Some things about Twitter you might not know

[Tiny]

No, I don't. You don't know how this works. If I claim that Elon Musk has forced a stable of 100 women who work there to become his sex harem, I need to provide evidence, you don't need to disprove it without any. You made a claim, you provide evidence.

But I never made claims about any specific instances where twitter deleted content. I am merely saying that twitter bans certain content or otherwise manipulates visibility, which they themselves don't deny.

False analogy. Extra pairs of shoes don't kill people. False statements about the need for vaccines do. It's a factual issue that widespread vaccine use saves many lives.

You don't know what a factual statement is.

It doesnt matter whether I say, "covid vaccines aren't needed" or if you say, "covid vaccines are needed", both of them are not factual statements. Both of them are opinions. It's just that one of them you agree with and the other you disagree with.

You seem to think that if a statement could have serious consequences (such as people dying), that means it is now a factual statement. No. Whether a statement is factual or merely an opinion is not determined by any consequences they might cause.

To give you an example:

If I am a serial killer, and I say to myself, "all these children in this class need to die", this has a serious consequence, as in, I will go and kill the children, however, this consequence still does not turn "all these children need to die" into a factual statement. It is still an opinion.

What is a factual statement? Things like, "The capitol of US is Tokyo" and "humans need oxygen in order to live". The first statement can be evaluated and found to be false, whereas the second one is evaluated to be true. However, both are factual statements, doesn't matter whether they are true or false. You seem to think "factual statement" means something that's true, that is not the case. A factual statement is something that is concerned with facts. "Vaccines are needed" is not a factual statement because it doesn't concern facts. It doesn't matter how much you agree with it. It is still an opinion.

 

[Craig234]

But I never made claims about any specific instances where twitter deleted content. I am merely saying that twitter bans certain content or otherwise manipulates visibility, which they themselves don't deny.

Of course they moderate content. You claimed they mislabel valid information as disinformation without any evidence.

You don't know what a factual statement is.

Idiotic statement limit exceeded, we're done.

 

[Tiny]

Idiotic statement limit exceeded, we're done.

How is it idiotic? You truly did not know what a factual statement is.

Anyway I see that I have backed you into a corner, and you have run out of arguments, so you are exiting the thread. My work is done.

 

[trouble13]

I'm interested to hear your explanation for Twitter leaving Trump on the platform literally for years despite openly and explicitly stating he was breaking the rules, since allegedly their sole and core motivation is silencing conservatives, right? Trump stayed on for years, millions of conservatives have accounts still. You could post all day stuff like "I think we should cut taxes" or "universal healthcare is socialism!" and Twitter would never ban you.

Can you tell us all why that is? Why not just instaban every conservative?

And your backlighting continues...

I would tell you to ask them for the answer to your question but since they are proven liars they have no credibility.

 

[Deuce]

And your backlighting continues...

I would tell you to ask them for the answer to your question but since they are proven liars they have no credibility.

No, I specifically asked you because I wanted your opinion on the subject. Twitter execs absolutely would lie about it. In fact, they already did. They were declaring they left Trump's tweets in place because they were "a matter of great public interest."

It's horseshit. Trump was allowed to openly and brazenly break the rules because he was making them a lot of money.

 

[trouble13]

No, I specifically asked you because I wanted your opinion on the subject. Twitter execs absolutely would lie about it. In fact, they already did. They were declaring they left Trump's tweets in place because they were "a matter of great public interest."

It's horseshit. Trump was allowed to openly and brazenly break the rules because he was making them a lot of money.

What "Rules" did he break?

I did not follow him on twitter so something he said I may not be aware of but I have not seen anything said by him that violates their alleged policy.

 

[The Mark]

You should be outraged that a company that purports a free exchange of ideas is secretly engaged in manipulating the visibility of certain views.

Thing is, I never believed they actually thought that.
I always assumed there was some ****ery going on behind the scenes, and I now assume that the same is occurring, just under new management and with different goals.
They have no legal obligation to protect freedom of speech.

 

[uptower]

You don't get to decide if they are lies or not.

This is exactly the mindset of twitter staff when they decide to censor.

Newsflash: you don't get to decide whether Twitter has to disseminate them or not. The First Amendment also protects the right not to speak.

They are under no obligation whatsoever to spread this drivel.

 

[Peter]

You should be outraged that a company that purports a free exchange of ideas is secretly engaged in manipulating the visibility of certain views.

Companies have been doing that for a long time.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

nah

Perfectly succinct.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What is a factual statement? Things like, "The capitol of US is Tokyo" and "humans need oxygen in order to live". The first statement can be evaluated and found to be false, whereas the second one is evaluated to be true. However, both are factual statements, doesn't matter whether they are true or false. You seem to think "factual statement" means something that's true, that is not the case. A factual statement is something that is concerned with facts. "Vaccines are needed" is not a factual statement because it doesn't concern facts. It doesn't matter how much you agree with it. It is still an opinion.

“The capitol of US is Tokyo” is not concerned with any fact and is, therefore, not a factual statement.

You don't know what a factual statement is.

Very clearly, it is you who doesn’t know what a “factual statement” is.


Some free educational material;

Facts​

A fact is a statement that can be proven to be true by the use of evidence. Factual statements are true in all cases and for all people; in other words, facts are universal.

Some examples include:

• Dogs are mammals.
• Albany is the capital of New York.
• Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth.

Each of these statements is true. Furthermore, each statement is verifiable and not debatable, provided that definitions are agreed upon. Put simply, evidence exists that could potentially prove or disprove each claim.

Distinguishing Fact and Opinion (Video)

Facts can be verified by evidence, while opinions are statements of belief, attitude, value, judgment, or feeling. Learn how to separate facts from opinions here!

www.mometrix.com

You’re welcome.

 

[Deuce]

What "Rules" did he break?

I did not follow him on twitter so something he said I may not be aware of but I have not seen anything said by him that violates their alleged policy.

They routinely tagged his posts with "this post violates our content rules but we're leaving it up in the public interest."

Are you going to pretend to not be aware of this?

 

[trouble13]

They routinely tagged his posts with "this post violates our content rules but we're leaving it up in the public interest."

Are you going to pretend to not be aware of this?

I am aware of it and the accusation being made is that they did not violate the TOS. They flagged because of a political bias and an active attempt to help one party over another. Are you not aware of this?

 

[less right]

I am aware of it and the accusation being made is that they did not violate the TOS. They flagged because of a political bias and an active attempt to help one party over another. Are you not aware of this?

Trump uses that same excuse when his own appointed judges betray him by following the law.

 

[eohrnberger]

What "Rules" did he break?

I did not follow him on twitter so something he said I may not be aware of but I have not seen anything said by him that violates their alleged policy.

Twitter execs 'made up' rules' specific to Trump.

​

Which left Trump with a single strike left, of which he, nor his staff were ever informed, so all this is being done in a Twitter 'Star Chamber'.

​

Twitter had previously given leeway to world leaders, hence Iran's leader's account was never under threat, regardless of what he Tweeted.

​

More on Twitter's 'Star Chamber':

​

On the fly, apparently arbitrary decisions, from hard leftist executives. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Deuce]

I am aware of it and the accusation being made is that they did not violate the TOS. They flagged because of a political bias and an active attempt to help one party over another. Are you not aware of this?

Not relevant. Their official position was that these posts broke the rules, and your claim is they secretly had a political agenda to silence Trump. Except, they objectively were not doing that. Exactly the opposite. They continued to broadcast Trump's allegedly rule-breaking posts. This is 100% conflicting with the idea that their goal was fundamentally to silence conservatives, since they were letting the loudest conservative voice on the entire planet continue to use their platform with no restrictions.

The resolution is that their real goal was making money. They let Trump slide because he was extremely profitable, both directly and indirectly. His posts drove a ton of engagement on the platform and therefore made a ton of advertising revenue, and indirectly resulted in a ton of free advertising as the rest of the media universe breathlessly rushed to tell us all about Trump's latest tweet. Every goddamned day both MSNBC and Fox News were reporting on whatever random dumb ass thought Trump had at breakfast time. As a result, visibility of the platform itself had never been higher. Contrary to the claims of silencing, Trump was quite probably the "loudest" voice in all of human history.

And this isn't just about Donald Trump. Any number of very high profile conservatives were using the platform the entire time, from your MTG type elected officials, to your more Ted Cruz type elected officials, to your Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones "media" personalities. If silencing was the goal, we should have seen some correlation between the prominence of a conservative figure and how much "silencing" was going on with their particular account... and that just isn't the case. The correlation is far, far more specific than that.

 

[trouble13]

Trump uses that same excuse when his own appointed judges betray him by following the law.

But Trump...

 

[trouble13]

Twitter execs 'made up' rules' specific to Trump.

​

Which left Trump with a single strike left, of which he, nor his staff were ever informed, so all this is being done in a Twitter 'Star Chamber'.

​

Twitter had previously given leeway to world leaders, hence Iran's leader's account was never under threat, regardless of what he Tweeted.

​

More on Twitter's 'Star Chamber':

​

On the fly, apparently arbitrary decisions, from hard leftist executives. What could possibly go wrong?

Of course they were. It was obvious to everyone. It wasn't just what they censored but also what they allowed democrats to get away with posting. It was a blatant double standard being applied and anyone who pointed it out was gaslit. Just like they are trying to gaslight people now by saying of course Twitter was censoring people as if it was something they openly admitted to. Rather than it taking a person like Musk to spend $50B of his money to be able to expose what they were doing.

What they all are failing to recognize is that they have watered down Orwellian terms like misinformation and hate speech so much in order for it to be used against their enemies, that those words no longer have any meaning.

The only question I have is what are the Republicans going to do about now.

 

[trouble13]

Not relevant. Their official position was that these posts broke the rules, and your claim is they secretly had a political agenda to silence Trump. Except, they objectively were not doing that. Exactly the opposite. They continued to broadcast Trump's allegedly rule-breaking posts. This is 100% conflicting with the idea that their goal was fundamentally to silence conservatives, since they were letting the loudest conservative voice on the entire planet continue to use their platform with no restrictions.

The resolution is that their real goal was making money. They let Trump slide because he was extremely profitable, both directly and indirectly. His posts drove a ton of engagement on the platform and therefore made a ton of advertising revenue, and indirectly resulted in a ton of free advertising as the rest of the media universe breathlessly rushed to tell us all about Trump's latest tweet. Every goddamned day both MSNBC and Fox News were reporting on whatever random dumb ass thought Trump had at breakfast time. As a result, visibility of the platform itself had never been higher. Contrary to the claims of silencing, Trump was quite probably the "loudest" voice in all of human history.

And this isn't just about Donald Trump. Any number of very high profile conservatives were using the platform the entire time, from your MTG type elected officials, to your more Ted Cruz type elected officials, to your Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones "media" personalities. If silencing was the goal, we should have seen some correlation between the prominence of a conservative figure and how much "silencing" was going on with their particular account... and that just isn't the case. The correlation is far, far more specific than that.

I didn't bring Trump up.

 

[Deuce]

I didn't bring Trump up.

No, I brought up Trump as evidence that the right wing narrative isn't accurate. I even started an entire paragraph with "this isn't just about Trump" but you apparently have no response? Ok then.

 

[Tiny]

“The capitol of US is Tokyo” is not concerned with any fact and is, therefore, not a factual statement.

Very clearly, it is you who doesn’t know what a “factual statement” is.


Some free educational material;

Facts​

A fact is a statement that can be proven to be true by the use of evidence. Factual statements are true in all cases and for all people; in other words, facts are universal.

Some examples include:

• Dogs are mammals.
• Albany is the capital of New York.
• Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth.

Each of these statements is true. Furthermore, each statement is verifiable and not debatable, provided that definitions are agreed upon. Put simply, evidence exists that could potentially prove or disprove each claim.

Distinguishing Fact and Opinion (Video)

Facts can be verified by evidence, while opinions are statements of belief, attitude, value, judgment, or feeling. Learn how to separate facts from opinions here!

www.mometrix.com

I don't know what to tell you. I looked up the definition for factual statement, and it says it's something that is concerned with facts, or contains facts. I also learned in school that factual statements can contain falsehood and still be considered factual statement. Also note that factual statements are not the same as facts. The former can sometimes be false whereas the latter is always true. You are probably thinking of facts.

And if you still insist that factual statements must be true, then I will simply ask you what this sentence, "the capitol of US is Tokyo" is. It's not an opinion, but not a factual statement either, according to you. So how would you categorize it?

You’re welcome.

Soooo pugnacious.

Dude, a bit of advice to you. Debating on a forum like this is supposed to find Truth, or find solutions to problems, or just have an exchange of ideas. Just because someone takes the polar opposite of what you believe in, it doesn't mean they are your enemy that you must humiliate and destroy at all cost. So please keep in this mind when you converse with me in the future. I am very sick of your confrontational attitude. I just want to have a good discussion. I am not out to get blood. Please take this to heart.

 

[Tiny]

No, I brought up Trump as evidence that the right wing narrative isn't accurate. I even started an entire paragraph with "this isn't just about Trump" but you apparently have no response? Ok then.

I am pretty sure that a while ago if you said something like how covid wasn't all that deadly and people had no need to get jabbed, you'd get censored.

I believe they admitted to it too. But I think they have eased up on it now.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I looked up the definition for factual statement, and it says it's something that is concerned with facts, or contains facts. I also learned in school that factual statements can contain falsehood and still be considered factual statement.

If you had learned what comprises a factual statement in school, you’d have no reason/need to Google it now.

Also note that factual statements are not the same as facts.

Factual statements are made up of facts. It’s why they are identified as “factual statements”.

And if you still insist that factual statements must be true,

Only because it’s so.

then I will simply ask you what this sentence, "the capitol of US is Tokyo" is. It's not an opinion, but not a factual statement either, according to you. So how would you categorize it?

Your characterization of my correct assertions is wrong.

"The capitol of US is Tokyo" can be correctly identified as either an erroneous opinion, or a lie, but not a “factual statement”.

Soooo pugnacious.

You are sooooo intransigently ignorant.

 

[Tiny]

If you had learned what comprises a factual statement in school, you’d have no reason/need to Google it now.

Didn't you google it too?

I always google stuff to make sure I know the precise definition of concepts I am using. I have been out of school for decades.

Factual statements are made up of facts. It’s why they are identified as “factual statements”.

Only because it’s so.

Your characterization of my correct assertions is wrong.

"The capitol of US is Tokyo" can be correctly identified as either an erroneous opinion, or a lie, but not a “factual statement”.

You are sooooo intransigently ignorant.

Ok, I am not saying you are wrong, it's just that what you insist on being true conflicts with what I know to be true. I guess the only way to find out who is right is to ask a philosophy professor.

 

[Deuce]

I am pretty sure that a while ago if you said something like how covid wasn't all that deadly and people had no need to get jabbed, you'd get censored.

I believe they admitted to it too. But I think they have eased up on it now.

None of that is accurate. Don't trust your memory like that. You didn't actually encounter this scenario, you just had enough people repeating it as though it were a fact that you internalized it as such.