Thread by @pedro2001171

@kayvz > We do not shadow ban [...] although you may have to do more work to find them

Um, that's the DEFINITION of shadow banning! The above Clinton-esque sentence can be translated into normal English as:

We do not shadow ban [...] although we do shadow ban

@kayvz @vijaya > We do not shadow ban [...] although you may have to do more work to find them

Um, that's the DEFINITION of shadow banning! The above Clinton-esque sentence can be translated into normal English as:

We do not shadow ban [...] although we do shadow ban

@kayvz @vijaya Also you're pretending like we don't have a Senior @Twitter engineer ON VIDEO not only confirming that you shadow ban, but admitting that he does so BASED ON IDEOLOGY.

@kayvz @vijaya @Twitter And as a public platform supporting only ONE specific political party, you are *required* to register as a SuperPAC or lobbyist, which you have failed to do.

@kayvz @vijaya @Twitter In fact you are probably in violation of several Federal Election laws. The courts will have to decide this.

@kayvz @vijaya @Twitter Many have suggested the solution is to file Class Action lawsuits against @Twitter. However in my opinion the problem is too pervasive, too systemic to be fixable with civil action.

@kayvz @vijaya @Twitter Probably the only solution to prevent more massive election tampering by @Twitter is direct intervention by the Federal Government. Court mandated Restraining Orders against shadow bans of conservatives may also help.

@kayvz @vijaya @Twitter Any such solutions will have to be implemented quickly, to head off interference in coming 2018 elections in November.

@kayvz @vijaya @Twitter Clearly @twitter is not interested addressing this issue. With factually incorrect blog posts like this, they are not even willing to acknowledge it. Only when severe penalties are imposed will they be motivated to comply.

@kayvz @vijaya @Twitter @threadreaderapp please unroll it for posterity