zlacker

>>danso+(OP)
Twitter is well within the rights to do this, but I have seen tweets from blue check marks essentially calling for violence and Twitter didn't remove them. So, does that mean Twitter actually -supports- those view points now? If Twitter is going to police people, it needs to be across the board. Otherwise it's just a weird censorship that is targeting one person and can easily be seen as political.

Everyone is applauding this because they hate Trump, but take a step back and see the bigger picture. This could backfire in serious ways, and it plays to Trump's base's narrative that the mainstream media and tech giants are colluding to silence conservatives (and maybe there could even be some truth to that.) I know the Valley is an echo chamber, so obviously no one is going to ever realize this.

>>partia+uY
Erm, what? This is just not true, and is a false dichotomy. Moderation is hard. Always has been. Stuff will slip through the cracks.

POTUS has the most popular (and currently most controversial - note, that's _controversial_ not _extreme_ or some other morph) so it's easy to see why Twitter are on top of it. Other blue-checked accounts, whilst more "important" than unverified, just simply don't compare to the importance and prevalance of POTUS' account.

>>Jestar+xc1
If most of the mistakes happen in one direction, then I would argue that there's some other mechanism at work than just "mistakes".

Update: data https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-tw...

Update: admission https://www.vox.com/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-emplo...

>>efitz+Bk1
Maybe conservative america needs to appeal to people smart enough to start their own tech companies, so they can compete in the free market to do things the way they like.

>>gamesw+bm1
Maybe companies should be idelogical neutral instead? Or do you also think liberal America should start to appeal to conscientious and patriotical people so they can have their own armed forces and police?

>>zarkov+3r1
You can't rule that 'corporations are people' when it suits you, and can donate to political campaigns...

... and then say "no, they need to be ideologically neutral" when they act in ways you dislike.

>>FireBe+Ex1
Who is "you" here? Why do you assume I subscribe to corporation are people? Maybe stick to the actual point being made?

>>zarkov+mB1
Anytime that someone says 'you' on the internet, the actual you should assume that they aren't speaking about the actual you specifically, but to the collective you that makes the argument that corporations are people.

>>dlp211+x12
I am sorry but that does not make sense.

>>zarkov+CN2
Why not?