isn’t an upside down flag a sign of distress?
1 Like
Is it though? Admittedly blogs provide more context than a twitter thread but to me the Twitter blog post seems much more straightforwardly honest than Weiss’ reporting. The points of Weiss’s reporting is that there is a search ban list, Twitter said they don’t ban people or limit people’s searches and at one point Boing-whatever was one it. Is that list meant to permanently ban people or temporary ban search for text and/or maybe people? If it’s a person is there some kind of time limit? Was the additions an accident that got rectified?
We don’t know any of that. All we have is insinuation. That there was a list and right wingers were on it at some point and time. The rest is conjecture. Where right wingers being placed on there because of their ideology? Weiss doesn’t show any proof. Were twitter execs tipping the scales when it came to LibsofTicktoc? I don’t know I got one line that after 6 temp bans someone said that she hadn’t violated policy. Again that’s where the lack of context leads to insinuation. Does that mean that in evaluating the 7th attempted ban they determined that she hadn’t violated policy or was it someone saying that she had never violated policy?
That’s where, either the lack of context of a twitter thread is hindering my comprehension or Weiss is cherry picking events and phrases because there actually is no smoking gun to say ‘yes Twitter was shadow banning right wingers because of ideology’.
4 Likes
No it’s just how Americans think Canadian flags should be hung because they don’t know any differently.
How do you signal distress if you’re from one of the countries with 3 vertical bars for a flag?
If you’re thinking of 
they are just in a state of permanent distress.
It’s coming home.
4 Likes
Are you aware of what LibsofTickTock actually tweets?
She provides absolutely no original content at all. All she does is find tweets from left wing fringe posters and reposts their tweets for ridicule. So she is basically The Suzzer of right wing twitter.
The way she specifically has been moderated has always been dubious, given her modus operandi is just to retweet other tweets that do not break any Twitter rules, and AFAIK there is no policy that you cant retweet someone else to mock them.
https://twitter.com/KT_So_It_Goes/status/1601070738773270529?t=pem35FMpANdKvVkzPwXX-A&s=19
https://twitter.com/KT_So_It_Goes/status/1601071475699568640?t=ogjk-tC2UtKDFYsHXbgZCw&s=19
7 Likes
Let’s go tell Mom?
3 Likes
lol nah, Looks Good To Me
1 Like
I don’t give a shit about Libs of Tik Tok or whatever but it’s very hard for me to imagine a Stanford professor engaging in any conduct on his Twitter account which would justify any blacklisting. Under no circumstances do I want some overcaffeinated intern at Twitter deciding that the COVID opinions of a professor of medicine and economics with an interest in health policy ought to be secretly suppressed. The secrecy here is an issue because there is no recourse. If someone overreaches and bans someone they shouldn’t, people can lobby on their behalf to have the ban reversed.
Weiss wrote “Twitter secretly placed him on a Trends Blacklist” which I took to mean that this was a wilful action and not the result of some algorithmic overreach, but maybe that’s not right. I think part of the problem here, as you said, is that Twitter is an awful format to release information like this in.
3 Likes
Fresh off his disastrous acquisition of Twitter and a batch of new promises about Neuralink, Elon Musk fans have been eager to find the next project for the billionaire to sink his teeth into.
Some have suggested he “buy” Wikipedia, the global, collective non-profit encyclopedia that serves as an international commons for knowledge online.
There is just one problem, however, it’s not for sale. Wikipedia has long espoused as one of its core principles that it’s not for sale and will be operated exclusively through Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit foundation behind the encyclopedia. Still that hasn’t stopped Musk fans from insisting Musk turns his eyes there—or that the website may become (or already be) a hotbed of censorship without the South African billionaire’s intervention.
Wikipedia just earned another donation from me. Wikipedia is probably a bigger thorn in RWNJ’s side than Twitter ever was. If it went down that would truly suck.
1 Like
spent $44b and the only thing that he figured was going to work is siphoning some boomers from fb? lol billions make you fucking dumb
They can blacklist anyone they want for any reason, or even no reason at all. Constitution 101 stuff. Can we get these snowflakes a safe room or whatever the fuck it’s called? Maybe NYT is the safe place. Grievance dogs lodging their complaint letters at the bigly inclusion paper of record.
1 Like
He’s like the third total clown Stanford professor to pop up since covid. Add to that that Stanford is home to the Hoover Institution (some good people, some wackos), and the fact that this guy keeps being used as an expert witness is no surprise because there is no one else in medicine that believes his BS and can play the role. Maybe he has some Einstein-like original insight into mask usage, or maybe he’s just a right-wing griftin clown. In this case, I’m happy to let an intern decide.
6 Likes
Oh noes, his anti-mask tweets cannot trend with “hot girl friday”. By not allowing his speech to be algorithmically amplified, Twitter practically denying his the right to free speech, or something.
2 Likes
I have a God-given right to yell SHOOTER! in a crowded movie theater, but a professor of medicine at one of the most prestigious universities on this planet can’t even post important public health information on the internet. What has this world come to?!?
1 Like
I assume his was one of those accounts where the blacklisting came straight from the top.
Yeah, I’m purposefully ignoring all this until Taibbi writes a long form article on this. Not reading a bunch of long twitter threads.