When Twitter suspends people it's always been "but they are private company!" We'll see how they pull that same line if this goes through.
I understand that people on the right feel the opposite, that's fine. But I don't feel like I should be obligated to complain when the media behaves in a fashion that I feel is appropriate, just to appease this both-sidesism.
I would like to raise to your awareness that when Bernie was accused of saying a woman couldn't be president, his talking point we're very close to what people on the right have been saying for years.
You're saying that you want the media to be a political instrument, but you want to make sure it's a political instrument used only by the party you prefer?
Because the alternative wouldn't be "it should be used by both sides", the alternative would be "it shouldn't be a political instrument".
Can you give 3 examples?
I'll give you one for free, the rest you're going to have to bother googling by yourself:
Whereas this is an outright political attack that has no concern for the technical work of Twitter.
The difference in motives is clear
First, a political motive could not have created Twitter. If twitter was created as a tool to influence politics, it would drastically changed who signed up for the platform, and it's influence and reach. There are plenty of platforms that have tried that route, and not a single one has been successful. Reddit is in a similar position as Twitter on this same issue, and take a look at Voat to see what that looks like. Therefore, Singer seeks to obtain influence he would not have had by co-opting a platform created for other purposes.
Second, Twitters political leanings are incidental. Twitter's employees are human beings, and when they make a decision, they are biased by their own thoughts and opinions, which happen to generally be on the left. While leftist, this still allows people like Trump and other conservatives to use the platform... and it limits what political actions they can take (they cant get too extreme or their diverse user base may revolt). In other words, this is a passive bias.
Whereas Singer (may--we don't really know his motives) seek to turn Twitter into a political weapon that he can use to battle liberalism. That's an active bias. And depending on how active he wants to get with politics using Twitter, it may destroy the platform.
A passive bias is very different than an active bias. And I don't know how you can claim they are indistinguishable.
That's assuming you have to start with what you want to eventually achieve. Startups don't work like that in business, why should they in politics? You invest money to buy growth and market share before you monetize.
I'm not suggesting that Twitter was created to be a political tool, but "political apps don't work, Twitter worked, therefore Twitter wasn't meant to be a political app" falls a bit short I think.
> While leftist, this still allows people like Trump and other conservatives to use the platform...
Isn't that mostly because they really don't want to open that can of worms by banning the US president? Do you believe that, if Trump had lost to Clinton in 2016 but just kept on playing the politics game instead of tweeting about how great his new show will be, they would've tolerated that? I seriously doubt that.
> Whereas Singer (may--we don't really know his motives) seek to turn Twitter into a political weapon that he can use to battle liberalism.
Burning it to the ground, wasting his money, because of his personal politics? Doesn't that sound a bit strange for a hedge fund?
Besides there are plenty of other conservatives on twitter. Then and now.
That's not the point. It wouldn't be Hillary making Twitter ban Trump, it would be Twitter not having to ban the president. Trump's tweets may not have changed (I'd say they did; his reach and the importance certainly has), but Twitters policies have evolved and what was okay 5 years ago isn't okay today.