Shadowbanning would be as if your post here in the SDMB would show up in the thread only to yourself, without any indication to the contrary, making you believe that you are actually part of the conversation.
Twitter is infamous for doing that, and also applying obscure filtering to who gets to see what.
Some time ago I did a test there, I should point out I have disabled all filtering in Twitter; I logged in I opened a tweet and there were, say, five replies to it. I logged off, opened the same link and there were twice as many replies visible (all replies were from before I opened the Tweet the first time around, so it wasn’t as if there had been new replies since), also none of the replies would qualify as something violating the terms of service.
I’d like to tie that with something Twitter has stated publicly, that when they take actions against users they inform them why they do it so that the user can adjust their behaviour according to their rules, as it was stated here (link to the 7:10 timestamp of a podcast)
Link: https://youtu.be/3lp5DVEOYN4?t=430
“I want to make sure that when someone violates our rules they understand what happened and are given an opportunity to get back on the platform and change their behaviour”
Obviously shadowbanning is in contravention of that statement and it highlights the (well earned) lack of trust in the way large social media corporations operate.
Edited to add, it seems that the link code didn’t work so I’ll give it another try.
No, I think in that case Twiter was applying a filter to what I could or could not see, even though I disabled all filtering. If it was a case of shadowbanning I would expect the missing replies to remain invisible whether I was logged in or not.
Were the missing comments right wing? What sort of filter do you believe Twitter was applying, and why do you believe they removed the filter the next time you went to view those comments?
I’m asking because I’ve been using bulletin boards and other social media type blogging sites for about 20 years, and I’ve seen dozens of slow databases, and weird errors that had nothing to do with shadowy censorship and had everything to do with IT staff trying to minimize network usage while still providing a service to end users.
Did you take screenshots? Have you seen others actually documenting such events? And if so, is any of this documentation systematic, scientific and showing bias rather than slow cache propagation?
You’d think with something so important that Congressman and Cow-owner Devin Nunes sues Twitter over it there would be more evidence than anecdotes and feelings.
This whole board is filled with predominantly liberal people. Apparently, you think you’re the only intelligent people. The throwing casually, of barbs at any conservative thought; defines your lack of character.
…alternatively, shadowbanning is a stupid conspiracy theory spawned by conservative talking heads getting pushback from the general public for their being assholes, and not as much support/defence of their being assholes than they expected/deem they deserve.
Unless you are under the impression that this board is a tech company, this comment is a giant non sequitur and a hijack so please drop it. If you have complaints about the board, those go in ATMB. If you have complaints about the people who post here, those go in the Pit. You’re on your own for proper use of a semicolon; however if you really want to know a thread in GQ could work.
Is that even pertinent to the question in the OP? That question was whether the companies’ policies discriminate against conservative positions. Those companies have put in place, especially in the last couple of years, algorithms that reduce the amount of hate and misinformation. People who posted the hate-filled and misinformation-laden content are mad because they’re being censored. That’s really it in a nutshell.
I don’t know if that’s true - you would need to supply a cite - but it’s not particularly relevant if we’re talking about two different groups. Tech workers are generally not naturalized. What naturalized foreigners do is irrelevant.
You would also need to demonstrate Democratic leaning on the part of people in the Midwest and living in India and living in the Philippines. And you would further need to demonstrate how or why one would corrupt the math.
I did already, before I thought it was just a misunderstanding but you are entering arguments from ignorance territory
:rolleyes:
The context is precisely about what takes place in the USA with tech companies regarding biases. It is important therefore to check what the politics are for the ones that do remain, in reality your point then about if recipients of Visas for work has little relevance. A red herring.
Nope, that is another red herring, it is very clear that while the rest of the world could have their own filters, the issue at hand is about what bias is there in the USA. IMHO there are a lot of moves to placate the right wing in the US.
The issue you are missing here: it is clear that you are trying to ignore that you did use a wide brush that painted not only Visa for work recipients. You did include all the Hindus and Chinese in the US. Hence the posts I did and when you claim that “I don’t know if that’s true” Well, it is true when super majorities among those groups are not voting for the Republicans.
So, when one looks again at your post #23, one can see more clearly now the deep ignorant points made there.
Sorry, you took a few weeks off from the thread. I didn’t recall.
Your American Conservative reference doesn’t actually provide any data and its one link to the relevant source is not functioning.
Here is a Wikipedia article on the topic:
The headlines would seem to be that they don’t turn out to vote and that they are swing voters. While they may have voted against Trump and for Obama, that’s not “Democrat versus Republican”, that’s “I got all A’s in college and I can recognize the difference between crap and someone reasonable.”
To quote the page:
“In the 2014 midterm elections, based on exit polls, 50% of Asian Americans voted Republican, while 49% voted Democrat;”
And:
“In 2008, polls indicated that 35% considered themselves non-partisan, 32% Democrats, 19% independents, and 14% Republicans.[57] The 2012 National Asian American Survey found that 51% considered themselves non-partisan, 33% Democrats, 14% Republicans, and 2% Other;”
The ones who remain, as established, is the minority and the current poling would be that they are largely independent voters if you look at the real numbers not just the general gist as given by a Conservative source, using purely the Presidential vote when comparing a decent Presidential candidate to a guy who was generally famous as a con artist and scumbag, previous to anyone ever caring about his politics.
And, as said, regardless of their politics, they would need a way to cheat and a motive to cheat. H1-B workers are professionals who are doing their job, not insane politicos willing to trash their professional future in name of the American Democratic party.
And, as said, they are using data that was generated by people who were not H1-B workers.
If the mechanism for moderation is to perform an algorithmic copy-and-paste from the activities of the moderators, then how is it more important what the politics are of the people who built a machine learning engine? How did they build the machine learning engine to cheat and why did they do that?
Let’s say that you’re a Republican.
Let’s also say that you’re an officer of the law. That’s how you earn your food that you can take back and feed your family.
You stop sometime for going 2X the speed limit. When you walk up to the car, do you:
a) Give them a ticket.
b) Ask them their party affiliation, so that you can decide whether to arrest them or let them go?
When one does not look at religion the result is worse for the Republicans.
Mind you, that was a few years back, and your cite for elections was even older. With Trump in the mix the numbers are worse as other sources, even conservative ones, noted.
So, not my problem if you want to rely on ignorance.
As it was already cited too, more than a few Republicans would be banned* or affected a lot if the same algorithms that do ban ISIS followers would do the same to the radical race haters among the Republicans; and so, while they do have limits, they are still allowed to continue to spew their hate or at least to allow them to retweet their hatred.
Trump should already had been banned many times before, but it is thanks to politics that he gets a break.
Okay, well that’s very specifically Hindus who are naturalized, rather than what we’re looking for which is H-1B workers, period. But sure let’s buy it. 100% of H-1B tech workers are Democrats.
Can you go further than that? This isn’t the Holocaust. You don’t disprove it by demonstrating that Anne Frank’s diary was edited after the fact. It doesn’t really matter whether you find one niggling bit where you’re dissatisfied, you have to actually demonstrate a when a how and a why. And note that even accepting that 100% of H-1B are Democrats - whether that’s true itself or not - that’s still not motive. You don’t have a why, let alone a when nor a how.