Given that it turned out that Twitter was already biased towards right-wing sources, I don't understand how any of this will help. [1]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-a...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-a...
They can't be biased towards stuff they ban. They are biased towards controlled opposition, which makes people feel warm and fuzzy. Big difference.
All the right-wing sources I followed on twitter were banned. Therefore I didn't get ANY content sent to me.
How is that a bias FOR right-wing sources?
> According to a 27-page research document, Twitter found a “statistically significant difference favouring the political right wing” in all the countries except Germany. Under the research, a value of 0% meant tweets reached the same number of users on the algorithm-tailored timeline as on its chronological counterpart, whereas a value of 100% meant tweets achieved double the reach.
There are crazy left-wing sources that are also banned, are you going to use that as "proof" that Twitter is biased against the left? You're cherrypicking.
What do you consider an "actual right-wing source" if not Fox News?
Fox News is for your 65+ year old uncle. It's harmless, controlled opposition. Look at the Jan 6th coverage. It exists for the left to point at and say, "see, there it is! Right wing bias!" - for one example.
It'll be interesting to see if Twitter gives them a megaphone too.
If their "reporting" was so egregious that they got banned, I'd question how accurate their "news" was.
Maybe you're just wrong?