• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Twitter Censors Republicans 22:1 vs Leftists

zimmer

zimmer

Educating the Ignorant
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
24,380
Reaction score
7,805
Location
Worldwide
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
[h=1]It Isn’t Your Imagination: Twitter Treats Conservatives More Harshly Than Liberals[/h]Published on February 12, 2019

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.

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
Click to expand...

I wonder where the Feminist who was banned for stating the obvious, that mutilated men are not women, would land in this?
 
zimmer said:
I wonder where the Feminist who was banned for stating the obvious, that mutilated men are not women, would land in this?
Click to expand...

Well, Right Wingers are racist, homophobes. Everyone knows that. Bravo, Twitter.
 
zimmer said:
I wonder where the Feminist who was banned for stating the obvious, that mutilated men are not women, would land in this?
Click to expand...

Oh great another "conservatives are victins" thread. With a chaser of "kick the transgender because Zimmer can't keep on topic."

Anything else you want to add? Abortion? Antifa?
 
Twitter is not mainstream media. It is social media.

"Debate and discuss current political bias in the mainstream media"
 
zimmer said:
I wonder where the Feminist who was banned for stating the obvious, that mutilated men are not women, would land in this?
Click to expand...

Do you want the government to regulate social media so the private companies don't show bias like this?
 
zimmer said:
I wonder where the Feminist who was banned for stating the obvious, that mutilated men are not women, would land in this?
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the media, Twitter is social media and they have grown tired of racist, homophobic, misogynistic nonsense being spewed by the far right.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you want the government to regulate social media so the private companies don't show bias like this?
Click to expand...

Yes. If the "social media" sites are acting as nothing more than publishers (they regulate content) then they should be held accountable for that content. If they censor (reject?) some content and yet allow (promote?) other content then they, by definition, are acting as a publisher. For example, if they allow pro demorat and/or anti-repubicant content but disallow pro republicant and/or anti-demorat content should they be regulated by the FEC?

Publishing Other People’s Non-fiction Stories Can Get You Sued! | WritersWeekly.com
 
Last edited:
This is why the republican base loves trump, they are victims of changing america and trump plays the victim card right along with them. Misery loves company.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you want the government to regulate social media so the private companies don't show bias like this?
Click to expand...

Absolutely, you know how much the right loves regulations, the regulations that strangle their opponents, not so much if it regulates banks or pollution.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. If the "social media" sites are acting as nothing more than publishers (they regulate content) then they should be held accountable for that content. If they censor (reject?) some content and yet allow (promote?) other content then they, by definition, are acting as a publisher. For example, if they allow pro demorat and/or anti-repubicant content but disallow pro republicant and/or anti-demorat content should they be regulated by the FEC?

Publishing Other People’s Non-fiction Stories Can Get You Sued! | WritersWeekly.com
Click to expand...

Yes, it probably should be regulated by the FEC. As you said the sites should be held accountable for the content since they do "publish".
 
bongsaway said:
Absolutely, you know how much the right loves regulations, the regulations that strangle their opponents, not so much if it regulates banks or pollution.
Click to expand...

We all love the "right" regulations, you know the ones that benefit our beliefs not someone else's.
 
Because conservatives tend to be racist, hateful assholes
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes. If the "social media" sites are acting as nothing more than publishers (they regulate content) then they should be held accountable for that content. If they censor (reject?) some content and yet allow (promote?) other content then they, by definition, are acting as a publisher. For example, if they allow pro demorat and/or anti-repubicant content but disallow pro republicant and/or anti-demorat content should they be regulated by the FEC?

Publishing Other People’s Non-fiction Stories Can Get You Sued! | WritersWeekly.com
Click to expand...
If that happens then what you'll see is social media sites simply ban religious and political discussions going forward, so they can avoid the government getting involved with their infrastructure.

You can bet on that.

Twitter is a privilege, not a right. There site doesn't cost any user a damn thing and is free to use, and what is freely given, can be freely taken away. It is NOT something people are entitled to use.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Because conservatives tend to be racist, hateful assholes
Click to expand...
If they simply wouldn't be such grand attention whores when they break the rules, they'd be able to keep their accounts. But, they can't help but desire to be the center of attention at all times, at all places.
 
americanwoman said:
We all love the "right" regulations, you know the ones that benefit our beliefs not someone else's.
Click to expand...
It's the old "I get to boss you, but you don't get to boss me!".
 
Airyaman said:
Twitter is not mainstream media. It is social media.

"Debate and discuss current political bias in the mainstream media"
Click to expand...

Zimmer thinks twitter is news b/c that's where his god speaks to him.
 
MovingPictures said:
If that happens then what you'll see is social media sites simply ban religious and political discussions going forward, so they can avoid the government getting involved with their infrastructure.

You can bet on that.

Twitter is a privilege, not a right. There site doesn't cost any user a damn thing and is free to use, and what is freely given, can be freely taken away. It is NOT something people are entitled to use.
Click to expand...

The problem, as I see it, is that it is taken away from some based on their religious and/or political views differing from those providing the "privilege" of free speech. Is such discrimination really a privilege of a rich corporation or should we seek to have government limit such censorship?

Imagine how DP (and by extension, we users) would suffer if the DP moderators decided which ideas are OK to express (and which idea should be banned) based on their personal biases. Hate speech is not simply speech which some high and mighty individuals hate to hear.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem, as I see it, is that it is taken away from some based on their religious and/or political views differing from those providing the "privilege" of free speech. Is such discrimination really a privilege of a rich corporation or should we seek to have government limit such censorship?

Imagine how DP (and by extension, we users) would suffer if the DP moderators decided which ideas are OK to express (and which idea should be banned) based on their personal biases. Hate speech is not simply speech which some high and mighty individuals hate to hear.
Click to expand...
Whatever, it's a private platform that nobody has to spend a dime to use.

If DP did what you theorized, people would simply leave and move to a new forum. They (well, most) wouldn't pout and demand the government fight their adult battles on the internet.

When you own the servers, you own the domain, you pay for web software, and you provide the whole thing to users for free, you're under no obligation to be fair to people. If people had to pay to use Twitter, you'd have a better argument, but they don't. It's not censorship to set the rules in your house for the people who are guests in it.
 
americanwoman said:
Do you want the government to regulate social media so the private companies don't show bias like this?
Click to expand...

Yes. Social media and the Internet companies were giving unique exemption for libel and slander laws - which the press and news do not have - specifically because social media and search engines claimed they allowed anyone to post anything without any editorial or other review. They claimed they were merely a platform anyone can use without any review or injecting themselves into any topic. Because they do inject their opinions to such a great degree they decide what may and may not be said including on political topics, they broke that deal.

Social media and Internet companies should be under the same legal standards as the press and media in terms of liabilities.
 
No one pays to listen to radio or watch free TV. People do not pay for free printed publications either. Yet all of those are under libel laws and can be sued for slanderous/libelous statements. Why should there be a special exception for the Internet? If Internet social media, search engines etc are editing and making editorial decisions, they should fall under exactly the same legal status as TV and printed information outlets.
 
You don't get much regulation of Facebook or Twitter or the like because they are run by liberals who tend to support the left politicians and they give lots of money. They also punish right leaning persons much more than liberals.
 
Integrityrespec said:
You don't get much regulation of Facebook or Twitter or the like because they are run by liberals who tend to support the left politicians and they give lots of money. They also punish right leaning persons much more than liberals.
Click to expand...

No, it's more likely that the Right is pushing some Alex Jones bull**** that only they believe is true in their alternative facts universe. Now that would be an honest assessment of why Twitter and Facebook are banning the lying pieces of ****.
 
Integrityrespec said:
You don't get much regulation of Facebook or Twitter or the like because they are run by liberals who tend to support the left politicians and they give lots of money. They also punish right leaning persons much more than liberals.
Click to expand...

So then, you favor regulating them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom