I'm sorry, this is just beyond parody. A perfect distillation of HN brain.

> These tech companies say they are unbiased, that they are not political, and yet they are always everywhere denouncing murder, never giving the murderers any symbolic support.

This is very clearly a bad comparison. BLM and LGBT pride rely publicly on positive imagery (regardless of negative examples), while white supremacy and misogyny are inherently negative (there are no positive examples). A more fair comparison (though there really isn't a perfect comparison) would be: Support for BLM and LGBT vs support for police and military. Or, on the negative side: Support for Stalinists and man haters vs support for white supremacists and misogynists. But you chose the less offensive side of "left" things vs the more offensive side of "right" things.

Edit: Note that I have no idea what small supports (like logo changing) social media platforms have committed for any of these groups, left or right. I'm just criticizing your logic.

>But you chose the less offensive side of "left" things vs the more offensive side of "right" things.

I didn't choose them, those are the examples Yishan gave in his tweets

He used those examples much more completely, in a more realistic comparison. I would quote it, but it's essentially the entire text hintymad quoted. For example, the phrase "woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda" is referring to the bad side of those things (perceived and otherwise), not just e.g. support for gay or black people. He goes on to describe complaints not just of support for one or the other, but specifically the concept of imbalanced moderation between broader ideologies.

Simply put, showing support for LGBT while declining to show support for white supremacy doesn't say much - it says almost nothing, in fact, and therefore can not be held against a person or entity as proof that they do or do not unfairly moderate between the broader cultural categories that those two things fall into. Twitter may certainly skew left (or progressive or liberal or whatever) on moderation calls, but your test is overly simplistic, and seems engineered more for provocation than information.

Has it occurred to you that the use of such symbols might be a bit different when supporting change vs. supporting the status quo? No symbol already supports the status quo, so how many days have the tech corps not changed their logos etc.? Don't reject the data point just because it fails to support your preferred (which is not to say realistic) narrative.