It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Jack Dorsey stood up under oath before the House Energy and Commerce Committee back in September and said with a straight face that neither Twitter's algorithm nor the company's policies target individual users due to their political orientation.
It doesn't take a deeply researched understanding of Twitter's persistent shadowbanning - and outright banning - of conservative voices like Laura Loomer to see that this is patently untrue. And while Dorsey was willing to concede during the Sept. 5 hearing that Twitter wrongly shadowbanned some 600,000 accounts, many of which belonged to conservatives using the platform, his insistence that Twitter was free of bias (something he was willing to acknowledge back in July during an interview on CNN) clearly unnerved several Congressmen, who suspected that Dorsey wasn't being entirely truthful.
And after Dorsey and Twitter ignored follow-up questions from the committee - making their disdain for the Republicans who grilled Dorsey clear - the committee is finally doing something about it.
originally posted by: Flatcoat
It's about his honesty not his politics.
originally posted by: 727Sky
Facebook next?
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Some cheese to the whine, darling?
...
Now there is GOVERNMENT telling PRIVATE companies how they have to run their thing?
Really? Isn't that something deeply hated by many people on this board? Isnt' that something like communism?
originally posted by: LordAhriman
originally posted by: Flatcoat
It's about his honesty not his politics.
He can ban whoever he wants, for whatever he wants. It's his company. There's Gab for those who wish to spout hate speech. In the interest of advertising revenue, it is a no brainer as to why he doesnt want that on his platform.
originally posted by: 727Sky
Facebook next?
No. I'm currently banned from Facebook for saying that Trump supporters are white trash. I don't think that fits the narrative of being banned for not leaning their way politically.
originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
All of what you said is fine...
But none of that is the issue... Lying under oath is
originally posted by: LordAhriman
My problem is that it made it to congress in the first place. Why should the government get involved in who twitter bans?
originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
@LordAhriman
would you say calling people white trash is positive or hate speech? Would you say that is respectful?
That's the rub, there is no such thing as hate speech, there is only speech you like and speech you don't like. You can fin clips of BLM marchers saying they want to fry the pigs, ANTIFA talking about killing, vandalizing and what not, louis farrakhan is all over twitter, and they are all "woke" and "tolerant" people.
What makes one white trash? I would say being a criminal. so anyone who is helping illegals stay in any country, is white trash, but i bet you have a different definition. I don't care, and i wouldn't ban you from my social media site, if i had a social media site
That again is why US government was and is evolved with this, because of the law. It's a publisher vs platform question. Are they a social media site or are they an on line publishing firm? Big Tech has to decide which one it is, because the laws are different for each one. We don't want them to be big tech trash, so they have to pick one and follow the laws.
originally posted by: LordAhriman
originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
All of what you said is fine...
But none of that is the issue... Lying under oath is
My problem is that it made it to congress in the first place. Why should the government get involved in who twitter bans?