23

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?

closed as primarily opinion-based by Larian LeQuella Nov 30 '16 at 1:39

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 7
    Is it quite the same though? To take one of the examples listed, only one candidate won the election - and, while we're on the topic, only one candidate suggested building a wall, prohibit Muslims, expand Gitmo, and had almost no non-whites voting for him. Further more, only one of the two colors were slaves, had to fight to be allowed to vote, and still is far behind the other. Thus it's more understandable that a black man is upset with all the (almost exclusively) white voters who voted for the next president; than a white man attacking just the blacks for voting for the looser. – Baard Kopperud Nov 22 '16 at 8:28
  • 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 8:46
  • 8
    @BaardKopperud Trump won 8% of the black vote and 29% of the hispanic vote. Despite context "I fucking hate [race]" is hate speech, by definition. – fredsbend Nov 22 '16 at 9:19
  • 2
    @fredsbend “despite context” is the wrong way to start a thought, let alone an argument. The context here reasonably suggests that what the author hates is people voting for candidate X, and that their race is correlated with that vote, rather than hating the race itself. Furthermore, it’s even reasonable to read these two tweets differently, simply due to the context of history. It is disingenuous to pretend that this historical context doesn’t exist, or plays no role. For what it’s worth I don’t agree with banning either account, but these statements are different, because context matters. – Konrad Rudolph Nov 22 '16 at 11:21
  • 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 – K Dog Nov 22 '16 at 16:29

Browse other questions tagged .