Citation needed.
It's not because you hear more often in the media about the right being censored that it means that hateful stuff from the left is allowed.
I can link a few tweets, but with millions of twitter messages a day, I can hardly link enough to be statistically relevant if you choose to believe the other way, and I don't have the energy to randomly sample twitter.
Violence isn't about property that can be rebuilt with mere money. It is about hurting people.
However, if users are encouraging or telling others to break the law, that is also against Twitters policies.
> You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities.
Encouraging or inciting others to break the law is illegal.
Although it's on the illegal goods page, I think this could still be against their policy.
https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/regulated-goo...
You are twisting my words. I make no implicit claim of that sort. Do you not see the difference between being 1) shot with a gun, or stabbed, or otherwise physically attacked in a violent moment, and 2) coming to work the next day to find your place of business burned?
Those are two very different things.
I do not mean to suggest that the employee whose work is burned is not hurt, but certainly, it is not a violent act against them as the other situation with guns or stabbing is.
> That kind of thinking is pretty hideously warped, and you'd do well to rethink your worldview to avoid such malice.
I really don't know about this comment. I think it is your worldview that is 'warped' but I wouldn't insult you by calling your traits 'hideous'. Please be more polite on HN.
> You don't think the owner works, supplies or has any value in the business they run.
I do not think like this. At all. I am not sure where you got that idea. Obviously the owner works, supplies and has value in the business they run...? I don't understand why you would think I don't agree with that?
You must please stop insulting me. I'm reporting your posts.
Edit: I've been banned (temporarily? For these posts?) and cannot reply to the user below.
It is very much a harm, as real and as tangible as those who receive physical injury, and just as much a threat to their lives.
EDIT: I've not reported your posts. I'd rather have a frank discussion regarding these and similar claims than to try to have them removed for perceived offensiveness.
There's a model of debate in which harshly countering other people's mistaken arguments is held to be valuable, because errors eventually get hammered out that way and the truth emerges as a sort of well-tempered steel. That model does not work in internet forums—for many reasons—the most important of which is the container can't withstand it. That is, the hammering destroys the forum itself long before the process completes (assuming it ever would). An entirely different kind of arguing is necessary to keep this place from destroying itself.
You are literally burning down someone's place of work and then you expect them to not be hurt? What guarantee can you give that the person who comes to work the next day to find his business burnt doesn't die of shock? If he dies does it not amount to murder? Who takes responsibility for his death?
I can't believe you are actually saying this stuff! People spend their entire life savings building a business! Having it burnt down is as good as murdering them! It is no different from someone pointing a gun at you and trying to kill you. People have survived gunshot wounds just like people have survived their buildings being burnt down. They both were hurt. One was hurt physically while the other suffered psychological hurt. And if someone died from gunshot wounds he is no different from someone dying of shock seeing his business being burnt to the ground. Both were killed out of violence. Both suffered pain. You cannot say one is more benign than the other! It is not!
Try again
The left also mass report stuff they don't like as "hate speech" which automatically results in a ban.
Sorry, but the hate speech stuff is just a new way to censor stuff some people don't like and in the end it'll affect us all, no matter if left or right wing.
* Can you show that one side gets censored more often than the other? Not just based on your biased personal timeline.
* If yes, can you show that both sides breaks the ToS as often? Both sides are politically very different, and appeal to very different people, it's not hard to imagine that one side may indeed be more violent than the other.
So yes, I would like a citation.
This is a really popular right wing Twitter account in India which only dealt with exposing false narratives spread by leftist historians with facts. Facts from published books, memoirs of Kings who ruled India, sculptures and ancient artifacts. "True Indology" did not break any rules. Was not violent nor did he threaten anyone. Just exposing false narratives through facts. He was banned with no reason provided. This was not the first time his account was suspended. It was done multiple times. You can read complete details of what he experienced on Twitter here: https://www.mynation.com/views/true-indology-exposes-the-vic...
The number of right wing accounts shadow banned and suspended in India by Twitter is staggering. You never hear left wing accounts being suspended. No matter how much hate speech you come across. Heck those left wing accounts that get exposed for hate speech automatically turn their accounts private. That doesn't mean that Twitter doesn't know what is contained within the account right? It can still close down the account for violation of its policies. But it doesn't do that. There is a strong undercurrent against left-leaning biased social media sites like Twitter in India. It will just erupt one day just like Indians have erupted against TikTok. It is only a matter of time. Twitter is doing a big mistake by treating right wingers in India unfairly.
So when the entire question is about left-wing bias you go ahead and show me a Wikipedia entry whose management and editors are known to have left-wing bias! In fact the Co-Founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger himself says that Wikipedia's Neutrality is dead because of left-wing bias [1]!
A quote from his blog post:
"Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given."
It is a fact that social media management is dominated by left-wing bias. No wonder so many right-leaning articles and accounts are banned on a regular basis. If you do not give the right-wing a voice they will make sure they are heard louder than ever!
The entire IFCN saga has been rebutted point by point by OpIndia [2]
OpIndia exposed many fake news articles published by BBC which was forced to backtrack. Then BBC claimed that it was a "mistake" and that corrections were made subsequently after being exposed. This was never a "mistake". It is purely left-wing bias.
[1]: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
[2]: https://www.opindia.com/2019/03/opindia-response-to-ifcn-int...
"It is time for Wikipedia to come clean and admit that it has abandoned NPOV (i.e., neutrality as a policy). At the very least they should admit that that they have redefined the term in a way that makes it utterly incompatible with its original notion of neutrality, which is the ordinary and common one.4 It might be better to embrace a “credibility” policy and admit that their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine—to say nothing of many other topics on which Wikipedia has biases.
Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making.5"
So much for neutrality!
Source: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
Is the suspension propaganda too? How far will the left be willing to take this until it all implodes? The right wing feels so devoid of freedom of speech on these platforms that there will be a major revolt! Alternative platforms that are either right wing or neutral would prop up challenging the hegemony of these left-wing dominated platforms. And that will be the end of social media as we know it in its current form. There is a strong undercurrent and to deny that would be folly!
August Ames chose not to have sex with men who have sex with men. Because of this decision to do what she wants with her own body, she was harassed by people telling her to commit suicide for it.
She DID kill herself, and the people that told her to were not even banned.
https://www.spartareport.com/2017/12/leftists-bullied-august...
If I linked you threads of people like Tariq Nashad calling for racial violence against whites, my post would likely be flagged and I'd be banned for posting flamebait.
I don't think there's an explicit conspiracy but the forces are aligned such that they suppress content and naturally suppress criticism of suppression, and that creates an internet-wide false consensus.
Probably dozens of tweets just from the president and not one was censored.