The fact that Jack had to personally intervene to stop his employees from banning Alex Jones (after numerous egregious violations) speaks to the power of this approach.
There is not equal application of the rules, they are applied in a biased manner.
What I've seen is that typically a banned conservative will do something like target someone without the resources to defend themselves (for example, Alex Jones calling children that are victims of a mass shooting "crisis actors"), whereas hordes of liberal citizens voicing their distaste of Trump is just How It Be To Be President.
I would love to see evidence contrary. I report violent comments no matter the target and Twitter is good about sending a message back about action taken, and I've yet to notice a trend.
Who cares the specifics of what he said though? It's distasteful, but if distasteful speech is grounds to ban someone then most of Twitter should be banned.
And the evidence is that James Woods, Alex Jones and others have been banned because of political speech while similarly high profile Leftist commentators who post inflammatory things have not been banned.
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-45358890
I'm sorry, I'd love to participate in this discussion with you but "similarly high profile leftist commentators (who?) Who post inflammatory things (what?) is just not enough evidence to convince me of anything.
It's not his fault the victims received death threats. He did not advocate for deranged people to send death threats.
Just off the top of my head, Peter Fonda: "We should rip Barron Trump from his mother's arms and put him in a cage with pedophiles..."
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/20/politics/peter-fonda-baron-tr...
He wasn't banned.
Sarah Jeong, despicable racist now working at NYT: "oh man it's kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men".
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-tim...
Also not banned.
Please find me one example of a prominent Twitter Leftist being banned for saying something "hateful", whatever that means.
>“We hired Sarah Jeong because of the exceptional work she has done … her journalism and the fact that she is a young Asian woman have made her a subject of frequent online harassment. For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers,” The Times said in a statement. “She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it.”
0:24
10:30
>Please find me one example of a prominent Twitter Leftist being banned for saying something "hateful", whatever that means
https://dailycaller.com/2018/02/28/antifa-banned-twitter-tex...
Though as I guess someone on the left side of the political spectrum, I would be as offended to be associated with antifa as a fiscal conservative would be to be associated with Alex Jones.
Also I said prominent, the conservatives I mentioned each had around 1 million followers. That Antifa student group, orders of magnitude less.
Jack Dorsey and Zuckerburg said their company had liberal bias. We know google does.
> The fact that Jack had to personally intervene to stop his employees from banning Alex Jones (after numerous egregious violations) speaks to the power of this approach.
Alex Jones got banned anyways. For things far more benign than say what sarah jeong wrote.
Stop it. It's been proven that there is bias. The only question is what, if anything, should be done about it. What's with the blatant dishonesty here? How can there be an honest discussion when people outright lie?
> Twitter is so liberal that its conservative employees ‘don’t feel safe to express their opinions,’ says CEO Jack Dorsey
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-em...
There is no way this hasn't trickled down to their moderation and banning policies.
I can't think of any reasonable solution to the problem as I see it: San Francisco is a city full of liberals, Twitter HQ is in San Francisco, therefore Twitter is full of liberals.
I guess Twitter could try to import people from like Utah, but that may not work because they might just end up importing more liberals (tech workers willing to move to SF). Also, it's not necessarily Twitter's job to equalize the political beliefs of a city.
They can't ask "are you liberal or conservative" on an application, it's currently comically illegal and also I'd say horribly unethical and therefore should not be made legal.
Therefore, I think the only solution is the exact one that's in place - if a person at work feels threatened for any reason, they should be allowed to get a resolution, either via HR or the law if need be. That being said, "everyone else has a different political opinion than me" doesn't necessarily seem threatening to me, and I say that as a declared liberal that grew up in the deep South.
I'd be very interested in learning more about why the Twitter employees that presumably reached out to Dorsey feel uncomfortable expressing their opinions.
- Highly educated - Young - High % of foreign citizens - Urban - Wealthy
If you take the general population and control for those covariates, you end up with a subpopulation that massively skews left. For example - the median age for people watching Fox news is nearly 70.
I'm trying to think of some sort of affirmative action parallel, but unlike other protected classes, political disposition is a choice. The closest protected class I can think of is religion, which arguably is as much a choice as political disposition... But in any case, if someone is passed over for promotion or not hired or somehow damaged for their political leanings, they already can sue over it.
I guess I'm having a hard time being conviced there's an actual problem here.