21

If you google search "twitter double standard censorship", there's certainly no shortage of people claiming that Twitter censors content with a double standard. Essentially, the claim will take several forms, but here are the common ones:

  1. Right leaning political content (USA perspective) is more likely to be censored
  2. In racial issues, "white favorable" content is more likely to be censored, especially if the user is white, while "black favorable" content will remain uncensored, especially if the user is black.
  3. Graphic images of white or "christian" victims, terrorism or otherwise, is quickly removed while graphic images of non-white or "muslim" victims is left uncensored.
  4. Celebrities get a quick pass or are quickly reinstated after a ban, while common users remain banned forever.

For example:

The top example is interesting as an anecdote, but that's really not helpful in determining if there really is a bias in the application of their censorship policies. Considering the massive amount of users, data should be readily available. Are there any good studies or analyses of this data? Perhaps there are at least polls that ask whether users feel they have been censored and whether it was wrong or justified?

Sklivvz
  • 78,578
  • 29
  • 321
  • 428
  • 3
    I haven't downvoted, but I assume that determining whether organisation has a double standard is somewhat subjective. – Andrew Grimm Nov 22 '16 at 08:46
  • 2
    Evidently means, methods and motive are not enough to demonstrate bias. But in any event, you have Truthy--the federally funded database used to hunt conservatives-- and you have Twitter's "Trust and Safety" Council staffed with extreme leftists right out of Orwell's Ministry of Truth –  Nov 22 '16 at 16:29
  • [Related meta post on a deleted answer](http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3764/answer-on-my-post-should-not-have-been-deleted). –  Nov 22 '16 at 16:32
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/48947/discussion-between-fredsbend-and-k-dog). –  Nov 22 '16 at 16:45
  • I'm voting to close as too opinion based. Twitter has a human staff that reviews flagged/reported tweets or accounts, so obviously lots of human judgement is involved. I also agree with other comments that two nearly identically-phrased tweets can take on entirely different meaning due to historical context: to use an overly-simplistic example, promoting "white power" is not at all the same as promoting "black power". – BradC Nov 28 '16 at 17:51
  • @Brad Twitter may indeed use human judgement to censor tweets, but that makes it all the more likely their censorship rules are applied unequally. Despite what they use, it is still entirely possible that a third-party can evaluate if there are biases. Further, the failings of one example listed above is something that perhaps belongs in an answer, but cannot logically be called a reason to close. You're saying you want to close because one basis for the claim is illogical. That's something that belongs in an answer. –  Nov 28 '16 at 18:27
  • @fredsbend Yes, human judgement makes the whole process messy and prone to bias. But picking individual anecdotes isn't conclusive; one tweet may have been flagged (by users) more than another, or two similar but opposing views may have had different Twitter-staff reviewers. And as my example illustrates, even an expertly-done statistical analysis of censored tweets can't be "neutral", it must contain some measure of judgement on their relative "censor-worthiness", which is by definition opinion-based. If other skeptics.SE users don't agree with my vote, your question will stay open. – BradC Nov 28 '16 at 18:54
  • @BradC I understand how the site works; but do you? You want to close the question because you believe the *claim* is opinion based, not what the question is asking for. The claim is exactly what an answer should evaluate. Your complaint is "I don't think such evidence exists or can exist". That's a silly reason to close a valid question. –  Nov 28 '16 at 20:26
  • Upon some consideration, I've decided to not reopen this question, because I can't really think of a realistic way of answering it objectively. Discrimination is not an "absolute" value, its effects are. It might well be that Twitter censors more conservative tweets than liberal tweets, but that wouldn't prove intentions or bias, and more in general, bias is unavoidable, but we tend to see it only when it clashes with our primarily opinion based preconceived notions. In short, I can't think of an objective way of answering this. – Sklivvz Dec 02 '16 at 08:53
  • @sklivvz "Considering the massive amount of users, data should be readily available. Are there any good studies or analyses of this data? Perhaps there are at least polls that ask whether users feel they have been censored and whether it was wrong or justified?" Neither of these sound like a suitable answer? –  Dec 02 '16 at 15:46
  • @fredsbend let's say we get that "1%" of the users feel unjustly censored. That wouldn't tell us about skew. Suppose we ask the users whether their tweet was "left", "right" or "neither" and partition. That would still give us numbers we can't compare because we don't know how many "left", or "right" tweets are there in total and how many are actually reported to twitter. And even if we did, who are we to say that 50-50 is the "correct" balance? Is there a "correct" balance at all? – Sklivvz Dec 03 '16 at 05:37
  • @Sklivvz Red herring. Original research isn't allowed on this site. –  Dec 03 '16 at 07:37
  • I was hypothesizing on the possible evidence to report, not the form of the answer – Sklivvz Dec 03 '16 at 09:49
  • @Sklivvz Then it's a fallacy of ambiguity. How can I respond to something that's hypothetical? And poorly arranged or collected data is only one possibility of at least several I can think of, and none of those possibilities seems a valid reason to close, nevermind we don't actually know what kind of data is available. You're blaming the question for things out of its control. –  Dec 03 '16 at 16:31
  • A recent claim says [liberals get a pass on sexual misconduct allegations](http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/23/ben-shapiro-reports-rosie-odonnell-for-harassment-to-see-if-twitter-favors-liberals.html) –  Dec 23 '17 at 15:37
  • Recent example [Twitter is silent on mass account locking, conservatives claim censorship, others think bot elimination](https://gizmodo.com/conservative-twitter-users-lose-thousands-of-followers-1823185428) –  Feb 21 '18 at 18:17
  • Recent news: [Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: I 'fully admit' our bias is 'more left-leaning'](http://thehill.com/policy/technology/402495-twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-i-fully-admit-our-bias-is-more-left-leaning) –  Aug 19 '18 at 04:17
  • Related news: [Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admits conservative staffers 'don't feel safe to express their opinions' at liberal tech giant](http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/09/14/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-admits-conservative-staffers-dont-feel-safe-to-express-their-opinions-at-liberal-tech-giant.html) –  Sep 15 '18 at 02:53
  • Another example: [James Woods believes his account was locked because of his oft expressed conservatism](http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/09/24/james-woods-refuses-to-delete-meme-that-says-got-him-locked-out-twitter-for-violating-its-rules.html) –  Sep 24 '18 at 06:53
  • Another example: [Conservative pundit Jesse Kelly banned without reason given](https://thehill.com/homenews/media/418186-conservative-pundit-jesse-kellys-twitter-ban-sparks-outrage-new-low) –  Nov 26 '18 at 16:51
  • Another example regarding Islam criticism: [Far-right activist Laura Loomer banned for following statement](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/technology/417960-twitter-permanently-suspends-far-right-activist-from-platform): *“Isn’t it ironic how the twitter moment used to celebrate ‘women, LGBTQ, and minorities’ is a picture of Ilhan Omar? Ilhan is pro Sharia Ilhan is pro-FGM Under Sharia, homosexuals are oppressed & killed. Women are abused & forced to wear the hijab. Ilhan is anti Jewish.”* –  Nov 26 '18 at 16:59
  • [Twitter giving conservatives the silent tweetment](https://nypost.com/2019/08/08/twitter-giving-conservatives-the-silent-tweetment/). *Twitter allowed #MassacreMitch to trend nationwide, but decided to lock any account that raised awareness of actual threats made against Sen. [Mitch] McConnell. Interestingly, while our accounts were locked, the woman screaming the threats outside of the senator's home has been able to freely use the platform without interruption."* AND *"The McConnell campaign took Goldey’s video and posted it on its own account, which is now locked as well."* –  Aug 14 '19 at 19:29
  • Oh hey, plot twist: [Activist investor Elliott Management Corp. has taken a sizable stake in Twitter Inc. and plans to push for changes at the social media company, including replacing Chief Executive Officer Jack Dorsey](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-29/singer-s-elliott-is-said-to-seek-to-replace-twitter-ceo-dorsey) –  Mar 01 '20 at 03:51
  • 1
    President Trump has had a tweet labeled "misleading": [Twitter labeled Trump tweets with a fact check for the first time](https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/tech/twitter-trump-fact-check/index.html). –  May 27 '20 at 02:37
  • 1
    Twitter is actively flagging and hiding president Trump's tweets. This has become a bit of a situation. –  May 29 '20 at 16:40
  • For some non-American action: [Twitter permanently suspends account of controversial British columnist Katie Hopkins](https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/business/twitter-suspends-katie-hopkins/index.html). I'm unaware if this particular person, but I notice a trend that only right leaning pundits are described as "extreme" and "controversial". –  Jun 20 '20 at 20:04
  • And now, just before the election, Twitter actively blocked links to a New York Post story claiming to have genuine emails about Biden. Pretty hard to not believe such a thing about Trump would be similarly censored. It seems time has told the tale. Twitter has now and likely did then strongly censor with a left bias. –  Nov 08 '20 at 19:32
  • These days we got Psaki, Biden's press secretary, admitting censorship efforts with social media; the coordinated take down of "conservative" Twitter competitor Parler; former President Trump banned permanently from all social media; and government agencies staffed with Biden's picks cataloging "extremists" and "advising" digital media what to do. Once those that denied it was even happening full admit it now, but it's a "good thing". –  Aug 06 '21 at 06:14
  • For Twitter specifically, they have enough concern to [ban Trump but not the Taliban](https://nypost.com/2021/08/17/twitter-says-taliban-can-stay-on-platform-if-they-obey-rules/), while Facebook and Google commit strongly to ban and continue to ban the Taliban. –  Aug 19 '21 at 20:12

0 Answers0