The Twitter Crappenings, Episode 1: Twitter Shadowbanning ‘Real and Happening Every Day’ Says Inside Source

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

According to a Twitter employee who recently spoke with Milo Yiannopoulos (Associate Editor for Breitbart London), Twitter has been 'shadowbanning' accounts of specific people whose politics don't line up with their own and has a 'blacklist' of these kinds of people and a 'whitelist' of people whose accounts and tweets are prioritised in timelines and search results.

 

Yiannopoulos writes:

Quote

Our source was backed up by a senior editor at a major digital publisher, who told Breitbart that Twitter told him it deliberately whitelists and blacklists users. He added that he was afraid of the site’s power, noting that his tweets could disappear from users’ timelines if he got on the wrong side of the company.

You might think that this sort of system would be used to target spam and the like, but you'd be wrong. Yiannopoulos continues:

Quote

For weeks, users have been reporting that tweets from populist conservatives, members of the alternative right, cultural libertarians, and other anti-PC dissidents have disappeared from their timelines.

Among the users complaining of shadowbans are sci-fi author and alt-right figurehead Vox Day, geek culture blogger “Daddy Warpig,” and the popular pro-Trump account Ricky Vaughn. League of Gamers founder and former World of Warcraft team lead Mark Kern, as well as adult actress and anti-censorship activist Mercedes Carrera, have also reported that their tweets are not appearing on the timelines of their followers.

This does not seem to be a knee-jerk reaction or an accident either:

Quote

In May 2015 Allum Bokhari reported that the site had begun to experiment with shadowbans, ostensibly to protect users from abuse. Then, as now, it was suspected that “protecting users from abuse” was an excuse to implement a system that would later be used for political censorship.

... Nor has Twitter been open about it:

Quote

Furthermore, it has demonstrated a complete lack of regard for transparency, concealing its shadowbanning system from users and hiding its political bias behind a veneer of opposition to online abuse. (In reality, the site turns a blind eye to abuse from left-wingers.)

Source

 

It's such a shame to see something like Twitter - which should be an unbiased platform on which everyone gets a voice - becoming so politically biased and using their power to limit the amount of opposing voices heard. Some might say "but bruh, it's just twitter, who cares", to which I would point out the massive amount of people who use Twitter specifically to express their views and ideas and to see those of others and the speed at which new information is dispersed to a large amount of people. A lot of people's beliefs are shaped by what they see on the internet and Twitter is a big influence for people who use it. When you control what Twitter users see, you can control what millions of people believe (at some level).

[ivan134]

Why should Twitter be what you want it to be and not what the people who run/own it want it to be?

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

Just now, ivan134 said:

Why should Twitter be what you want it to be and not what the people who run/own it want it to be?

Because it's a business. Businesses, if they want to stay afloat, need to listen to their customers. Twitter only exists because of its users.

 

A lot of people like to say it's like someone coming into your house, shitting on your couch and then kicking them out because it's your house. That's misleading. For Twitter, it's more like Twitter opening up their house to the public, telling them they can do anything they want that's not illegal and then kicking out the people who drink wine instead of beer.

[Misanthrope]

11 hours ago, ivan134 said:

Why should Twitter be what you want it to be and not what the people who run/own it want it to be?

Business reasons: Milo often draws the stark comparisson between their declining stock and their full on SJW shill attitudes. Pretty damn clear match for sure.

 

Most of you guys that say "they're free to do whatever" think this is about shadow banning or silencing awful trolls. You just don't realize that SJWs usually refuse to argue any of their political points and label any legitimate criticism as "harassing" to basically avoid discussing the (perceived or otherwise) inconsistencies and fallacies on their rhetoric. 

 

So regardless of what you think, all of that is just bad business as I said: social networks thrive on having huge amount of users and refusing to respond to criticisms like this only reinforces everything Milo is saying and drives people away after seeing dissent is squashed.

[LinusTech]

Well, I think it's clear from Misanthrope's presence on the site that we don't have a shadowbanning policy in place to suppress people we don't agree with 

 

/jokes

 

Seriously though, anyone saying "it's just Twitter, bruh" needs to get their head in the game. There's so much potential for abuse here and it is disheartening for me to see this. Added to WAN Show discussion for this week. 

[BuckGup]

Also lets remember how twitter is just a small twig waiting to break and fall into a large hole as they make almost no money

[Octagoncow]

I realize Twitter can do what they want with their platform. But if they're going to shadow ban people for having a different point of view, they should inform their users of it. This is pretty gross in my opinion. 

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

6 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

Well, I think it's clear from Misanthrope's presence on the site that we don't have a shadowbanning policy in place to suppress people we don't agree with 

 

/jokes

 

Seriously though, anyone saying "it's just Twitter, bruh" needs to get their head in the game. There's so much potential for abuse here and it is disheartening for me to see this. Added to WAN Show discussion for this week. 

Thanks bruh

[vanished]

Imagine if the government started censoring people who spoke out against them?  Luckily no such place exists, right? /s

 

Now, here we see a company doing it instead of the government.  And the difference is... what exactly?  Seems to me the potential impact is very similar.

[suicidalfranco]

8 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

 

doesn't this also violate the first amendment that we have here in the US of free speech?

is twitter the government?

 

back on topic: crap SJW are becoming stronger, i thought they would have slowly died out by now but i was wrong, they're growing and expanding their flawed ideologies

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, CUDA_Cores said:

 

doesn't this also violate the first amendment that we have here in the US of free speech?

I'll preemptively get this out of the way before it turns into a big thing again: No it doesn't. Free speech laws do not apply to private entities at all, only to government ones. Meaning that there is no freedom of speech violation simply because Twitter provides a service and can refuse service for any reason they want to, free speech is basically upheld by virtue of the fact that you could (potentially) start your own competing service to counter their limitations and censorship.

 

Now free speech in a non-legal sense of the word? Sure a clear moral stand against it. But not legally, no.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

Imagine if the government started censoring people who spoke out against them?  Luckily no such place exists, right? /s

 

Now, here we see a company doing it instead of the government.  And the difference is... what exactly?  Seems to me the potential impact is very similar.

You know, there's a (Romanian, I think..?) guy on YouTube called Vee who talked about government censorship in this video. He says that the government almost never directly censors people, but rather the people censor themselves out of fear. I've never lived in a censored country, but it makes sense to me. Basically, the government controls the general public through fear and that fear makes them censor eachother. It makes sense to me that if a western government wants to control and censor, they can easily force a company like Twitter or Facebook to censor their users and Twitter/Facebook would do the dirty work for them.

 

I think this is just Twitter being stupid in this case, but where a system is in place, it is easier to change and abuse than creating a whole new system.

[vanished]

Just now, SpaghettiCarbonara said:

You know, there's a (Romanian, I think..?) guy on YouTube called Vee who talked about government censorship in this video. He says that the government almost never directly censors people, but rather the people censor themselves out of fear. I've never lived in a censored country, but it makes sense to me. Basically, the government controls the general public through fear and that fear makes them censor eachother. It makes sense to me that if a western government wants to control and censor, they can easily force a company like Twitter or Facebook to censor their users and Twitter/Facebook would do the dirty work for them.

 

I think this is just Twitter being stupid in this case, but where a system is in place, it is easier to change and abuse than creating a whole new system.

I'd definitely believe that. I know of many times in life just talking and joking around with friends that many of them wouldn't so google searches for certain things that would be likely to land them on certain lists (or at least we think that's true) even though there is zero bad intentions and it should be harmless info to look up.  The fear is real, even in free countries  (or should that be )

[ivan134]

28 minutes ago, SpaghettiCarbonara said:

Because it's a business. Businesses, if they want to stay afloat, need to listen to their customers. Twitter only exists because of its users.

 

A lot of people like to say it's like someone coming into your house, shitting on your couch and then kicking them out because it's your house. That's misleading. For Twitter, it's more like Twitter opening up their house to the public, telling them they can do anything they want that's not illegal and then kicking out the people who drink wine instead of beer.

It's hilarious that you think your analogy actually makes sense. In the end, it's still your house and you are free to change the rules as you see fit. What exactly do you owe the people you kicked out for drinking wine?

27 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Business reasons: Milo often draws the stark comparisson between their declining stuck and their full on SJW shill attitudes. Pretty damn clear match for sure.

 

Most of you guys that say "they're free to do whatever" think this is about shadow banning or silencing awful trolls. You just don't realize that SJWs usually refuse to argue any of their political points and label any legitimate criticism as "harassing" to basically avoid discussing the (perceived or otherwise) inconsistencies and fallacies on their rhetoric. 

That is where you are wrong. You somehow equate me being rational and saying Twitter is free to change their own rules as they see fit with me agreeing or not understanding that the SJWs are wrong. The people on both sides of this "argument" are idiots. The people who think Twitter has some kind of obligation to them and owe them an explanation, and Twitter who thinks that bending to the whims of the SJWs is a viable long term business plan. I've never heard any of you be outraged that right wing parts of the internet censor or ban left leaning people.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, CUDA_Cores said:

regardless, twitter still shouldn't be doing this. They may have no legal obligation but it is like you said the moral thing to do. People should be able to have their own opinion without fearing censorship.

Couldn't agree more there: All ideas should stand the test of scrutiny, yet their politics (like many Marxists in fact) resemble religious cults and usually use the same tactics: Censorship, double talk, playing the victim, dealing in absolutes, scare tactics, etc.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, CUDA_Cores said:

regardless, twitter still shouldn't be doing this. They may have no legal obligation but it is like you said the moral thing to do. People should be able to have their own opinion without fearing censorship.

Perhaps this is a case of technology evolving faster than the law... we have here for the first time ever - and a relatively young one if we're all being honest - a privately owned/controlled platform where the entire world can easily and instantly interchange comments with each other in public view.  That's a pretty new concept when we consider the last 300 years or so.  Sure, they may not have a legal obligation to upload free speech, but since they are one of the very few great powers in this new space, I think they do have a responsibility to do so, and even if it's not written in law yet, it might be some day.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

4 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I'll preemptively get this out of the way before it turns into a big thing again: No it doesn't. Free speech laws do not apply to private entities at all, only to government ones. Meaning that there is no freedom of speech violation simply because Twitter provides a service and can refuse service for any reason they want to, free speech is basically upheld by virtue of the fact that you could (potentially) start your own competing service to counter their limitations and censorship.

 

Now free speech in a non-legal sense of the word? Sure a clear moral stand against it. But not legally, no.

You know, I feel like free speech is becoming more of a societal expectation than a legal matter. The majority of people in most countries believe in freedom of speech, expression and religion even if it's not in their constitution or covered by a law. Pretty cool imo

 

Just now, ivan134 said:

It's hilarious that you think your analogy actually makes sense. In the end, it's still your house and you are free to change the rules as you see fit. What exactly do you owe the people you kicked out for drinking wine?

I know nothing I say will ever mean anything to you because you'd rather make excuses for Twitter than hold them accountable for stupid decisions, but consider this:

 

They need people in their house. If they don't, they'll go bankrupt. Kicking people out or silencing them for silly things will make everyone else leave. It's bad business.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, ivan134 said:

It's hilarious that you think your analogy actually makes sense. In the end, it's still your house and you are free to change the rules as you see fit. What exactly do you owe the people you kicked out for drinking wine?

That is where you are wrong. You somehow equate me being rational and saying Twitter is free to change their own rules as they see fit with me agreeing or not understand that the SJWs are wrong. The people on both sides of this "argument" are idiots. The people who think Twitter has some kind of obligation to them and owe them an explanation, and Twitter who thinks that bending to the whims of the SJWs is a viable long term business plan. I've never heard any of you be outraged that right wing parts of the internet censor or ban left leaning people.

That's a bit of a straw man, but I'll try to explain my position better regardless.

 

Twitter is free to support whichever ideology or ideologies they want, covertly or openly. Right now they're kind of in between but still definitively leaning more towards covertly. Again they indeed have no responsibility to side with either side (Though in fact I kind of disagree that there's an "anti" SJW side here, just a side advocating free speech I know Feminists who have criticized this move for example) but the business model of a social network is get the most users you can on your network so you can monetize them with ads. 

 

Right now, censorship based on political stances, specially covert censorship, it's a very bad for this business models since you'll loose a lot of users. Mostly millions that would just basically say what you said "fuck both sides" but still leave the platform resulting in less revenue for them.

[ivan134]

Just now, SpaghettiCarbonara said:

You know, I feel like free speech is becoming more of a societal expectation than a legal matter. The majority of people in most countries believe in freedom of speech, expression and religion even if it's not in their constitution or covered by a law. Pretty cool imo

 

I know nothing I say will ever mean anything to you because you'd rather make excuses for Twitter than hold them accountable for stupid decisions, but consider this:

 

They need people in their house. If they don't, they'll go bankrupt. Kicking people out or silencing them for silly things will make everyone else leave. It's bad business.

So why is Twitter going bankrupt your problem? If their bank account is going to hold them accountable, why do you care? Do you work for Twitter? Do you have a friend or relative who works there? Do you own Twitter stock? If you do, go sell it now. Problem solved. What exactly is the issue here again?

[ivan134]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

That's a bit of a straw man, but I'll try to explain my position better regardless.

 

Twitter is free to support whichever ideology or ideologies they want, covertly or openly. Right now they're kind of in between but still definitively leaning more towards covertly. Again they indeed have no responsibility to side with either side (Though in fact I kind of disagree that there's an "anti" SJW side here, just a side advocating free speech I know Feminists who have criticized this move for example) but the business model of a social network is get the most users you can on your network so you can monetize them with ads. 

 

Right now, censorship based on political stances, specially covert censorship, it's a very bad for this business models since you'll loose a lot of users. Mostly millions that would just basically say what you said "fuck both sides" but still leave the platform resulting in less revenue for them.

 

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

So why is Twitter going bankrupt your problem? If their bank account is going to hold them accountable, why do you care? Do you work for Twitter? Do you have a friend or relative who works there? Do you own Twitter stock? If you do, go sell it now. Problem solved. What exactly is the issue here again?

 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, SpaghettiCarbonara said:

You know, I feel like free speech is becoming more of a societal expectation than a legal matter. The majority of people in most countries believe in freedom of speech, expression and religion even if it's not in their constitution or covered by a law. Pretty cool imo

Sure, that would explain the strong resistance and poor numbers we're seeing from them. Even most liberal minded people would say "No I don't think you should censor people, even my political rivals like conservatives" 

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

1 minute ago, ivan134 said:

So why is Twitter going bankrupt your problem? If their bank account is going to hold them accountable, why do you care? Do you work for Twitter? Do you have a friend or relative who works there? Do you own Twitter stock? If you do, go sell it now. Problem solved. What exactly is the issue here again?

Oh I don't know... I enjoy using Twitter and don't want it to go bankrupt..?

 

Yeah I know, silly reason.

 

Edit: Furthermore, I want to hear other people's opinions, regardless of how offensive and hurtful they are - even to me personally.

[ivan134]

Just now, SpaghettiCarbonara said:

Oh I don't know... I enjoy using Twitter and don't want it to go bankrupt..?

 

Yeah I know, silly reason.

That's a good 1st step. I'm glad you're starting to see how silly this all is.

[Misanthrope]

If you want a "why do you care if they go bankrupt?" explanation I don't personally, but I'm sure people like Linus does (scroll up) since he could end up loosing an important business tool for stuff that doesn't concerns them at all: yes a lot of people actually use their social networks to promote their businesses and it actually does work pretty well.

[vanished]

Wouldn't a thing to "worry about" be the possibility that they don't go bankrupt even if these behaviours get even further out of hand?  What if they continue doing fine, and one of the worlds biggest public communication systems continues on in a heavily biased and censored state?