Twitter Executives Ponder Controls on “Dehumanizing” Tweets, Ignore Most Newsworthy Offender

Twitter Executives Ponder Controls on “Dehumanizing” Tweets, Ignore Most Newsworthy Offender

—August 12, 2018
Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey held a high-level policy meeting Aug. 10, to debate ways to make the social media site “safer for its users.” At least, that’s how two New York Times reporters characterized the meeting. Dorsey reportedly invited the Times reporters to the meeting in an effort to “provide more transparency about Twitter’s decision making.” However, had Dorsey truly wanted to be transparent perhaps he should have also invited a member of the conservative press.

If you happen to be a conservative Twitter user then you can’t be blamed if you might be a bit skeptical about New York Times reporting on the meeting, or, more importantly, on Twitter’s ultimate intentions. If you are a conservative Twitter user, then you are well aware that the social media site, like Facebook, Google, Instagram and others, has been actively trying to stifle conservative voices. In fact, these first days of August have been marked by a significant ramp-up by these Left-leaning sites to purge Right-leaning content from their sites.

At this juncture I could easily go off on multiple tangents to explore this enhanced attack on freedom of speech—the social media ban on Infowars and the Proud Boys, and Sen. Chris Murphy’s (D-CT) demand that social media “take down” more conservative sites, for example—but want to remain focused on the Twitter meeting, as it is so rich with irony, hypocrisy and double standards.

According to the New York Times article, the hour-long meeting primarily focused on “how to rid the site of ‘dehumanizing speech,’ even if it [does] not violate Twitter’s rules, which forbid direct threats of violence and some forms of hate speech.”

Ah yes, those strongly enforced (hah!) Twitter rules forbidding direct threats of violence…. Threaten a liberal, or any of the Left’s sacred cows (illegal immigrants, Muslims, LGBTQ et al., Black Lives Matter, feminists, any minority group, etc.), even if in satire, and the Tweet is quickly removed and the author usually penalized with a suspension or other sanction.

However, if you post a Tweet threatening violence against a conservative, it will likely not be removed or sanctioned at all. Just ask President Donald Trump, the recipient of tens of thousands of Tweets threatening his life or otherwise inciting violence against him and/or his supporters. While Twitter administrators occasionally remove such threatening posts, they rarely impose any penalties on the tweets’ authors.

For another great example, “Kill white people” and other tweet themes against white folks tends to be just fine with Twitter. However, Twitter initially made a concerted effort to keep “It’s OK to be White” from trending back in November 2017 after savvy social media pranksters initiated the campaign to show how the otherwise innocuous phrase would be deemed “racist” by the Left. Apparently, it’s not OK to be white, because Twitter suspended some users who used the phrase, deleted some tweets with the phrase, and restricted Twitter users from seeing it in other instances by marking it as “sensitive content.”

And this leads us to Twitter’s Friday discussion about “dehumanizing speech.” The 19 Twitter executives at the meeting, and the two invited New York Times reporters, could easily have found samples of such speech on Twitter by perusing the Twitter history of the New York Times’ own newly named member of its prestigious editorial board—Sarah Jeong, who posted hundreds of tweets disparaging white folks over the past decade.

How about: “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins” and “Dumbshit Fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants” for just two examples?

What do you think, “dehumanizing?” While the Twitter executives apparently did not discuss Ms. Jeong’s tweets during the meeting, such tweets were recently deemed offensive by the company. Offensive, that is, when astute double-standard exposer Candace Owens reposted some of Ms. Jeong’s more egregious Tweets (including the two above) as her own by substituting “black” and/or “Jewish” for “white.” Those tweets were promptly deleted and Ms. Owens sanctioned with a 12-hour suspension from the site. While Twitter rescinded the suspension when called out for the double-standard, the point had been made.

Made, but perhaps not taken, as evidenced by the apparent lack of the Twitter executives’ discussion of Ms. Yeong’s “dehumanizing” tweets. Either the New York Times reporters chose to not report on any mention that may have been made about Ms. Yeong’s tweet history, or the Twitter executives accept the New York Times’ patently false Aug. 2, assertion that Ms. Yeong’s anti-white tweets were primarily written in reaction to racist comments tweeted at her and made in satire.

Freelance journalist Nick Monroe examined all of Ms. Yeong’s 100s of allegedly racist tweets and determined that only a dozen or so were made in response to any racist or anti-feminist tweets initially made to her. Satire, of course, is highly subjective, but Ms. Yeong’s former nonstop excoriating tweetfest against white folks seems much more of a noxious brew than a mildly intoxicating elixir.

Bottom line is that given the recent newsworthiness surrounding Ms. Yeong’s anti-white tweets (and the controversy over the New York Times hiring of her) how could they not have been part of the Twitter executive discussion about “dehumanizing” speech on their site? The answer seems to be that either the New York Times buried any such details, or Twitter has no intention of making its platform safer for conservative white folks.

—Originally published in Discernible Truth

Political Correctness Bites . . . Me in the Ass!

Political Correctness Bites . . . Me in the Ass!

—March 24, 2017

OK, so I experienced a first yesterday. Or perhaps I have experienced this before, but was just never aware of it. The “this” being rejection from a potential job due to my political leanings and/or politically incorrect postings made on social media.

In short, a potential client emailed me to request samples of my work because she could not open the original samples I had sent along with my initial proposal/application. A request like this is akin to getting a nibble on a fish hook, but I didn’t get super excited or bother to second guess the original samples I sent, but just resent those originals. I am confident in my skills, tend to get a fair number of bites in my constant fishing expedition for freelance editorial gigs, and felt that I had provided the client with enough initial information with which to gauge my skill set and ability to handle the job.

Not to say that there wasn’t a bit of excitement, as the job—content development for a large website dealing with subject matter I find quite interesting—would have brought in some fairly decent coin and what I believed to be likely work satisfaction.

I went about my business after responding to the request and received this email response about an hour later: “I am no longer considering you for the position. Thanks for applying.”

Rejection is a standard part of the freelance process, but in this game rejection often comes without any notice—one just never hears back from the potential client.

I appreciated that she had taken a moment to inform me that I was no longer in consideration, and so answered the email by thanking her for the politeness of letting me know. Perhaps I even let out slight sigh of dejection as I turned my attention back to other work, but within a few minutes noticed I had eight new notifications on my Twitter feed.

This seemed odd as I had not posted anything in a couple of days. Lo and behold, it was my potential client, vigorously taking issue in 140-characters-or-less with various comments I had posted over the past few months. It was quite apparent that my posts irritated her and that she heartily disagreed with them, but I will not claim that she was overly aggressive or obnoxious (though I imagine that I could easily respond in a manner that would provoke her into the screeching illogical rage that seems to be coming from so many on the Left these days).

Speaking of “logic,” most of my former-potential client’s posts were noteworthy for their lack of it. Some of her responses served as non sequiturs as they weren’t really addressing the issues I was originally posting about, and a couple of others relied on the oft-used-by-the-Left “red herring” and “strawman” fallacies. And one just served as a non-sensical sarcastic rant.

Now, to give my former-potential client a touch of leeway, she was responding to my 140-characters-or-less with her own 140-characters-or-less. It is difficult to make a succinct argument in 140 characters or less; nuances, sarcasm and humor can often be missed; and the point of such postings can easily be misinterpreted.

Anyhow, upon realizing that I had perhaps been rejected due to my Tweets, I sent her another email message stating that “I now understand that perhaps the rejection is politically motivated. And apparently you now plan on trolling me. Interesting!”

And it is interesting on so many different levels. I would like to examine her actions and other posts more at length, but the narcissist in me is telling me to bring the focus back to me, me and I.

So, my first thought upon realizing the likely reason for my rejection was, wow, do I need to be more careful with what I Tweet? And then, when I determined that she had spent a fair amount of time reviewing my website (first-time play in Oak Creek, baby!), I briefly thought, wow, maybe I should be more careful with what I put down on my website?            

….Yeah, no. Fuck that!—much like I’m not about to start checking my alleged “privilege,” I am not about to start checking my writing due to political correctness considerations. 

Bottom line is I am who I am, believe what I believe, and will stand firmly for both (though always willing to question and debate aforementioned beliefs). And these days, with the country so significantly divided on so many different issues, it doesn’t matter where one stands on the political spectrum, as roughly 50 percent of the population stands in opposition.

And judging from today’s job rejection, I guess this pretty much means that folks should just assume that 50 percent of a given job market may be closed to them. Of course, that assumption would be a gross generalization and illogical conclusion.

Wouldn’t it?

YouTube Censorship Conspiracy Theory Joins the Cult of the Alt.-Right

YouTube Censorship Conspiracy Theory Joins the Cult of the Alt.-Right

—September 1, 2015

Well kids, the popular social media site YouTube seems to have joined the Leftish movement to stifle freedom of speech, what with today’s announcement that it would “demonetize” a wide range of videos if they are deemed unfriendly to advertising. While YouTube claims that the release of its “advertiser-friendly content guidelines” represents clarification of existing rules, YouTube video producers beg to differ. In fact, until the past week or so “demonetization” was a rarity and those supposed “existing” rules were essentially unknown to video producers. YouTube censors started clamping down over the past 10 days, with many popular YouTubers recently receiving official notification from the company that specific videos had been demonized—ahem, I mean “demonetized”—for breaking the rules.

And while the move by the company does not represent outright censorship, it will certainly prove stifling, as thousands—perhaps 10s of thousands—of video producers make money from YouTube based on the number of hits their videos receive. Consider PewDiePie, with 40 million subscribers and Forbes-reported earnings of $12 million from his YouTube videos that teach viewers how to play various video games. If YouTube were to apply its guidelines fairly and evenly then all of PewDiePie’s vids should be demonetized as they definitely break the (new) guidelines against profanity.

Perhaps needless to say, but I highly doubt that YouTube will shut down its number one star for breaking the rules. No, undoubtedly the rules are going to be subjectively applied and initial indications suggest that this is, in fact, the case. As of this writing, PewDiePie vids are up and running with swearing intact and advertising still very much in place. Other producers though, especially those whose subject matter seems to lean to the Right, and/or those slagging political correctness, appear to be getting hit with demonetization.

images-2Interestingly, I first became aware of YouTube’s demonetization of vids yesterday, prior to the release of the new guidelines, and immediately equated it with attempted censorship. At issue was a video originally released by Lauren Southern, a YouTuber with about 85,000 subscribers who definitely leans to the Right. The video—SJW Berates Lyft Driver—essentially shows a crazy social justice warrior berating a Lyft driver for displaying a bobblehead hula girl on his dashboard. The SJW goes on a profanity laced postal rant on the Lyft driver after he refuses to remove what she believes is an offensive icon of cultural appropriation. Other than the utterly obnoxious SJW, the only thing offensive about the video is her profanity. That video has been reposted by other prominent and not-so prominent producers, and all indications point to it being on the list of demonetized vids. 

Well, I don’t believe YouTube is that worried about the profanity given that plenty of other vids with profanity are still up and running with advertising, and would posit that the company is more concerned about how the video makes a SJW look bad (which it does). Thus, from what I can tell from this and other demonetized vids, YouTube seems to be especially interested in protecting the Left and demonizing the Right.

In fact, the language in the new guidelines would effectively demonetize something along the lines of at least 50 percent of all YouTube vids if applied in a fair and consistent manner, and subsequently ruin the company’s business model. As company officials can’t be that stupid, they’re obviously up to something else….

Can you spell: “selective censorship?” 

Naturally this is all speculation on my part, but consider that some of the guidelines are quite specific, yet thus far are not being applied in a fair and consistent manner, while other guidelines are completely subjective and open to interpretation by YouTube’s ministry of propaganda. “Inappropriate language, including harassment, swearing and vulgar language” are verboten, as are sexual humour, partial nudity, violence and promotion of drugs. But from everything I can see the company seems to be targeting certain YouTubers and completely ignoring similar transgressions committed by others.

“Harassment” can be considered especially subjective, as YouTube may decide that a video in opposition to Hillary constitutes “harassment,” while a similar one opposing Donald is fine. Likewise, the most disturbing subjective portion of the guidelines deems “[c]ontroversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown” as being subject to demonetization.

imgresWhat the fuck, Goebbels—I mean, YouTube—talk about giving yourself free reign to shut down anything you might not like….

With the official release of the guidelines, “#youtubeisoverparty” became the number one trending topic on Twitter today, with hundreds of new Tweets per minute decrying YouTube’s new censorship. As of this posting the topic was still generating about 60 Tweets per minute, and yet it is no longer trending at all (and number one Tweet, “#AppState,” is only generating about 25 tweets per minute). Of course, if you follow freedom of speech issues you are likely aware that Twitter seems to play with its “trending” algorithms so as to bury trends it doesn’t agree with. And that CNN (Clinton News Network) is hard pressed to ever release any negative news about Hillary. Ditto, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

But of course maybe I’m just paranoid. You know, a conspiracy theorist, racist, misogynist, white supremacist, Islamaphobe, homophobe and every other …ist and …phobe connected to that nefarious and secretive Alt.-Right movement.

Yeah, that must be me. So be sure to check out all of my Alt.-Right vids on YouTube….

Oh, wait a minute, they’ve all been demonetized, and thus effectively pulled from circulation.