I see no counter-evidence in your reply, just invective. So this is not very convincing. Meanwhile Facebook's Joel Kaplan has been running interference for entities like Breitbart[1].

[1] https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/6/21357663/facebook-removed-...

This article gives no basis for it's opinion except for other articles and studies done by heavily anti-conservative media outlets and heavily liberal colleges. It's citations include Vice, Vox, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, NBC News, Politico, NPR, Medium, The Verge, Media Matters, Gizmodo, Wired and there are some 'independent' outlets. It states that because Trump and main stream conservative outlets still received likes and ratings that that means conservatives aren't censored. And, because YouTube video watch time is close on some larger main stream channels that again this means there is no censorship. Why should there be equal watch time? An imbalance does not mean there is not censorship, it could also mean watch time could have been 90% in one direction without censorship, via lower recommendations, direct banning, or demonetization (people stop making videos when they don't make money). There is already proof that videos from mainstream media outlets get on the trending list with much fewer views than youtubers. This article goes on to say "Conservatives do get suspended or banned for violating Twitter’s rules" as if those rules are not in themselves anti-conservative. One blatantly obvious rule that directly opposes conservative values is twitter's rule against mis-gendering, which many conservatives believe is impossible because someone doesn't choose their gender, and if they did why should it bother someone to be called the wrong one? When you rule directly against a conservative value, then is that still not censoring conservatives? The article continues that even though lawsuits have been brought that all have been dismissed and despite it clarifying that these were dismissed because of section 230, it still uses that as evidence that there is not censorship. It basically says every time a conservative is banned it is justified and even in many cases says data is not available on bans, but somehow the final conclusion is "And as much as they condemn supposed social media favoritism, conservatives appear to relish wielding the bias-claim cudgel, even though it’s based on distortions and falsehoods." Again, they provides little to no data on bans whatsoever, but uses these alternative metrics that supposedly should reflect censorship. It is outlandish that anyone would not see what happens to conservatives on these websites. Hell just visit any of the supposed right leaning alternatives like Parler, Gab, and Rumble see how the conversation is as mild mannered politics and not at all filled with 'white supremacists' and 'nazis.' In fact you would be hard pressed to find those figures on those websites even if you sought them out. Everyone knows that like on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook you just don't follow people that you don't like and especially 'nazis.'

Simultaneously shouting 'just build your own platform' and 'there is no censorship' is a neat trick.

Please provide facts to back up your statement, otherwise your statement is unfounded.

I seriously doubt NYU will have it's reputation damaged by this. The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study and I garuntee you that this will be cited ad-nauseum in every censorship or manipulation debate for years to come. It doesn't matter how flawed or biased the arguments in the study are because it's conclusion is exactly what people on the left want to hear.

>The vast majority of people do not read beyond the title of the study...

At the risk of breaking a rule, I would like to point out that OP claimed this 28-page report was "editorial garbage" a mere 4 minutes after it was posted.

Perhaps either of you would be able to highlight what, in this, is flawed, biased or garbage?

Sure, but I will absolutely mention that the PDF of this study has a snazzy but hard to read layout. So I'm not done reading the whole thing. But there's certainly a lot I noticed that seemed 'off' about it.

Namely, this quote "This drumbeat of accusation has had consequences." You'll notice that most of the paper revolves around linking conservative voices to misinformation and justifying removal based on that fact. I definitely get the sense that the paper is setting up an argument that censorship of conservatives actually makes sense and is justified because they spread so much dangerous misinformation. But it's also asserting that censorship isn't going on because of how many people are following conservative voices on social media.

To be clear, this is my interpretation. It's the sentiment I get from reading this as an average person. I have no doubt a conservative person would feel even more strongly than I do that this is a biased paper. I do not have the ability to present anyone here with a scholarly analysis or some kind of academic-grade proof that this is a biased work.

The problems on HN are quite telling. I agree with your statement. I just wish there was a good alternative to HN.

I don’t suppose you read the report did you? Or have any links to credible studies that support your claims? I think you’ll have a hard time; the researchers in the article tried and can’t find any.

I think I just filled out my techno-utopian libertarian buzzword bingo card from this one comment.

Disagreeing without providing substantive proof is ~wasted breathe~ just venting neurosis.