Twitter Secret Blacklists Exposed in New Release of Files

[Don't Panic]

And delete tweets. Which is what happened. Didn’t you even know that?

The lack of understanding of common functions of social media has become even more apparent.
"Don't like it, its Fraud"

 

[DaisyDay]

I expect there's less bias than people are suggesting. If these media are suppressing misinformation, and one political wing is more misinformed, then an evenhanded moderation of misinformation may appear politically biased.

But more importantly, I don't care whether bias existed. Private companies are allowed to proclaim Jesus or suppress communism.

This website has moderation policies, but I'm not referring the matter to a Congressional subcommittee.

Any hint that government power should be used to regulate these private companies is an actual threat to the First Amendment, unlike biased moderation policies.

If Twitter is too biased, they can always go to one of the less biased places like Parler, Gab or Truth Social.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Seriously though, Twitter is “entertainment” it’s not “real life”.

I wish that were the case.

Unfortunately, the platform that originally started as a way to troll people advocating gluten free diets and homeopathy, and for people to throw lighthearted barbs about pineapple on pizza, turned into the one the major vehicles by which candidates connect with people, and how people connect with news.

 

[Tuur]

But more importantly, I don't care whether bias existed.

Obviously not, but you should. One of the earmarks of repression is the control of media to benefit a person or a party. Your statement on the 1st Amendment is accurate, yet presents a problem: What happens if a media source holds a monopoly? I think there's laws against that sort of thing in broadcasting, but what about social media? When someone tried to set up a competitor to Twitter in 2021, if you'll recall they were shut out, with little if any complaints of a monopoly from Democrats.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your statement on the 1st Amendment is accurate, yet presents a problem: What happens if a media source holds a monopoly?

Keep me posted if that ever happens.

 

[Tuur]

Keep me posted if that ever happens.

It's already happened:

FCC repeals decades-old rules on media monopolies

The regulations, eliminated in a 3-2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission, were initially put in place in the 1970s to ensure that a diversity of voices and opinions could be heard on the …

www.mercurynews.com

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's already happened:

There is only one medium? Nonsense.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It's already happened:

FCC repeals decades-old rules on media monopolies

The regulations, eliminated in a 3-2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission, were initially put in place in the 1970s to ensure that a diversity of voices and opinions could be heard on the …

www.mercurynews.com

Really? So which source of media holds a monopoly?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'm surprised these companies haven't already bought their own island and started operating from there.

 

[pgp_protector]

It's already happened:

FCC repeals decades-old rules on media monopolies

The regulations, eliminated in a 3-2 vote by the Federal Communications Commission, were initially put in place in the 1970s to ensure that a diversity of voices and opinions could be heard on the …

www.mercurynews.com

CF holds a monopolie?

 

[hislegacy]

Latest 'Twitter Files' Bomb: Forget Shadow-Banning - Twitter Had Entire Blacklists and We Have Names

The second installment of the "Twitter Files" has been released on Thursday, revealing even more information about the company.

ijr.com

There are lists — blacklists — of whole groups of people who Twitter simply decided to crush. And liberal, former NYT reporter Weiss says that politics was driving at least part of the operation.​

​

One such blacklisted user was Standford Professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.​

​

Additionally, Weiss revealed that conservative talk show host Dan Bongino had been placed on a “Search Blacklist” and conservative activist Charlie Kirk had been placed on a “Do Not Amplify” blacklist.​

​

​

Hmmm.... I did not lie to congress, because we call the action a different name.​

​

​

Has anyone seen evidence of a prominent social media - media personality - or politician from the left being shadow banned?​

 

[stevil]

Old Twitter manipulates content. No one is surprised. There a more accurate description. The so called trending is not organic nor algorithmic. And based on release information all the censoring, de-boosting, shadow banning and outright banning heavily favors one side of the partisanship. No cookie for guessing which side.

It heavily favours truth, and disfavours dangerous misinformation, discrimination, calls to violence....
The USA political right doesn't have to hang its hat on dangerous misinformation, discrimination, calls to violence....
Instead the USA right can talk truth and can talk about conservative policies. Those blacklists aren't labelling people as being right leaning.

 

[Tuur]

There is only one medium? Nonsense.

So you're saying there's no reason for FCC concern.

 

[Tuur]

Really? So which source of media holds a monopoly?

In broadcasting, it's a big enough issue that acquisitions and mergers are often subject to FCC oversight.

 

[Tinker Grey]

In broadcasting, it's a big enough issue that acquisitions and mergers are often subject to FCC oversight.

So it's always been. Now, where is the monopoly?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So you're saying there's no reason for FCC concern.

No, what I was saying is there is no media monopoly.

If I were to respond to your FCC news, it would be to say that it has nothing to do with the Twitter or the internet.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Social media is a big part of the U.S. infrastructure, with Twitter a major player. This is systemic fraud which altered the results of elections. The fascists involved must be brought to justice.

That... is insane. Twitter literally has zero obligation to allow any post for any reason whatsoever. They are a private company. If the CEO held a news conference the day before an election and announced that they were suppressing all conservative tweets of any kind because conservatives are poopy heads THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING THE GOVERNMENT COUD DO ABOUT IT. That pesky first amendment and all.

But you want them to actually do something about it?? Is that what small government means?

The Right lives in an alternate reality with "alternate facts" and actual, literal "fake news."

 

[Valletta]

That... is insane. Twitter literally has zero obligation to allow any post for any reason whatsoever. They are a private company. If the CEO held a news conference the day before an election and announced that they were suppressing all conservative tweets of any kind because conservatives are poopy heads THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING THE GOVERNMENT COUD DO ABOUT IT. That pesky first amendment and all.

But you want them to actually do something about it?? Is that what small government means?

The Right lives in an alternate reality with "alternate facts" and actual, literal "fake news."

That Twitter can ban a post or person is well known. That is not the news. But a private company, whether it be a social media company or the New York Times, can be held liable for consequences of misrepresentation. Not for getting something wrong and when finding out making a correction, but deliberate misrepresentation.

 

[Pommer]

That... is insane. Twitter literally has zero obligation to allow any post for any reason whatsoever. They are a private company. If the CEO held a news conference the day before an election and announced that they were suppressing all conservative tweets of any kind because conservatives are poopy heads THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING THE GOVERNMENT COUD DO ABOUT IT. That pesky first amendment and all.

But you want them to actually do something about it?? Is that what small government means?

The Right lives in an alternate reality with "alternate facts" and actual, literal "fake news."

“Too big to fail” has turned into “too big to NOT be regulated by our government”, (for some reason).
One wonders why we have to have the government being the discerner of Truth?
Isn’t this a complaint of our Conservative brethren?, “we don’t trust ‘the government to tell us the Truth!”, but the Government is fine making sure Twitter’s “honest”.

This a-here is nothing more than plain old-fashioned Doublethink, a fine example to boot!

 

[Pommer]

That Twitter can ban a post or person is well known. That is not the news. But a private company, whether it be a social media company or the New York Times, can be held liable for consequences of misrepresentation. Not for getting something wrong and when finding out making a correction, but deliberate misrepresentation.

Who gets “decide” what obligations (if any) Twitter has to only present material that is not “misrepresentations”?

Are we going to haggle over that or “let the market” decide?