” is not a credible argument. Why not look up the exact reasons those 21 users were banned? It shouldn’t take long for someone supposedly interested enough to write an article about it.

  13. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: Not Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals – Outside The Know

  14. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: Not Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals – News about world

  15. scribblerg says

    The Left ‘gaslights’ us nonstop. They screw over anyone on the Right nonstop and tell us they aren’t. I’ve been watching Jack Dorsey preen himself about on various YouTube channels lately, lying through his teeth. And for the record, gaslighting is evil. It’s a form of mental and emotional torture. The pain comes from seeing the facts so clearly but being denies agreement in the public sphere that they are so, and being treated like you are crazy or deficient somehow for seeing the facts the Left is denying. It’s incredibly pernicious and nasty.

  16. scribblerg says

    They banned a ton of folks both election cycles in the past two years. Look at the big jump in 2016 and 2018 – exactly in the final weeks of an election cycle. They should be investigated by the FEC for making contributions to the Dem party.

    Also note the author’s observation that Google is supressing conservative ideas and speech. Just the casual comment about his Google search of Sarah Jeong, that racist Chinese hack working at the NYTimes, and how Google suppresses results about her is terrifying. I regularly go to other search engines when I want contrary or negative information on Leftists or Leftist ideas. This is incredibly political and hostile.

    And they still tell us they don’t do this. At some point, something’s gonna have to be done to stop these depraved elitist hacks.

        • Space Viking says

          Oh it doesn’t matter much; just trying to copy a notable Walking Dead exchange between Daryl and Merle Dixon. Your response was close!

      • scribblerg says

        Like we’re discussing the fascistic repression of liberty by a join of academia, NGOs, the govt, the elites and business. In case you don’t realize it – that’s the definition of fascism. It’s a collaboration between govt and business and other elites to “fix” a nation via coercion and social control.

        Pretty bad, right? And Jeong is an open, white hating racist – right? But you are focused on whether I got her nationality correct. Do you get how absurd you are? Just checking…

  17. scribblerg says

    I was banned permanently for making a “Learn to Code” tweet to a particularly arrogant feminist journalist from HuffPo who was publicly lamenting being laid off. The reason I was banned was really interesting. In real life, I run a chunk of a social media oriented technology company, and have a handle for my business life. I have a separate and previously anonymous account for my politics, which if I shared in my biz life would mean the end of my career, as I hire and fire etc.

    They banned me saying: “Due to having multiple accounts for the purposes of abusing people.” As well, I was told that if I tried to create another account, I’d be completely banned. So, now, I face the risk of my massive business presence on Twitter being damaged. In my job, I have to have a Twitter account. If I’m banned permanently, that damages my ability to work and earn an income.

    And for what? Telling some privileged, elitist hack from HuffPo to “Learn to Code”?

    We have to get out of the phase of clutching our pearls and being outraged. We also have stop letting them gaslight us, so we spend so much time discussing whether this is actually happening.

    We need to figure out how to fight back with actual effect…Very few people have any ideas on this subject.

  18. Pingback: Twitter’s Political Bias | Transterrestrial Musings

  19. In general I think you make a compelling case here. HOWEVER, when you get to this reasoning, you depart your good statistical methods and I think slip up:

    “Interestingly, if you search “Sarah Jeong” in Google, you get no auto-complete suggestions regarding her controversial tweets, despite this being the source of considerable infamy. On Bing and Yahoo!, “Sarah Jeong racist” is the first offered search suggestion when her name is typed in.”

    I went to google and tried your line and indeed it never auto completes “racist”. However I also tried “Donald Trump Racist” and “George Bush Racist” and it never auto completes. I think in this case, Google is suppressing every auto complete for “[name] racist”. And it is noteworthy that the FIRST auto complete result when typing in Sarah Jeong is “Sara Jeong Twitter”, which brings up multiple twitter posts and articles describing the controversy.

    I am glad to see some statistically sound methods for showing this bias. Please do keep it up. And just be careful of then piling on with unsound techniques. It allows people disagreeing to just cherry pick these sloppy techniques to indict the entire case.

  20. “It is unthinkable that we would allow a telephone or electricity company to prevent those on one side of the political aisle from using its services.”

    It is unthinkable that we would allow Mastercard or PayPal to prevent those on one side of the political aisle from using their services, and yet here we are.

  21. mbabbitt says

    The people at Twitter who encourage or implement this bias are twits. Imagine if a new platform arose that provided similar functionality to Twitter but enforced its clearly stated standards fairly. Bye bye Twitter.

  22. Chris says

    I cannot find any evidence for your claim “…prominent figures on the left encourage uncivil and even violent tactics, both on an off college campuses…”. Therefore your argument is based on an unsupported assumption. The possibility that blocking in social media is based on neutral standards is therefore not ruled out.

    • One need only do a cursory Google/Twitter search on how Leftists took to Twitter to calls for violence and to dox Covington high-schooler Nick Sandmann. None of these bluecheck liberals were suspended.

      If this comes as news to you, then you are living in a media bubble.

      • Atticus says

        I laughed My but off when he said that,
        however there may be other reasons he cant remember recent news articles like liberals attacking a 60 year old black homeless grandma in the middle of Hollywood while other liberals cheered that attackers o, or the face book torture or liberals shooting what was it 9 cops and and there incident 7 republicans playing baseball. Then there are all those videos of them crying or screaming they want us to die becuase we are so hateful as an ETHICS PROFESSOR Almost kills some one with a bike lock. As a Psychology major i really want to know how overwhelming amount of evidence is no evidence? he has to ignore the attacking republican speakers and libertarian speakers the attempted arsons at UCLA lets not forget evergreen kidnapping most of the staff. the hallucinating KLAN on campus. I think we could fill in about 8 pages of incidents, when the majority of the violent hate crimes from thee right 95% of them turn out to be hoaxes. However he either doesn’t know what a search engine is or thanks to a study by duckduckgo you get different results depending on yoru search history your interests and even your location, so he may not be able to find what hes looking for even if hes specific. But to ignore the last 5 Years of Headlines and News seems to be a stretch. LOL.
        https://spreadprivacy.com/google-filter-bubble-study/

  23. Pingback: SHOCKING NEW STUDY Finds Twitter Censors Conservatives over Liberals at a 21:1 Ratio | TrumpsMinutemen

  24. Pingback: SHOCKING NEW STUDY Finds Twitter Censors Conservatives over Liberals at a 21:1 Ratio – The Patriotic Post

  25. My Twitter account has been locked since December because Twitter claims a tweet that said “Drug dealers should be executed” was a violation of their terms. Submitting an appeal, which I’ve done about 20 times, yields nothing but auto-replies from bots.

  26. Pingback: SHOCKING NEW STUDY Finds Twitter Censors Conservatives over Liberals at a 21:1 Ratio - Feed Campus

  27. Pingback: Twitter veel strenger tegen conservatieven dan democraten. - TPOok

  28. Pingback: SHOCKING NEW STUDY Finds Twitter Censors Conservatives over Liberals at a 21:1 Ratio – Free1st

  29. Pingback: SHOCKING NEW STUDY Finds Twitter Censors Conservatives over Liberals at a 21:1 Ratio - Truthbaron

  30. James Versluys says

    If the social giants had told their costumers up front that they were for one side and against the other, I would believe their “private company, we can do as we like” rhetoric. But they sold themselves as a new frontier of freedom and waited until everyone was on and using it before declaring one side verboten.

  31. It’s all under the same umbrella, tech companies, run by soyboy emasculates libcucks and SJW harpies who are protected by these cucks. Silicon Valley has not been nor ever will be open to the conservative thought, wake the fuck up.

  32. Bongo says

    when little fucks who work at twitter mysteriously wind up scalped, impaled or hanging from lampposts – then they might start tweeting a different tune… I’m not suggesting but, who knows

  33. Pingback: SHOCKING NEW STUDY Finds Twitter Censors Conservatives over Liberals at a 21:1 Ratio - MrPolitic.com

  34. Pingback: Week Five Spring – (February 11-15) – Coach J's History Class

  35. david of Kirkland says

    “It is unthinkable that we would allow a telephone or electricity company to prevent those on one side of the political aisle from using its services. Why would we allow social media companies to do the same?”
    Well, telephone and electricity are base services that more mirror the Internet, not Twitter. Nobody is banned from receiving water or electricity or Internet access based on your views.
    Twitter is a private space, shared only by those who belong to Twitter. I get zero information to/from Twitter because I’m not enrolled in their service. The difference ought to be clear.

    • Duddley says

      You nailed it. Electricity and telephony are utilities – not so social media.

  36. Pingback: New Study Confirms Twitter Censorship - Robert Jonathan's Blog

  37. Steven says

    How dare those companies treat racists and bigots differently than sane people? The nerve of some companies. LMAO!

    • Kencathedrus says

      @Steven: I dislike bigots and racists, but I would rather listen to their views than have some company decide that I’m too delicate to hear them. I prefer to risk being offended than have others censored.

  38. Bobo Smithson says

    Why are we so stupid and gullible to want to allow Twitter or Facebook or whomever control our words which are simply an expression of our thoughts? Why are we so stupid to think that any of us (including Twitter, Google, you, and me) are not fully affected by a worldview (i.e., we are all philosophical, we are all religious trying to live by certain values and ideas). These tech magnates and social-media companies should fully get out of the way of trying to control us (other than banning illegal behaviors, those that have been banned nationwide via representative law making). This would be better for our nation in allowing freedom of thought and words and the bullies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, Amazon, and others can keep making their $millions and $billions. We should all see this, whether we are “liberal” or “conservative,” black, brown, or white, tall or short, of Irish or Amazonian heritage. Please. –from Oregon

  39. QUORA CENSORSHIP IS 10X WORSE THAN TWITTER says

    If you think leftist political censorship on Twitter is bad, you haven’t seen Quora yet. If Twitter were a bully in the playground, Quora is Auschwitz. The Quora moderation team collapses and deletes answers that don’t violate any of their policies if it adds any legitimate and respectful criticism against Marxism, feminism gone haywire, or SJW extremist identity politics. I hope the lawyers who went after Twitter turn their eyes onto Quora next. It’s especially disturbing because they’re essentially a for-profit Wikipedia type site where you can be banned for stating scientific facts.

  40. Pingback: The Trump Russia Conspiracy Theory is (finally) Dead | Roman in Ukraine

  41. Pingback: True But Forbidden #4 - American Digest

  42. Robert says

    this piece is itself positively *dripping* with bias, you aren’t fooling anyone by claiming you’re for “free speech” when you simultaneously state the covington high schoolers didn’t harass anyone and milo yiannopolous is an activist instead of a disgraced pedophile.

    anyway twitter sucks dick but y’all suck dick more. stay mad

  43. Tekyo Pantzov says

    It’s not just conservatives or right-wingers who are being banned. It’s also people who oppose Mohammedan encroachment on the west. Since Islam is arguably the most reactionary ideology in existence, it is ridiculous to call those who oppose it “right-wingers”. I personally am a liberal socialist, and that is exactly the reason why I oppose Islam. Nonetheless I am constantly being called a conservative.

  44. Pingback: Why Twitter is unlikely to focus on Indian customers on the political Proper - Gadgets Now Website

  45. Pingback: Sunday assorted links - Marginal REVOLUTION

  46. Oxyartes. says

    I just got temporarily banned from twitter for 24 hours that will be over in 4 minuets. Now I did call a left wing journalist a whore so I’m willing to accept the ban but I know I’ve seen worse from leftist nuts and doubt they got banned.

  47. Extreme eyeroll says

    Your list includes people like Richard Spencer and David Duke, and groups like the American Nazi Party and the Traditionalist Worker’s Party… and you can’t figure out why conservatives might get banned more than liberals? Really?

    It’s not as if you don’t have options. Gab exists! 4chan exists! Voat exists! You can go over to any of those places at any time. No one is stopping you. Be the invisible hand of the free market you want to see in the world. Maybe you will be such a fabulous attraction that everyone will want to go over to Gab instead of Twitter just to hear what you have to say.

  48. “As a proxy for prominence, I used the criterion of whether the ban was important enough to warrant coverage in mainstream news sources”

    Seriously? This is science? It seems to be a totally fraught statistic.

    It’s probably true that right wingers are more likely to be banned, but it is probably true that they are more likely to be offensive in a way that breaks the rules. That’s a subjective guess. To really answer the question, someone would need to do the real works of review and rate the tweet content of all – or randomly selected – bannings rather than using media reportability as some kind of independent arbitrator.

  49. Pingback: News of the Week (February 17th, 2019) | The Political Hat

  50. This is just more anecdotes. witter is so much more lenient on conservatives, just like every other social media platform and traditional media, because conservatives are the ones who will cry “BIAS!” the second they don’t get their way. So conservative accounts get to slide on by. Reports are ignored, we’re told “There was a context to that death threat.” and “They are clearly joking.” even when there’s a clear violation of the terms of service, and because the environment lets conservatives run rampant all over the rules, eventually one of them goes too far for Twitter to protect them and their account gets axed.

    And the conservatives make a big enough stink that it makes the news, thus qualifying for your “rigorous” study.

    Meanwhile, if a liberal or progressive says the same things the conservatives got away with, they get suspended at the first report. Trans people, Black people, and others are getting banned every day, often for being more mild in rebuke than the people trolling them are being.

    Because Twitter doesn’t want to look biased.

    Conservatives getting banned make the news because conservatives make a stink. And because it is rare. And because the traditional media is just as afraid of accusations of bias as anybody else.

    This whole country, the whole world, is getting dragged down because everybody would rather defer to conservatives when they scream and cry about bias. The news gives climate denying crackpots equal time. Conservatives get special treatment on social media. The Sunday shows bring on known liars, news panels usually skew GOP, opinion pages are overwhelmingly conservative or deferential to conservative viewpoints, etc.

    This is the real political correctness, and it’s going to destroy us.

    • Trans people are victims on Twitter? Ya NO, if there’s one massive bias to Twitter totalitarianism: Twitter enforces radical Transgender activist ideology with an iron fist. Trans SJWs can say anything to anybody. If you respond, you will get suspended for “hateful conduct”.

      Twitter’s ToS are blatantly biased in having “gender” but not “sex” listed as a protected category, enforcing the unscientific opinions of an extremist minority as unquestionable fact, with Twitter’s Trans Inquisition punishing any hint of even the slightest heresy. People who choose to identify as some other “gender identity” suddenly become a protected class. A rich privileged straight white man who identifies as Trans instantly becomes the most oppressed minority; it’s Twitter’s job to act as their virtual bodyguards harshly punishing any criticism of the oppressed Transgender. SJW Trans activists maintain lists of so-called “TERFs” to target, fanatically digging through & reporting every tweet until they get the alleged “TERF” suspended.

      Meghan Murphy got banned for saying “men aren’t women”, and for correctly identifying a sexual predator man as a “he”. Incidentally I got suspended for the same thing, “pronouns” & “deadnaming” poor Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv, a man who identified as a “woman” to enter little girls’ bathrooms openly fantasizing about doing things with tampons to 10-year-old girls. Yaniv still referred to himself as Jonathan all over the web, he did absolutely nothing to disguise the fact that he was an obvious creepy fat man, all it took was him saying he “identified” as a woman to make him untouchable; call him a “him”=get permabanned from Twitter.

  51. Currently, the right wing is more likely to do political violence than the left wing. They are similarly more likely to do things like threaten violence and get kicked off of twitter. it isn’t a big secret.

  52. Enoch Lambert says

    Given that DJT was the biggest asshole candidate in collective memory and seemed to give license to his supporters to follow suit, it’s TOTALLY credible that they violated the rules 4 times more. The rest of your evidence is anecdotal and everyone from every part of the ideological spectrum on twitter has anecdotes about how twitter should have banned certain people they don’t like. Everyone knows twitter is somewhat unpredictable in how it enforces its rules, which should also impact how you analyze your results.

  53. Pingback: Trans activists hate these two powerful women - The Post Millennial

  54. Pingback: It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals  | The culture alternative

Leave a Reply