As bad as it would be if you were lying, it would be worse if you weren't.
It would demonstrate that you punish behavioral signifiers like regularly interacting with people who disagree, and appearing on mass blocklists, and claiming that these are politically neutral measures.
It would demonstrate that you punish behavioral signifiers like regularly interacting with people who disagree, and appearing on mass blocklists, and claiming that these are politically neutral measures.
You can claim that you only sanction people who rock the boat, regardless of which direction, but it's more than apparent that the systems in place to judge what constitutes boat rocking has wildly varying sensitivity dependant upon what political affiliation someone has.
I agree that you're not just going after Republicans or conservatives. I know this because people like me have been targeted as well.
The people who get caught in the broad net include anyone who goes against the mainstream progressive narrative.
The people who get caught in the broad net include anyone who goes against the mainstream progressive narrative.
Let's look at how you measure "behavior," and whether it can be considered agnostic of ideological affiliation.
You have data regarding how many times someone gets blocked. How many reports people are implicated in. How many "negative interactions" someone engages in.
You have data regarding how many times someone gets blocked. How many reports people are implicated in. How many "negative interactions" someone engages in.
Now look at the existence of mass block lists that are based on arbitrary criteria (usually related to political purity) and are widely employed in some circles.
Look at who is most likely to report others, and whether this is based on behavior or politically aligned content.
Look at who is most likely to report others, and whether this is based on behavior or politically aligned content.
Look at how "negative interactions" are measured, and whether standards are based on people who already agree with each other.
Who is more likely to interact with people they disagree with, and who is more likely to insulate themselves and block people at the drop of a hat?
Who is more likely to interact with people they disagree with, and who is more likely to insulate themselves and block people at the drop of a hat?
You're not just punishing "conservatives." You're punishing people who ask questions. Who disagree with the assumptions that are being made within academia, politics, and silicon valley. Who have negative interactions with people who don't want to hear it, and get blocked for it.
I'm blocked by thousands of people that I've never interacted with. You claim to be sorting people based on "behavior," but I'm willing to bet that all of your data proxies for "behavior" are easily gamed by aggregate political action, and you're unwilling to look at how.
Every time that you have to walk back, clarify, or specify your way out of the supposedly nonexistent political shadowbanning policy, you look more and more culpable.
You're either lying, or you're too incompetent to comprehend the full effects of the system that you engineered.
You're either lying, or you're too incompetent to comprehend the full effects of the system that you engineered.
It's interesting that we independently arrived at exactly the same conclusion, but I think it just shows how obvious it is to those of us who think about it a little bit.
Yes, you do. You're just redefining the term and then saying that you don't do it. None of what you say here addresses the concerns I raise in my thread, and in fact only serve to prove my point.
"The government doesn't murder people because by definition, it has a monopoly on violence. Therefore, all killing done by the state is sanctioned by the state and isn't considered 'murder.'"
"Ok, but do you kill people?"
"We can categorically say that we do not murder people."
"Ok, but do you kill people?"
"We can categorically say that we do not murder people."
Is it bad that I'm actually impressed by how openly they think they can lie to us? They obfuscate with one layer of algorithm and suddenly the bias inherent in the data doesn't matter or something. Ridiculous.
