I wasn’t going to write anything about that Joe Rogan podcast episode in which Twitter’s CEO, Jack Dorsey, and his Trust and Safety henchwoman, Vijaya Gadde, were grilled by Tim Pool, an independent journalist, until I had listened to the whole three hour podcast (and it’s actually three and a half hours long). In fact, it’s still sitting on my phone.
But I have heard clips, and so on, so I figure I’d like to say something about it now.
First of all, I have to give them props for appearing on the podcast and their willingness to answer tough questions from Tim Pool, who was completely awesome on the podcast. That being said, given that it’s been a week or two since the podcast, it’s obvious that nothing will really come of it.
They, predictably, denied that there was any bias against conservatives, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. They claimed that the leftists on Twitter think they’re not doing enough to hold conservatives accountable…for what, I don’t know. But they’re ban-happy when it comes to conservatives, and it should not be surprising to us that the leftist scum on Twitter thinks they’re not doing enough. I guess every single conservative has to be banned in order for the precious little snowflakes to feel “safe” or whatever.
Then there was the whole #learntocode thing, where they basically banned anyone that dared to tweet that hashtag, all because they wanted to protect the precious journalists. It’s like they couldn’t even differentiate between people that just wanted to mock the journalists versus the handful of loons that really wanted to say hateful, violent things to them.
And, of course, they didn’t bother mentioning all the hatred and harassment conservatives get from liberals…Tim Pool pointed out that double standard over and over again, and the two were like, “so?”
Which made me think of something…I think the reason why it seems like conservatives are targeted more often than liberals is becaue whenever a libtard gets into an argument with a conservative or anyone else that disagrees with them, they tend to submit a report. Most conservatives don’t do that. I don’t know if it’s because of Twitter’s bias against conservatives or if it’s just in their nature…kind of a chicken-egg situation, but a given moderator can only work with what’s reported.
Conservatives roll their eyes, mute or block the offender and move on. Liberals, on the other hand, view debates or ongoing discussions as harassment and they report it as such.
I’m not saying that Twitter isn’t biased against conservatives. I believe that they are. But part of the problem is that leftists will report someone for even the smallest infraction, and the unfortuante thing is, Twitter basically listens to them and takes action, which usually results in suspension or outright ban.
Remember how all these tech CEOs talk to each other?
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey granted an interview to HuffPost, Thursday, where he discussed collaborating with other Big Tech companies on censorship “methods,” expressed respect for conservative activist Laura Loomer’s fight against his own company, and denied sending his beard hair to rapper Azealia Banks.
They’re collaborating with each other on moderation methods. Remember how so many social networks and other companies made a big public show of banning and deplatforming Alex Jones. They’re not going to stop. They’re going to keep doing this because they want to make sure Trump doesn’t get re-elected next year.
Oh, and let’s not forget who owns a shitload of stock in Twitter:
A Saudi prince has increased his holdings in Twitter, making him the company’s second largest shareholder. Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud, who in 2011 invested $300 million in the social network, now owns 34.9 million shares of Twitter’s common stock, according to a new regulatory filing (pdf).
Granted the article is a few years old, but I haven’t found any evidence that this guy sold his stock.
Uncovering and explaining how our digital world is changing – and changing us. Who is going to buy Twitter? That’s the $18 billion question Silicon Valley has been asking itself for over a year since it became apparent Twitter wasn’t growing the way investors once hoped.
So now you know why anyone remotely critical of Islam is targeted and eventually suspended or banned. Now you know why ISIS accounts and other terrorists are basically ignored.
Is Twitter even worth being on at this point? I read this four-parter by Jesse Singal, and given how toxic the YA Twitter crowd is, I’m not so sure anymore.
(Update, 3/5/2019: Part 2, which focuses on the experiences of minority writers, is up.) The world of young-adult-fiction Twitter, or YA Twitter, is a very intense place, prone to constant callouts and opinion-policing, particularly on matters of identity and social justice.
It’s all rather sad, and I could have written a separate post about YA Twitter, but why? I think it’s obvious that Twitter knows it has a problem. People on both sides of the political aisle know it’s a toxic cesspit of utter misery, and it seems that Twitter’s leadership don’t really know how to make it better. All they seem to want to do is ensure that conservatives cannot use it effectively.
And if there’s a mass exodus from Twitter, given how obviously biased against conservatives Twitter is, a viable competitor might rise up…and I believe the top brass at Twitter are terrified of that.
Which is why they colluded with other companies like GoDaddy, PayPal, Google and Apple to deplatform and squash Gab. Even to this day, there is no app for Gab on the App Store or the Google Play Store, or even Amazon’s Appstore. Since so many people just simply don’t use it anymore, Gab gave up on the Android app they once offered on their site for people to sideload onto their devices.
This terror of a viable competitor is one reason why they appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast in the first place. They’ve got to figure out how to make Twitter a safe space for liberals and keep conservatives from using it in the 2020 election. It’s an impossible task, really, but that won’t stop them from trying.