# Are tech companies really biased against conservatives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2019, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095 "2019-06-26T14:02:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/101 "2019-07-10T05:52:26Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21722240&postcount=51](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21722240&postcount=51) I guess I live in a state where a larger portion of the Indian H1-B population has stayed and become citizens, had children, etc. Indians are our third largest foreign born group. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 7:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/102 "2019-07-10T07:22:27Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > To be fair, politics isn’t really a proper part of work, no matter where you work (excluding a political PAC, etc.) If people are bringing their politics into the office, at any office, they should get shot down for it, tech worker, police officer, or garbage man be as it may. Politics isn’t part of work, what then when it is? Have you seen what one Google executive said on the Project Veritas video about Google? Come to think of it I don’t think of it that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread at all. The people on Google’s side can claim the video was edited to make them look bad, and one can cast aspersions about O’Keefe until the cows come home, but when a full sentence by a Google executive is [“Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation.”](https://pjmedia.com/trending/project-veritas-reveals-googles-fairness-efforts-to-prevent-2016-from-happening-again/) it’s quite obvious that politics at work are being pushed from the top. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 7:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/103 "2019-07-10T07:44:23Z")
It’s clear to me that they’re biased but I’m not going to debate that point right now because I’ve already seen it be debated ad nauseum elsewhere. There’s an interesting development regarding the possible _consequences_ of that bias. Facebook has just posted an update to their Community Standards. They forbid “threats that could lead to death” or “high severity violence” _except_ they are making exceptions to **allow** death threats against people and organizations Facebook deems as “dangerous”: > **[Facebook Community Standards | Transparency Center](https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/?source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fcommunitystandards%2Frecentupdates%2Fall_updates%2F)** > > The Facebook Community Standards outline what is and isn't allowed on Facebook. > **[Violence and Incitement | Transparency Center](https://transparency.fb.com/policies/community-standards/violence-incitement/?source=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fcommunitystandards%2Fcredible_violence%2F)** > > Meta regularly publishes reports to give our community visibility into community standards enforcement, government requests and internet disruptions > [@](#): > > Do not post: > Threats that could lead to death (and other forms of high-severity violence) of any target(s) where threat is defined as any of the following: > > Statements of intent to commit high-severity violence; or calls for high-severity violence (unless the target is an organization or individual covered in the **Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy** , or is described as having carried out violent crimes or sexual offenses, wherein criminal/predator status has been established by media reports, market knowledge of news event, etc.) So people reported by the media as violent or sexual criminals can be threatened with death. And so can “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations”. Facebook’s [Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/dangerous_individuals_organizations) includes the following: > [@](#): > > Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy > In an effort to prevent and disrupt real-world harm, we do not allow any organizations or individuals that proclaim a violent mission or are engaged in violence, from having a presence on Facebook. This includes organizations or individuals involved in the following: > Terrorist activity > Organized hate > Mass or serial murder > Human trafficking > Organized violence or criminal activity > … > A hate organization is defined as: > Any association of three or more people that is organized under a name, sign, or symbol and that has an ideology, statements, or physical actions that attack individuals based on characteristics, including race, religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, gender, sex, sexual orientation, serious disease or disability. So any organization that Facebooks says promotes hate, can be threatened with death on Facebook. And of course, there’s a lot of subjectivity in that. Does it include all Republicans, as many believe they promote racial hatred? Churches that oppose gay sex or marriage? Liberals who rant about the evils of conservative Christianity or white colonialism? Feminists who post “#killallmen”? There’s a lot of room for judgement there. The Dangerous Individuals and Organizations Policy is the same one they’ve used to deplatform some political figures such as Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos, so this implies they’re specifically going to allow death threats against those particular individuals. They’ve mostly been banning conservatives, although there are apparently some exceptions such as Louis Farrakhan who was banned for his anti-Semitism. Brett Kavanaugh, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have been reported by the media as having committed sex crimes, so according to this policy, it seems threatening them would be allowed by Facebook’s new policy. This is batshit crazy, unless it is somehow some sort of mistake that they’re going to retract. They’re openly saying that they’re going to make (published or unpublished) hit lists of “dangerous individuals” that they will allow their users to threaten. And the way it’s worded, “threats that could lead to death” makes it sounds like they plan to allow serious, credible attempts to get people killed. As in, “hey guys please go kill this dude” as opposed to a vague “this dude deserves to die”. This must run afoul of some law, whether civil or criminal, doesn’t it? I can’t see how they can legally allow death threats to remain on their platform when the threats have been reported and Facebook knows about them. I didn’t mean to write such a long post but these new rules were just released and the story just broke hours ago tonight. It has only been discussed by right-leaning reporters so far. So, I decided to write up my own post with direct quotes and links from Facebook rather than post a Breitbart link and get accused of posting fake news. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/104 "2019-07-10T07:48:38Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Politics isn’t part of work, what then when it is? Have you seen what one Google executive said on the Project Veritas video about Google? > Come to think of it I don’t think of it that hasn’t been mentioned in this thread at all. > The people on Google’s side can claim the video was edited to make them look bad, and one can cast aspersions about O’Keefe until the cows come home, but when a full sentence by a Google executive is [“Elizabeth Warren is saying that we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better, it will make it worse because now all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation.”](https://pjmedia.com/trending/project-veritas-reveals-googles-fairness-efforts-to-prevent-2016-from-happening-again/) it’s quite obvious that politics at work are being pushed from the top. “Cast aspersions” on O’Keefe (criminal)…yeah, that’s what people do to the guy that tried to trap a female reporter on a boat full of sex toys. Using Project Veritas in any way does little to lend credence to your opinion. That you cherry pick a quote about combating fake news to portray Google in a poor light, however, makes you far more of a kindred spirit to O’Keefe than most honest people would be comfortable with. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 8:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/105 "2019-07-10T08:59:12Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > The argument "I]there’s no bias against conservatives because [insert negative stereotype of conservative here]\* is not very compelling, it actually seems self defeating. Unless it has a basis in reality. And the fact that Twitter has had to dial back its censorship of hate speech in order to avoid blocking right-wing politicians is a data point in support of that basis. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/106 "2019-07-10T13:13:00Z")
> [@thirdname](#): > > This is batshit crazy, unless it is somehow some sort of mistake that they’re going to retract. They’re openly saying that they’re going to make (published or unpublished) hit lists of “dangerous individuals” that they will allow their users to threaten. And the way it’s worded, “threats that could lead to death” makes it sounds like they plan to allow serious, credible attempts to get people killed. As in, “hey guys please go kill this dude” as opposed to a vague “this dude deserves to die”. > > This must run afoul of some law, whether civil or criminal, doesn’t it? I can’t see how they can legally allow death threats to remain on their platform when the threats have been reported and Facebook knows about them. > > I didn’t mean to write such a long post but these new rules were just released and the story just broke hours ago tonight. It has only been discussed by right-leaning reporters so far. So, I decided to write up my own post with direct quotes and links from Facebook rather than post a Breitbart link and get accused of posting fake news. Without that exception, I wouldn’t be allowed to post “The US Air Force should bomb ISIS continuously until they are all dead” ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/107 "2019-07-10T15:34:18Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Politics isn’t part of work, what then when it is? When you go to vote? :dubious: > [@](#): > > Have you seen what one Google executive said on the Project Veritas video about Google? I have not. However, I’ll also note that religion shouldn’t be taught in schools, but have you seen those videos by that asshole Richard Dawkins? Pshhh, you know what I mean? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/108 "2019-07-10T15:50:10Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > I guess I live in a state where a larger portion of the Indian H1-B population has stayed and become citizens, had children, etc. Indians are our third largest foreign born group. Let’s say that 80% of tech workers are coming to Seattle and Silicon valley, split evenly between the two cities. If about 33,000 are staying each year, then that’s 13,200 to one of those two cities. After a decade of that, you’ll have 132,000 people who immigrated plus some extra because of spontaneous human multiplication (procreation). That’s not nothing. That can perfectly easy turn into a high population percentage in a city of a million or two. But that doesn’t change that most of the workers return to India. Think of it like compound interest, you hang on to a small amount of money and it’s just sort of “nothing”, “nothing”, “nothing”, and then finally a few decades have gone by and you’re staring at a huge pile of cash. When things are continuously building up over time, it has a tendency to rocket up all of a sudden when you’re not noticing the slow trickle of growth. ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/109 "2019-07-10T18:47:33Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Without that exception, I wouldn’t be allowed to post “The US Air Force should bomb ISIS continuously until they are all dead” They already have a separate category for terrorist groups. I didn’t quote it but it’s in the links I posted. I’m talking about the “hate organization” policy which as I explained, is highly subjective and is very likely to include domestic political organizations. Not to mention people reported by the media as violent and sex criminals. So if the media reports someone as a criminal, possibly with no trial, Facebook will allow users to seek their death. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/110 "2019-07-10T18:51:14Z")
> [@thirdname](#): > > They already have a separate category for terrorist groups. I didn’t quote it but it’s in the links I posted. I’m talking about the “hate organization” policy which as I explained, is highly subjective and is very likely to include domestic political organizations. > > Not to mention people reported by the media as violent and sex criminals. So if the media reports someone as a criminal, possibly with no trial, Facebook will allow users to seek their death. “I think OJ Simpson is guilty of murder, and he should be arrested and put to death!” Would that be allowed in your hypothetical Facebook world? What about “We should go to war with Iran and bomb them continuously until every Iranian is dead!” ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/111 "2019-07-10T19:14:12Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > Shadowbanning… > > …Twitter is infamous for doing that [They shadowban?](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning.html) I mean Hillary Clinton is infamous for being part of a child sex ring in a Pizza Parlor, but I’d hope you’d agree that that is a pile of steaming horseshit, infamous or otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/112 "2019-07-10T19:26:56Z")
> [@thirdname](#): > > They already have a separate category for terrorist groups. I didn’t quote it but it’s in the links I posted. I’m talking about the “hate organization” policy which as I explained, is highly subjective and is very likely to include domestic political organizations. > > Not to mention people reported by the media as violent and sex criminals. So if the media reports someone as a criminal, possibly with no trial, Facebook will allow users to seek their death. [No they won’t.](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/recentupdates/all_updates/) They originally had a poorly worded statement that was meant to allow exactly the type of post that **manson1972** put forward > [@](#): > > The US Air Force should bomb ISIS continuously until they are all dead . ---
**Author:** ![thirdname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d07c76/32.png) [@thirdname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thirdname)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2019, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/113 "2019-07-10T19:43:10Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > [No they won’t.](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/recentupdates/all_updates/) They originally had a poorly worded statement that was meant to allow exactly the type of post that **manson1972** put forward. No, as I explained in great detail with direct quotes from Facebook, the policy did **not** just allow threats against ISIS or other terrorists, it also explicitly allowed “threats that could lead to death” against other categories including individuals reported by the media (not convicted) as committing violent and sex crimes, and groups designated by Facebook as “hate organizations.” But yes, they have changed the policy again since last night as can be seen in the crossed-out words in that link. But it’s still crazy that Facebook has anyone working for them who thought it was OK to officially allow death threats against people Facebook disapproves of. There must have been more than one person involved in writing these policies and publishing them on the website. They thought these policies were OK until the press and people on Internet forums pointed out how crazy they were. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/114 "2019-07-11T01:55:51Z")
What’s worse is that these companies have been subcontracting the determination of ‘hate groups’ out to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has declared such notorious monsters as Dennis Prager, Sam Harris, Majiid Nawaz, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as ‘hateful’ individuals. Here’s their current [list of hate groups](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups). On that list are such horrible groups as: The American College of Pediatricians The American Border Patrol The Family Research Council The Jewish Defense League Oath Keepers ACT for America The Center for Immigration Studies The Alliance Defending Freedom These groups, which are absolutely mainstream and within the bounds of normal political debate, are mixed right in with the KKK, Stormfront, and other despicable groups. But the ones above are basically just traditional Christian organizations, or Libertarian organizations. They had a lot more ‘right wing’ groups on their list, but they had to remove them under threat of lawsuit. Notably missing from their hate list is the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and a number of other hateful left-wing groups (although to be fair, a number of left-wing groups are on the list as well.) Getting labeled ‘hateful’ by the SPLC can mean having your videos demonetized on Youtube or being kicked off the platform. It can mean having your web site downgraded by Google’s algorithms. It can mean essentially having your career or business destroyed if it relies on social media for advertising, distribution, or revenue. It might get you barred from Patreon and other revenue sharing sites. It might even get your bank to drop your company, and make it impossible to get funding or loans. And yet, the SPLC appears to be a crappy organization which recently has had to fire its founder. Its president resigned, and the organization has been accused of workplace practices that discriminate and sexual harassment against female employees. They have massive funds parked offshore, and have been accused of hyping up ‘hate’ in order to improve fundraising. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/115 "2019-07-11T02:08:17Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > On that list are such horrible groups as: > > The Family Research Council A group that actively fights hate-crime legislation and gay rights. > [@](#): > > Oath Keepers \ ***Oath Keepers is an anti-government American far-right organization associated with the patriot and militia movements.** The group describes itself as a non-partisan association of current and former military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath that all military and police take in order to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. It encourages members – some of whom are current and former U.S. military and law enforcement officers – not to obey orders which they believe would violate the United States Constitution. The organization claims a membership of 35,000 as of 2016. Several groups that monitor domestic terrorism and hate groups describe the Oath Keepers as extremist or radical. Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) describes the group as “heavily armed extremists with a conspiratorial and anti-government mindset looking for potential showdowns with the government.”\* Sure, tell me again how they’re not an extremist hate group. > [@](#): > > ACT for America Anti-Muslim organization that deliberately spreads lies and anti-Muslim propaganda. > [@](#): > > The Center for Immigration Studies Anti-Immigrant think tank that supports the use of concentration camps. > [@](#): > > The Alliance Defending Freedom Virulently anti-LGBTQ. > [@](#): > > Black Lives Matter, and a number of other hateful left-wing groups 1. Not even remotely true. Stop spreading that lie. 2. Flag on the play, illegal Whataboutism. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/116 "2019-07-11T02:18:40Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The American College of Pediatricians …not to be confused with the [American Academy of Pediatrics](https://www.aap.org/en-us/Pages/Default.aspx), the wikipedia page for the American College of Pediatricians describes their [primary focus as advocating against the right of gay or lesbian people to adopt children, and it also advocates conversion therapy.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians) > [@](#): > > The American Border Patrol Not to get confused with the [US Border Patrol](https://www.cbp.gov/), the American Border Patrol are [these guys](https://www.facebook.com/Seidarm/). > [@](#): > > The Family Research Council Even I’ve heard of these nutters. They believe "that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects.” I’ll stop there. I’m starting to think you actually haven’t read your cite. Do you actually believe that these ideas are “absolutely mainstream and within the bounds of normal political debate?” That gay people should have to debate their right to exist in society? You think these groups compare to Black Lives Matter? A group that doesn’t think gay people should exist is the same as a movement that just wants the police to stop killing and discriminating against black people? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/117 "2019-07-11T03:47:13Z")
**Sam** and others demonstrate what I did notice before, there is a complete misunderstanding that the conservatism of just very recent history is not the same conservatism that is swallowing the Republicans now. > **[A Major New Study Shows That Political Polarization Is Mainly A Right-Wing...](https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2017-03-15/a-major-new-study-shows-that-political-polarization-is-mainly-a-right-wing-phenomenon)** > > A major new study of social media sharing patterns shows that political polarization is more common among conservatives than liberals — and that the… > [@](#): > > A major new study of social media sharing patterns shows that political polarization is more common among conservatives than liberals — and that the exaggerations and falsehoods emanating from right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart News have infected mainstream discourse. > > Though the report, published by the Columbia Journalism Review, does an excellent job of laying out the challenge posed by Breitbart and its ilk, it is less than clear on how to counter it. Successfully standing up for truthful reporting in this environment “could usher in a new golden age for the Fourth Estate,” the authors write. But members of the public who care about such journalism are already flocking to news organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and, locally, The Boston Globe, all of which have experienced a surge in paid subscriptions since the election of President Trump. That’s heartening, but there are no signs that it’s had any effect on the popularity or influence of the right-wing partisan media. > > The CJR study, by scholars at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, at Harvard Law School, and the MIT Center for Civic Media, examined more than 1.25 million articles between April 1, 2015, and Election Day. What they found was that Hillary Clinton supporters shared stories from across a relatively broad political spectrum, including center-right sources such as The Wall Street Journal, mainstream news organizations like the Times and the Post, and partisan liberal sites like The Huffington Post and The Daily Beast. > > By contrast, Donald Trump supporters clustered around Breitbart — headed until recently by Stephen Bannon, the hard-right nationalist now ensconced in the White House — and a few like-minded websites such as The Daily Caller, Alex Jones’ Infowars, and The Gateway Pundit. Even Fox News was dropped from the favored circle back when it was attacking Trump during the primaries, and only re-entered the fold once it had made its peace with the future president. In essence, [a lot of sources full of poison are controlling the narrative among many conservatives](https://www.vox.com/2019/7/10/20688767/fox-news-hannity-seth-rich-russia-tucker-carlson-ilhan-omar), under that consideration it should be less surprising that seeing efforts towards inclusion or to counter hate will be seen under the darker colored glasses that many conservative sources are using as a “bad thing” ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/118 "2019-07-11T04:15:21Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > When you go to vote? :dubious: > I have not. However, I’ll also note that religion shouldn’t be taught in schools, but have you seen those videos by that asshole Richard Dawkins? Pshhh, you know what I mean? What I meant with the question was in reference to the executive level of a company making politics part of its operation. If you have people at the top saying that they want to stop Trump with the tools at their disposal then the company is politicized whether the underlings bring their own politics into it or not. I’d post a link to that video but it was nuked by Youtube pretty darn fast, I don’t know where it may be hosted now. No, I don’t know what you mean with that reference to Dawkins. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/119 "2019-07-11T04:22:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > **Sam** and others demonstrate what I did notice before, there is a complete misunderstanding that the conservatism of just very recent history is not the same conservatism that is swallowing the Republicans now. The party of Cut and Spend is not conservative, and hasn’t been for decades. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2019, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095/120 "2019-07-11T04:37:34Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > [They shadowban?](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-the-record-straight-on-shadow-banning.html) > > I mean Hillary Clinton is infamous for being part of a child sex ring in a Pizza Parlor, but I’d hope you’d agree that that is a pile of steaming horseshit, infamous or otherwise. I think that blog entry is obfuscating the issue, what she says: "People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?” The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster. We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile)." The definition of shadowbanning she uses is very convenient, the way Twitter works is people post replies to other people’s post, shadowbanning can be making those replies invisible to others unbeknownst to the person making the post, even if those post show up on the person’s own page and people who follow that person can see them it doesn’t mean that, to the larger audience out there, those posts are invisible. To bring back the analogy to the SDMB, it would as claiming that (hypothetically) the SDMB doesn’t shadowban users because whatever they post it will be visible to the user, accessible through a search, and visible to other users in their Friends list. That, of course begs the question of what goes on outside those cases, because under those terms a user’s post can be invisible to anyone who does not directly do a (blind) search or is not a friend of the user in question. In short, I think she was obfuscating the issue, and the way she did it is, IMO, admitting that they do, in fact, shadow ban users. What is the logical inference of this statement? _“You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow”_ Obviously that one will not always see what people one does not follow post, and that would be without knowing that content is being rendered invisible. It’s not like one can trawl through the entire user base of Twitter to spot when and where posts have gone missing without notice. FWIW I’ll WAG that 90% of what I read on Twitter is from accounts I don’t follow. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-tech-companies-really-biased-against-conservatives/836095.md?page=7)