Let's look at how you measure "behavior," and whether it can be considered agnostic of ideological affiliation. You have data regarding how many times someone gets blocked. How many reports people are implicated in. How many "negative interactions" someone engages in.
-
Show this thread
-
Now look at the existence of mass block lists that are based on arbitrary criteria (usually related to political purity) and are widely employed in some circles. Look at who is most likely to report others, and whether this is based on behavior or politically aligned content.
1 reply 3 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Look at how "negative interactions" are measured, and whether standards are based on people who already agree with each other. Who is more likely to interact with people they disagree with, and who is more likely to insulate themselves and block people at the drop of a hat?
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
You're not just punishing "conservatives." You're punishing people who ask questions. Who disagree with the assumptions that are being made within academia, politics, and silicon valley. Who have negative interactions with people who don't want to hear it, and get blocked for it.
1 reply 6 retweets 23 likesShow this thread -
I'm blocked by thousands of people that I've never interacted with. You claim to be sorting people based on "behavior," but I'm willing to bet that all of your data proxies for "behavior" are easily gamed by aggregate political action, and you're unwilling to look at how.
2 replies 8 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Every time that you have to walk back, clarify, or specify your way out of the supposedly nonexistent political shadowbanning policy, you look more and more culpable. You're either lying, or you're too incompetent to comprehend the full effects of the system that you engineered.
2 replies 2 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @M_Methuselah
Well it's more than that. They literally have a 'Trust and Safety Council' that works on the kookiest assumptions in social psychology, gender studies etc and is staffed with SJWs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @i_contemplate_
Definitely. The bias is "institutional," as they would say. I was trying to demonstrate that Jack's position was untenable from even the most charitable interpretation of Twitter policies, but it's clearly much worse in practice when you factor in things like that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @M_Methuselah
Indeed, and this is happening at the same time that 'AI ethics' wankers are hand-waving about 'algorithm bias' but by which they mean correct predictions which don't go the way they want. As usual, the left projects its own sins onto the other side.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @i_contemplate_
You've probably already seen this, but it's a good primer on the problem from the data side.https://jacobitemag.com/2017/08/29/a-i-bias-doesnt-mean-what-journalists-want-you-to-think-it-means/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yep and @stucchio battling with the zombie hordes of Hacker News is great as well -> https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=yummyfajitas …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.