It Seems Twitter's 'Trust and Safety Council' Is Working Overtime to Ban Conservatives

pjmedia.com ^ | August 15, 2018 | By Jim Treacher

[Red Badger]

Sometimes I think all the hand-wringing about some sort of online "war on conservatives" is silly. Sure, dude, maybe nobody is paying attention to your brilliant tweets because you've been shadowbanned. Perhaps Twitter's "Trust & Safety Council" really is keeping you from reaching the audience you deserve. Or maybe you're just boring and kind of dumb? I tend to be skeptical of these complaints, but it's possible that there really is an ongoing conspiracy to silence half the country. I have to admit, it would explain why I keep getting suspended from Twitter for no good reason. Maybe Twitter really is out to get conservatives, even us RINO cuck #NeverTrump traitors who probably love Hillary.

Just yesterday, I got locked out of my main Twitter account (@jtLOL) for 12 hours:

[Twitter Link]

Then it was restored, with the following in lieu of an explanation:

[Twitter Link]

What rule did I break? I have no idea, and apparently they're not going to tell me. How do I avoid breaking that rule again? Beats me. It's tough to avoid repeating the infraction if I don't know what it was. (Good lookin' out, Franz Kafka.)

Several other non-liberals I know also got a 12-hour lockout at the exact same time. Why? They don't know either.

At least this time, I only got locked out of my account. A few weeks ago I was suspended outright, based on false reports by alt-right trolls. My account was then reinstated, and this is the closest I got to an explanation:

[Twitter Link]

And this is just the latest incident. Last year I got suspended for using the wrong emojis to describe leftist darling Bradley Manning:

[Twitter Link]

That was dumb, but at least I knew my "crime."

Twitter can make up any rules it wants and enforce those rules any way it wants. And its users can point out when stuff like this happens to them for no given reason.

In the meantime, the effort to erase Alex Jones from the Internet continues. I do not like Jones, which is why I only pay attention to him when people are telling me why I shouldn't pay attention to him. Lately that effort has been driven by CNN's Oliver Darcy:

Twitter said Friday that the accounts belonging to far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his fringe media organization InfoWars would, for now, remain online, one day after a CNN investigation found that Jones' Twitter accounts appeared to have repeatedly violated the company's rules.

That's right: CNN is "investigating" tweets by a guy they don't like because Twitter hasn't given into the outrage mob and banned him yet. It's not enough that Twitter gives you the tools to block any other user, or mute them, or even mute entire conversations and/or certain words. That's insufficient. Nobody else should be able to see the stuff that you don't like.

And Darcy is staying on the case:

[Twitter Link]

[semimojo]

Twitter and the others hire companies like Appen to monitor social media.

Looked it up. Not sure what the issue is.

Is it a problem?

[Chickensoup]

Companies that hire social media monitors and are contracted to social media companies worldwide.

[semimojo]

Companies that hire social media monitors and are contracted to social media companies worldwide.

If I were a social media company it would seem like a prudent move.

Am I missing something?

[DiogenesLamp]

Huh. I was able to get to the Gatestone Institute and pjmedia with absolutely no problem.

There are multiple levels of censorship. It is not all or nothing, there are numerous shades of gray.

I just read an excellent article last week on how Youtube censors people. I think it listed 10 ways in which Youtube does this, but I can't recall them all. I recall a few, and I shall mention them to you so as to illustrate my point that censorship can occur in stages.

According to the article, one of the easy methods YouTube uses to censor people is to deem their content "Adult", or "mature" or whatever they call it. Making people sign in to view content results in millions of views not happening, because many people simply won't go to the trouble.

Another technique they use is to push back unwanted content in the search results. They know people will usually just look at the first few pages, so if they make certain undesirable content is deep in the search results, people likely won't see it.

A third method they use is to disallow "buttons" to easily link to the content. This reduces the possibility that others will see it.

They can also disallow commentary, and that will also reduce viewing.

Another method is to demonitize the content they don't like, because many people post videos so that they can make money from them. By demonitizing them, they remove incentive for people to post content they don't like.

Another technique is to put forth claims that something in the content was objectionable, and then make the content creator have to challenge them to get it reinstated. Many won't bother.

There were several other things mentioned in the article, but I don't recall them.

Anyway, finally we have an actual ban or deplatform, which is their ultimate censorship technique.

So if you think censorship is an all or nothing proposal, you haven't really considered the topic all that much. If I find that article again, i'll send you a link to it. It was well written and quite good.

[Chickensoup]

Monitoring to wipe out conservative thought?

[semimojo]

Monitoring to wipe out conservative thought?

I don't know.

[Red Badger]

Of course I do.

I work in the industry.

We know what they are trying to do.

But it will not succeed...................

[Red Badger]

He can ‘ask’ the same people who were involved with the shenanigans to investigate the shenanigans...............

[Red Badger]

Jim Robinson owns this forum.

If you post something he does not like or agree with, it will be removed and you may be banned.

You use this forum, you play by his rules.

TWITTERYOUTUBEFACEBOOKINSTAGRAM are no different..............

[Jim Noble]

This is part of a logical progression.

They were shocked beyond belief when Gore lost in 2000.
So, they pioneered fake news to beat Bush in 2004.
They were again shocked beyond belief when Bush won in spite of the “fake but accurate” TNG story.

Thus was born Journ-O-List to make sure all the media ships sailed in the same direction, and with two Obama terms they thought the battle was finally won.

But, politics is an evolutionary process, and the meme wars of 2016 played a big role in giving America one last chance.

So, in preparing for 2020, the goal is to slowly but inexorably remove all pro-Trump voices from Facebook, Twitter, You Tube and Google. Here, we talk only to each other. In the grand scheme of things, that doesn’t matter.

[Red Badger]

Their problem is tunnel vision.

They talk only to others like themselves.

Their condescending disdain for non-like minds is their Achilles Heel.

They just KNEW Hilliary was going to win in 2016!

All THEIR POLLS told them so.

All THEIR NEWS OUTLETS told them so.

All THEIR FRIENDS told them so.

All THEIR FRIENDS’ FRIENDS told them so.

First rule of politics:

DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR OWN PROPAGANDA................

[DiogenesLamp]

If you are suggesting the deep state operatives and socialists need to be cleaned out of the Justice department, you will get no argument from me.

[DiogenesLamp]

They are very different. They control communications between billions of people. They are quantitatively different in a very significant way.

If Jim controlled a hundred million accounts, I would be demanding he play by the "freedom of speech" rules too. So long as a website is so small that it poses no great threat to the public discourse, it should be able to do what it wants.

When it has the power to shape and control public discourse through censorship, we should no longer tolerate this sort of behavior. It becomes a defacto public square.

[Red Badger]

So, Freedom of Speech is only a matter of size and not content.................

[Red Badger]

Don’t forget, the Obama/Jarrett Administration changed a huge number of what were ‘political appointee’ jobs to Civil Service jobs, so whomever they ‘appointed’ gets to stay until they retire. It is almost impossible to fire a civil service employee.

The did this across the board, all departments and levels.

The government was already rife with Democrat bureaucrats, but as long as the Republicans controlled the administrative jobs they would follow orders.

Now, the lower level administrators can essentially tell their bosses to go twiddle their thumbs and do nothing.

The DOJ is not only no exception, the Obamanoids are entrenched....................

[DiogenesLamp]

It is a matter of public participation. When it gets to be a significant size, it becomes a threat to our system of governance.

[Red Badger]

I quit Facebook over a year ago.

I have no regrets at all.

The others will not get my participation either.

There are myriads of sites, many like FR and many like DU, that are scattered all over the Internet.

They cannot silence them all. It would be like a giant game of whack-a-mole, only with thousands of moles.............

[DiogenesLamp]

Trump needs to borrow a page from Damon Wayans.

[Red Badger]

What he could do, and nobody could say anything, is move the imbeds to safe jobs, like counting paper clips in Anchorage. We would still have to pay their salaries, but it would be worth it.............

[DiogenesLamp]

It isn't about silencing their sites, it's about denying them the ability to participate in the larger public community. It is about marginalizing them and their message by denying them access to the greater public, and presenting them as pariahs.

If they are not permitted to compete in the arena of ideas, then those who are left to voice their opinions will sway the public to their side.

This is about political power. It's always about political power.