Balance is a false paradigm, not all ideas are valid, ie. just because some people believe the earth are flat doesn't mean that in school we have to teach the earth is both flat and round. (a more 50/50 idea would be evolution or carbon dating)

I would also say Jack Dorsey has been pretty fair about the platform. I don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them.

Not all ideas are valid, but that therefore means that balance is a false paradigm? I don't see how that follows. There was a time(supposedly) when the idea that the Earth revolves around the sun was considered invalid.

Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma.

And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.

> Apples to oranges. In the modern age we back up claims with science, not dogma.

There's lots of "scientific" claims that are dictated by dogma or other motivations. Various aspects of nutrition science, psychology, economics, and sociology are either made up or based on low quality evidence, yet people continue to believe them. Humans, including scientists and academics, are imperfect, despite how this is the "modern age".

> And I'm guessing they mean the idea of balance being "all ideas are equal regardless of merit" is the flawed paradigm.

Which I would consider a straw man. I don't believe anyone is saying that all ideas are equal regardless of merit. What people are asking for is a wider Overton window. If people were suggesting that all ideas are equal, then they'd have to accede that the ideas of racists, child molestors, and serial killers are perfectly valid and should be treated the same as other ideas, which I don't think is a very common point of view, at least when a person is tested on it.

I’m not sure that either evolution or carbon-dating approach 50/50…

> don't think the left feel like Twitter is exceptionally more open to them.

"When You're Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"

LOL. Pithy _and_ correct!

Are you comparing being a Republican to being a flat-earther here? There can be two or more competing opinions about how to run the government.

In large measure, as a former Republican I think it's a valid comparison. Being a respected Republican these days is far less about an actual opinion on how to run the government, and far more about fealty to Trump, which doesn't have anything to do with the truth.

The Republicans that were strongly grounded in either policy positions and/or truth have all been vilified (Comey, Mueller, Amash, Flake, McCain, G Conway, Bush, Romney, etc). Even guys like Bolton, who holds extreme conservative opinions on how to run government, cannot succeed in the party because he doesn't toe the line on fealty to Trump / 'flat-earth'.

Yeah nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore. Still, I'd hardly say that makes the people you mention stop being Republicans, much less conservatives. If the party leadership traitorously turns against them, then it's the party that stops being Republican. Just like (ever since Bill Clinton) the Democratic leadership has deserted what the party used to be about, allowing millions of voters to be seduced to the other side (and back again, for that matter!) without even so much as a platform. All you need is a good disinformation campaign. Good times. Don't even get me started -- disillusioned Democrat here. I'm kind of "neither" at this point, but I'm old enough to remember a time when as a Democrat I could at least respect actual Republicans, i.e. actual conservatives, who "had ideas about stuff and shit," and had reached a certain conclusion. Trump is a fake Republican, and a temporary aberration that will soon go away or perhaps wreck the country permanently, making it all irrelevant!

EDIT: Actually no, I think I would dial back the "temporary aberration" bit as being too glibly optimistic. Because things seem to trend toward entropy, and bringing back a structure is a lot harder than letting a structure go to shit. i.e. what I said at the outset still remains true even after Trump, namely, "nothing is actually what it claims to be anymore."

When you get banned for simply posting facts that one group dislikes, while "KILL ALL WHITE MEN" is totally fine and acceptable, there's definitely a balance problem. The idea that one socio-political viewpoint is objectively correct, and another is the same as believing the earth is flat is not a reasonable analogy.

Source?

Also, I remember when Twitter was getting really big one of their prominent founders (May have been jack but I can’t remember) did an interview in which they positioned themselves that social media platforms should use “constitutional logic” (for those not in the states, that’s the USA constitution) when regulating speech in their platform l, which, for better or worse, depending on context and things, “kill all white men” would pass the fee speech test.

Interestingly enough I actually can’t find anything that supports the example you’re referring to here. On the other hand I’ve seen tons and tons of sexist, misogynistic, white supremacist tweets that are super prominent on the platform.

You can be kicked out of any place of business for any reason... The web is no different.

Should my grocery store be allowed to kick me out because they don't like my political views?

Should all grocery stores in the country be allowed to do this?

If so, how do I eat?

How would they know? What are you saying or doing that would cause others to shun you? If behavior is your problem, its not your views that matter, its your behavior. Being an asshole is not a protected class...

If you are featured in the media for being a member of a political party or union, for example, people could recognize you. The cashier could be given directions by the management not to serve Mr. So-and-so from the TV.

They could just look at the credit card number, and observe that 7305 matches a blacklist.

They could use facial recognition in the checkout to check against a database and deny you service that way.

And so on, and so forth. There is no need to be hated by ordinary folks, just that the upper management/media doesn't like you.

What is the solution to this? Never adopting any objectionable views?

Wow. You went off the cliff. Paring racial discrimination with a difference of views is asinine. And yes, you can choose to serve anyone individual, you cannot globally discriminate. Get the difference?

>Wow. You went off the cliff. Paring racial discrimination with a difference of views is asinine.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. You made an objective claim, I provided an example that demonstrates it is false.

You dont seem to understand the difference between discrimination and a difference of views. Unless you feel that being a "insert political party here" is a protected class...

You claimed "any reason", not "for political opinions". They pointed out the difference you claim they are not recognizing exists.

> "Unless you feel that being a "insert political party here" is a protected class..."

Actually, political affiliation and participants in political activity are protected classes in a couple of states, including California, where many HN readers reside.

"There are only three jurisdictions in the United States that explicitly bans political affiliation and activity discrimination, California, D.C., and New York. New York does not cover political affiliation discrimination, only political activity discrimination. Federal law discrimination law does not cover political affiliation or political activity. However, many states prohibit employers from influencing the votes of their employees."

Source https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/political-aff...

I tip my hat to California for still remembering what old-school liberalism means.

Might be a lawsuit, if there is a pattern. But the statue wont stop anyone from choosing who they allow on their premises nor change their rights.

You said "for any reason". That is incorrect, and I gave you an example to demonstrate this fact.

You can toss anyone for any reason. However, like many things, there are legal consequences. And if you do it based on discrimination you will certainly face charges, but you still have the right to remove people from your property at any moment.

for ex: If you show up in my bar. Talk crap act like a jerk,etc. You're out. Social media is no different. You are not owed access to anything.

What if all companies were to do this? What if all landlords within a ten mile radius were to tell you to piss off if you asked to rent, and all banks denied you a mortgage?

Do you think this would be a good outcome?

Multiple people have made every attempt at having a discussion with you, and yet you continue to ignore this and keep repeating the same red herring. Nothing in your post has any relevance to the discussion, and your statement was false, as I showed you.

I'm curious. Do you complain about balance issues for places like say, Voat as well?

I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.

>Do you complain about balance issues for places like say, Voat as well?

As well? I don't complain about them at all. Pointing out that it exists when people deny it is not complaining.

>I seem to only hear concerns about balance when it has to do with a perceived bias against the right.

Well I see two obvious differences that could cause that. The first simply being size. Facebook, google, twitter, reddit, etc are all, as organizations, far-left. And they all use their platforms to silence things they disapprove of, and push their politics. Whatever sites do the same from a far-right perspective are tiny. So, obviously there would be far more complaining from the far larger group of people who use the biggest sites on the web.

Second, all the supposed "far right" websites I see mentioned don't appear to be far right at all, and don't appear to do much or any moderating. They are "far right" because people with left wing views choose not to participate, not because they get banned. There's a big difference between being removed from a platform for having an unapproved view, vs being allowed to post your unapproved view and then people tell you it is wrong.

Not really sure you will find the balance you may seek. I suspect strongly Jack Dorsey has little to do with moderation on the platform, if that’s the bone to pick here, which I don’t think is at all. If anything twitter has largely been silent on moderating anything at all beyond a few notable exceptions

Which Twitter do you read? I've got so used to following links to conservative Twitter accounts and discovering they're banned it's not even worthy of note anymore. Twitter routinely even removes blue verification badges because of an expressed opinion. You have Twitter employees saying themselves they classify trump supporters as bots and ban them. I didn't even realise this was a matter for disagreement.

Balance? How do you balance what is essentially a cesspool. The Internet, and specifically 'social media', always ends up at the lowest common denominator.

A well mixed cesspool is balanced. People at least seeing each other opinions. Understanding that there is like half of the population that doesn't agree with them. A well mixed cesspool is healthier than what we have.

A 'well mixed' cesspool doesn't exist, because inevitably in the absence of moderation one side of the cesspool will chase out the other. It's usually the more racist, virulent side.

See: Voat, Gab and so forth.

A well mixed cesspool? No one with any sense wants to hang out in a cesspool. That's the problem. You are expecting human behavior to change. And worse, on the internet none the less.

I wasn’t aware that balance was missing. Got a source on that?

Is Jack Dorsey, the Twitter CEO, a good enough source?

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jac...

> Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'

Yet they're aware of that and set their rules and follow them accordingly; people only get ban from Twitter after 3 strikes as far as I know, and that's bad behaviour related, which if bad behaviour happens more by "one side" than the other - how can you blame the platform/moderators for that?

So disagree with Twitter politics three times and you’re gone. That’s a fair system? I would agree with you if there weren’t so many examples of people getting banned for “wrong think” and not rule breaking.

All of the examples I have seen, when have a response by Twitter associated with them, is that Twitter follows a 3 strikes and you're out rule - and they apply these rules to everyone. If there are a few examples where this isn't followed then okay, there were mistakes, problems - but that is then at a government level that needs some judiciary process for.

Re: 'so many examples of people getting banned for "wrong think"'- have your sources been confirmed/provided confirmation by Twitter that's that what it was - and

Moderation (parenting) is a very important and effort full work that is required to prevent a wild west of society. A wild west of society is more costly and leads to far more suffering than a managed home; if you want to raise children that are racist within your own home, or who where you find it acceptable for them threaten to kill others, you're allowed to - however forcing ALL platforms to allow all behaviour is insanity, and so Twitter needs to be allowed to have the rules they want to allow - and people can "vote" by using that service or not, and then other platforms can have their own rules - and that government as a whole will have to decide what those bounds are; perhaps should government provide a free speech platform like exist public parks as an option that everyone has available to them.

Also from the article you linked:

"But the real question behind the question is, are we doing something according to political ideology or viewpoints? And we are not. Period," he added.

Dorsey went on to insist that his company only polices behavior on the platform, not content.

Is having a personal political opinion only illegal if it is left-leaning?

Many big companies being headquartered in SF are left-leaning. I don't think they should let their political opinions trickle to business, but they do. It's a shame.

It should be neutral and non-political, supportive of all view points.

Twitter is the only company that will not allow the fake ads paid by trump supporters. This is what we need to do.

What about the Mueller report that showed ads bought by Russians that supported Sanders and Clinton?

Does a “ministry of truth” really sound like a good idea?

Edit: well apparently very few people ACTUALLY READ the much hyped Mueller report.

What about them? If you ban all political ads then they all go away regardless of who they are supporting or who paid for them.

I believe the context I replied to was “fake ads by Trump supporters” when the reality is no “side” has a monopoly on nonsense.

Don't we have enough right-wing social media and media moguls already?

That would be a breath of fresh air

Can you be specific about what balance you'd like to see from Twitter? Are there people you'd like to see banned or something?

Yes. Spike Lee for one:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/spike-lees-defense...

He tweeted the home address of a person who happened to share the same last name as an unpopular person in the news, inviting people to attack this person, causing this person to have to move for his own protection. He was never banned from Twitter for this. Disgusting.

The opposite, I would like to see fewer people banned, on all sides.

I know personally a large number of people banned for expressing pretty mainstream right-leaning beliefs on the platform.

I also know people who have declared that we should kill Trump's children who my report on that went nowhere.

Here is a serious New York Times editorial suggesting that Donald Trump be banned from Twitter:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-civil-war.h...

I think everyone reading this honestly knows there was a serious chance that a liberal employee at Twitter would do that as a political statement. (I would have disagreed with that action.)

There is, obviously, no chance that Obama's Twitter would be banned.

This is clearly "out of balance".

I don't think Republicans having a stake in Twitter would improve this situation, though.

Also in this specific example, the ban did not happen.

(Just answering the question.)

As you conclude , neither was banned. As such no conclusions can be drawn about the biases or lack of it at Twitter based on that evidence. Not sure why you then go on to do so.

Let's keep this civil.

You are 100% correct that my comment did not show any bias at Twitter, as I referred to something that did not occur.

Instead I appealed to the reader's intuition about a counterfactual, showing that the reader already knows and has internalized this balance at the moment, by appealing to the reader's intuition at how surprised the reader would be: not at all surprised to read "Twitter has banned Donald Trump" - though this is a counterfactual - and on reading that headline would know that a liberal employee would have done it.

Do you consider the hypothetical headline I just quoted highly improbable? (I don't.)

Not saying this status quo is good or bad - I was just answering the question.

EDIT:

So I'm walking with someone, and he said that he couldn't see it happening. The reasons that he gave were that it would be very bad for business because a lot of Republicans also use Twitter and that since it is the president of the United States, he could argue that this is a public function. So would be limiting his freedom of speech in a sense.

So I guess I'm wrong and it would surprise many people.

Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned?

Also: Trump isn't banned on Twitter.

>Doesn't whether or not Trump gets banned depend only on what Trump says and not whether or not Obama was banned?

I don't believe so, no. I think "who said it" (Trump or Obama) also determines who would get banned. (Currently I think Trump would get banned for something Obama wouldn't get banned for.)

This is the balance that I referred to.