zlacker

[return to "X Purges Prominent Journalists, Leftists with No Explanation"]
1. kypro+48[view] [source] 2024-01-09 16:41:16
>>greeni+(OP)
I would give it at least 24 hours to see if these suspensions are legit. My understanding is that X does still suspend where they detect spam, illegal activity, etc. It's possible these accounts were all linked to something that got flagged up somewhere.

It's possible (not saying this is what happened though) that this is just mistake and their accounts will be reinstated shortly.

Or maybe Elon did personally ban these journalists. If it turned out he didn't though I think a lot of you guys need to reconsider your biases.

◧◩
2. tensor+D8[view] [source] 2024-01-09 16:43:21
>>kypro+48
It's not bias when it's based on a pattern of past behaviour. Perhaps you need to reconsider why you are unable to accept this.
◧◩◪
3. kypro+vh[view] [source] 2024-01-09 17:18:52
>>tensor+D8
Looks like they're all unsuspended now, https://twitter.com/stevanzetti

Was Elon just messing with them, or was it perhaps as I suggested and just a mistake? Will you reconsider, or are you unable to accept this as a possibility?

For what it's worth I think Elon was mismanaging Twitter so I have no interest in defending him. But equally I think the idea that he's sat around randomly suspending "left-wing" journalists is kinda silly.

I don't know why this is the case, but Twitter seems to trigger suspensions quite frequently. They seemed to have tightened their spam / abuse algorithms in recent months, but the pattern as of late is that that most genuine users who get suspended are reinstated on appeal.

◧◩◪◨
4. happyt+JY[view] [source] 2024-01-09 20:16:28
>>kypro+vh
It's unclear what exactly you're classifying as the opinions of "a lot of you guys", but the parent was crucially critiquing your specific assertion that those opinions are biased, which may be true, but it is irrelevant to any uncovered reality (though that uncovered reality participates in the analysis next time this happens). I.e. your defense against the parent's criticism seems to be irrational. Whether or not X is because of Y has nothing to do with whether or not it is reasonable to believe or suspect that X is because of Y. In other words, "See? It was true/false," is a fallacious argument in this context. This was just as true when analyzing moderation before Musk, too.
[go to top]