Twitter admits bigotry towards conservatives

[InternetHero]

Starting a "Democrats Only" or "Republicans Only" business would be an interesting experiment, just to see which direction society would take the argument.

Google INC?

 

[irish_thug]

I'm interested what strategies people would use against it, and which ones would win out. Vandalism, Boycott, Lobbying for a new City/State Law, Ignoring it (least likely lol), etc. Probably a bit of each. Yeah that's the kind of experiment that seems like a terrible idea.

Pretty sure vandalism would top the list.

 

[irish_thug]

Legally in America? Not okay when it comes to race, religion, national origin, sex, age(40 and over), familial status, pregnancy, veteran status, disability status, and on the basis of genetics. And these are only the federally protected groups, states can create their own protected groups as I alluded to earlier with sexual orientation being an increasingly common one.

I didn't say legal. I said ok. Do you agree with the laws as they are currently? Are there forms of discrimination that you agree with?

 

[InternetHero]

Private company. That should end the discussion about, if they can or can't.

Though former employees explaining the process is something new.

Private company sure, but as a society, do we really want companies that are supposed to expand largely public social discourse to have biases?

Probably not.

But probably Twitter is a terrible vehicle for political soundbites.

Why read a thoughtful opinion when a hashtag can encapsulate our base emotions?

"I love America. You don't have to think about anything."

 

[Fawlty]

Google INC?

That's a problematic example for a number of reasons. If Google gets in trouble, it will be for considering race and gender above other factors, as is the federal standard. They aren't denying Google services for conservatives. Plus, it's the internet, and it will be a little while before we figure out the boundaries there.

 

[Fawlty]

Pretty sure vandalism would top the list.

I think it would get the most attention but have the fewest adherents.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Do they have a right to silence those people. You said they did. So what point are you trying to make.

My point, which is obvious, is twitter hasn't been transparent on its political advocacy.

But outright saying "Twitter is not a platform for free speech, we sensor those who disagree with our political agenda, we choose what's on our trending lists - not what's actively being discussed. We hide and shadow ban users that are active threats to our biases,' wouldn't be best for business, would it?

 

[InternetHero]

That's a problematic example for a number of reasons. If Google gets in trouble, it will be for considering race and gender above other factors, as is the federal standard. They aren't denying Google services for conservatives. Plus, it's the internet, and it will be a little while before we figure out the boundaries there.

Perhaps, perhaps, we'll have to follow Damore's class action lawsuit carefully.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/up-from-google.php

He apparently has some screenshots and copies of some pretty damning things against Conservatives, "white people" (culture), and harassment thereof from many, many members of the company.

The results will not be boring.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I didn't say legal. I said ok. Do you agree with the laws as they are currently? Are there forms of discrimination that you agree with?

Oh, that's what you meant. Idk, the current federally protected groups seem sensible to me and I'm not sure I'd like to add too many more since I think its important for businesses to maintain the right to discriminate to some extent. I agree with certain kinds of discrimination, like "no shirt, no shoes, no service". I don't think political beliefs should be protected, at that point we're asking the government to protect people's opinions from employers and I think that's excessive.

Sexual orientation is one other group I would like to given federally protected status with the exception of religious organizations with religious reasons for discrimination on that basis. Even there there is room for debate, like should a religious organization be able to discriminate for positions that are not religiously significant like a janitor position? Maybe, maybe not, haven't thought about it enough to say either way.

 

[LMP]

My point, which is obvious, is twitter hasn't been transparent on its political advocacy.

But outright saying "Twitter is not a platform for free speech, we sensor those who disagree with our political agenda, we choose what's on our trending lists - not what's actively being discussed. We hide and shadow ban users that are active threats to our biases,' wouldn't be best for business, would it?

You are just talking about how you feel (you little snow flake). Do they have to tell people their agendas legally?

If you want to discuss how you feel companies should legally be more transparent, I'm sure we can find some points where we agree. As it stands currently I'm just hearing you being upset how they aren't being up front with their users, when they are not legally required to.

 

[tehend]

Companies should be free to do what they want so long as they don't offend my sensibilities. Amiright?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Private company sure, but as a society, do we really want companies that are supposed to expand largely public social discourse to have biases?

Probably not.

But probably Twitter is a terrible vehicle for political soundbites.

Why read a thoughtful opinion when a hashtag can encapsulate our base emotions?

"I love America. You don't have to think about anything."

This is a good point. Obviously Twitter and Facebook can legally discriminate against their users on the basis of their political beliefs but given the outsize impact these platforms have on the public discourse its certainly an issue worth addressing even if there aren't a lot of tools within the current legal infrastructure.

My point, which is obvious, is twitter hasn't been transparent on its political advocacy.

But outright saying "Twitter is not a platform for free speech, we sensor those who disagree with our political agenda, we choose what's on our trending lists - not what's actively being discussed. We hide and shadow ban users that are active threats to our biases,' wouldn't be best for business, would it?

True they haven't been transparent but that's not illegal either nor is it in their interest to do so here so on what basis can we really do anything about it? Its a tough nut to crack with one solution I've heard being the declaration of these companies as public utilities. I'm not familiar enough with the law to be able to say if that's warranted or even a good idea, just an idea I've heard.

 

[ShadowRun]

If we are going to argue that the a discriminating, that would be way harder to prove than the bakery case. However, from a conservative view point, why should a company be forced to explain their reasons for doing something?

I don’t think they should have to explain the reasons for doing something like being politically bias but they shouldn’t act like they dont do that or that’s not their agenda. There are a lot of low information voters out there if you silence a lot more of one side of the political spectrum that voter will be more easily convinced from the other side. This is why people made a big deal about the Russian ads and agents on social media right ?

 

[hiphopnazi]

Google INC?

Yeah, I can see where you're going. It's difficult to draw who can and can't I guess.
Google is another beast all together. Though if Google and Twitter were to disappear tomorrow, it would be easily forgotten and replaced.

 

[ShadowRun]

What if twitter was a bakery?

You’re the real WR President btw homer #isnotmypresident lol lol

 

[LMP]

I don’t think they should have to explain the reasons for doing something like being politically bias but they shouldn’t act like they dont do that or that’s not their agenda. There are a lot of low information voters out there if you silence a lot more of one side of the political spectrum that voter will be more easily convinced from the other side. This is why people made a big deal about the Russian ads and agents on social media right ?

Humans as a whole are dumb as hell. If you aren't seeking out information on your own and fact checking, you prolly are going to make poor political choices. Only getting information off of social media (Facebook twitter, sherdog, ect) is silly.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You are just talking about how you feel (you little snow flake). Do they have to tell people their agendas legally?

Oh? A snowflake that is melting over the fact one of their favorite propaganda outlets just got exposed is now accusing others of being snowflakes? Oh boo hoo for you.

If you want to discuss how you feel companies should legally be more transparent, I'm sure we can find some points where we agree. As it stands currently I'm just hearing you being upset how they aren't being up front with their users, when they are not legally required to.

Who said anything about 'legally?' oh you did. This isn't about passing laws forcing companies to do things or face fines, its about propaganda outlets being publically exposed as propaganda outlets.

And only leftists, like you, have a problem with that.

 

[hiphopnazi]

Private company sure, but as a society, do we really want companies that are supposed to expand largely public social discourse to have biases?

Probably not.

But probably Twitter is a terrible vehicle for political soundbites.

Why read a thoughtful opinion when a hashtag can encapsulate our base emotions?

"I love America. You don't have to think about anything."

As a society, people should take note of these events regarding social media platforms.
Though people easily forget the past including myself.

 

[Fawlty]

Perhaps, perhaps, we'll have to follow Damore's class action lawsuit carefully.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/01/up-from-google.php

He apparently has some screenshots and copies of some pretty damning things against Conservatives, "white people" (culture), and harassment thereof from many, many members of the company.

The results will not be boring.

Everybody should be wary of this attempt to legally tie white male identity with conservatism. That's white nationalism in action. Beware. I'm not kidding.

If there is merit to the claims of discrimination against men (more likely) and against whites (I would guess less likely), then those are what they are.

 

[LMP]

Oh? A snowflake that is melting over the fact one of their favorite propaganda outlets just got exposed is now accusing others of being snowflakes? Oh boo hoo for you.



Who said anything about 'legally?' oh you did. This isn't about passing laws forcing companies to do things or face fines, its about propaganda outlets being publically exposed as propaganda outlets.

And only leftists, like you, have a problem with that.

Haha between the two of us youre feelings are way more hurt than mine. I don't use twitter don't give any fucks about them. You are still just upset about them not supporting your view point? I don't know what you want me to discuss with you. They are pushing propaganda like many companies do, even right wing ones, and you are upset about it