Yes
Well, yes, but to that there is much more that has been added to such standard issues. As noted before, issues that can be solved using tools that included the free market that were lauded as proper by the conservatives until recently were, thanks to nocive propaganda from dubious right wing sources, turned into the tools of the devil.
And as I also noted before, there are many issues that are being given that treatment and powerful interests are not happy with just that. They are politicizing issues that were not so until recently, I can say that since conspiracy followers (and many sources from the right are normalizing that mentality among conservatives) can not just have one conspiracy, the soil is ready to receive more of those.
One more item that is becoming a frightful example: the anti-vaccine movement that has both liberal and conservative members is beginning to be grabbed by Republicanswhile the Democrats are actively discouraging those guys.
Twitter, like every other social media, curates what you see. Otherwise, your Twitter feed would be full of everything. Do you want to read all of AOC’s tweets along with Trump’s and CNN’s and Fox News’ and Cruz’s and Rapinoe’s and Broussard’s and Rodgers’ and Packers’ and everyone else in the world? Half a billion tweets are sent out every day. Twitter automatically filters out virtually all of them for you, generally leaving only those you regularly spend time reading, checking out, and others that generally match the same type of user profiles. If you normally see tweets from Trump, but scroll past them without even reading them for a few weeks, the algorithm might stop showing every single Trump tweet. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean he’s been shadowbanned. It means the big computer on the other end decided maybe you dislike Trump as much as AOC, whether it’s false or not.
Tweets don’t go missing. If you can find evidence that they do, you might have a leg to stand on.
The meaning is painfully obvious to anyone without an axe to grind - if you want to guarantee you see tweets from a certain source, FOLLOW THAT SOURCE. Try not to follow James O’Keefe though. He’s a lying shitbag criminal.
But this never happened.
You can twist one out of context sentence into a pretzel to make it kind of sort seem that way, but in reality no one at the top of Google ever said they want to stop Trump with all the tools at their disposal.
Which companies have done this?
By the way, the SPLC has since apologized for including Maajid Nawaz on the list.
For obvious business reasons, search engines and content presenters find it useful to display actual information rather than nonsensical yammerings to people who come looking for the former. Any algorithm tailored to that end is naturally going to reflect the fact that reality has a liberal bias.
After they were forced to by a lawsuit. Not before.
As I recall, Twitter, facebook, YouTube and Google have all partnered with the SPLC and use their rankings in their algorithms to root out ‘hate speech’. Apple donated $1 million to the SPLC, and encourages their employees to contribute. How they use the SPLC’s material is not known.
Some of this may have changed after the various controversies surfaced. I’m not sure.
Do you think Tech companies donating to SPLC makes them biased against conservatives?
Do you think the same Tech companies donating to Republican political campaigns makes them biased against Democrats?
I’m pretty sure you recall incorrectly. This is made up right wing persecution complex nonsense. Don’t fall for it.
SPLC announces policy recommendations for social media, internet companies to fight hate online
The SPLC is one of Youtube’s ‘Trusted Flaggers’.
The SPLC is also one of Google’s ‘inclusion’ Grantees, meaning that Google helps fund them.
The SPLC is a ‘safety partner’ at Twitter. Or was, until the latest scandals at the SPLC broke. I notice the SPLC is no longer listed on Twitter’s ‘trust and safety’ page, but they were not long ago.
Amazon uses SPLC’s ‘hate group’ list to exclude organizations from the Amazon SMILE program.
Yes, unless they donate to an equal number of 'conservative organizations and give them the same power.
If the only campaigns they donate to are Republican, then I would be suspicious. But most large corporations donate to both Democrats and Republicans, because graft and political favors are non-partisan.
Like who? What conservative organizations? I believe that Tech companies have the same responsibility to keep bigoted hate speech off their services as traditional media companies. Is there a conservative organization that can help Twitter to identify antisemitic groups and individuals in order to keep Twitter from becoming a cesspool of hate?
Unmoderated internet sites always devolve into useless garbage. If SDMB stopped moderating, how long before every post is the Pit, but hateful?
I don’t know the last two, but Prager and Sam Harris are absolutely hatemongers.
I agree. There is a lot of tap dancing from the right to make others ignore the elephant in the room. Sure, the SPLC is not perfect and got some things stupidly wrong, but overall they do point at proper reasons on why some groups or users are singled out as spewers of hate and weaponized ignorance.
From your link:
I don’t really see how screening out white-supremacist hate speech counts as being “biased against conservatives”. Unless you’re saying that such hate speech is an intrinsic part of conservative viewpoints.
How exactly is Sam Harris a “hatemonger”? Is it because he criticizes Islam? How is that any worse than the American left criticizing conservative Christianity, as they do constantly? Should criticism of Christianity be banned from the Internet as well? What about the endless casual racism about “old white males”? It is everywhere-I hear fully mainstream news outlets such as NPR seriously having discussions about whether Bernie and Biden should not be nominated because they are white men.
Any political debate involves criticizing various individuals, governments, ideologies and organizations. Hate is an emotion, it is subjective and basically criticizing anyone can be construed as “hateful” and worthy of censorship. Banning “hate” these days is often just an excuse to silence dissenting opinions.
To be precise, AFAICT the way that the SPLC classified Sam Harris was as an “anti-Muslim extremist”, on a web page that they have since removed.
I presume that’s what Sam Stone was referring to in his vague and uncited claim in post #114 that the SPLC had included Harris among their designated “‘hateful’ individuals”. To the best of my knowledge, the SPLC does not classify individuals as “hateful”, although they do list organizations that they identify as “hate groups”.
We can certainly debate the side issue of how precisely to define the term “hate” or what counts as “hateful” or “hatemongering”, but AFAICT it has no direct bearing on the SPLC’s calling Sam Harris an “anti-Muslim extremist”.
No. It’s because he’s a racist.