Twitter Testifies on 2016 Analysis: Clinton Used Twitter More But Trump Much More Effective…

Twitter admits during 2016 election Trump used platform half as much as Clinton but had twice as much success.  Additionally, Twitter legal counsel admits to hiding up to 48% of negative Clinton twitter content (hashtag tweets surrounding DNC and Podesta emails), yet suppressed nothing negative about candidate Donald Trump…

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sean J. Edgett Acting General Counsel for Twitter, Inc. delivered a 20 page opening statement (full pdf below).  Within the statement attorney Edgett shared the protocol for Twitter hiding hashtags they deemed troubling in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

The volume of activity on our system is enormous: Our users generate thousands of Tweets per second, hundreds of thousands of Tweets per minute, hundreds of millions of Tweets per day. ~ Sean J Edgett, Twitter General Counsel

However, amid all the examples cited, Twitter did not “hide” any material that was negative toward candidate Donald Trump.  In every example cited Twitter only took action to hide user content that was negative toward candidate Hillary Clinton.  A remarkable ‘coincidence‘.

[Page #6 of Testimony ] Before the election, we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. For example, our automated spam detection systems helped mitigate the impact of automated Tweets promoting the #PodestaEmails hashtag, which originated with Wikileaks’ publication of thousands of emails from the Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s Gmail account.

The core of the hashtag was propagated by Wikileaks, whose account sent out a series of 118 original Tweets containing variants on the hashtag #PodestaEmails referencing the daily installments of the emails released on the Wikileaks website.

In the two months preceding the election, around 57,000 users posted approximately 426,000 unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag. Approximately one quarter (25%) of those Tweets received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches.

As described in greater detail below, our systems detected and hid just under half (48%) of the Tweets relating to variants of another notable hashtag, #DNCLeak, which concerned the disclosure of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee. (pdf link)

Additionally, according to the Twitter analysis (Page #11) their review found a negligible amount of overall activity (within the Hashtags they forcibly hid from view) came from any account with “potential” linkage to Russia:

“Slightly under 4% of Tweets containing #PodestaEmails came from accounts with potential links to Russia. […] With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts.”

…which begs the question.  This analysis was, by their own admission, “in retrospect”, meaning after the fact.  There’s no way they could identify the user affiliation as it was happening.  So why did they “hide” the trending hashtag?

Further, and in relationship to that question, if slightly under 4% of tweets containing #PodestaEmails came from concerning accounts, then why take the action to hide 25% of total user content including that hashtag?  Similarly, if “roughly 2%” of #DNCLeak use was from concerning users, then why did they hide 48% of the trending hashtag content?

See the problem?

Essentially Twitter legal counsel is admitting here, through twisted analytic hindsight obfuscation, they censor Twitter based on their internal opinion of the content within trending hashtags.

Hilariously, the page #11 testimony also shows that Hillary Clinton used Twitter twice as much as Donald Trump – yet had half as much engagement (re-tweets).

Our data showed that, during the relevant time period, a total of 1,625 @HillaryClinton Tweets were Retweeted approximately 8.3 million times.

The 851 Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account during this period were Retweeted more than 11 million times.




This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Dem Hypocrisy, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Election 2016, media bias, President Trump, propaganda, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to Twitter Testifies on 2016 Analysis: Clinton Used Twitter More But Trump Much More Effective…

  1. wheatietoo says:

    So they admit to censorship…and there is nothing that we can do about it?

    Seems like that is ‘discrimination’ against political views that they disagree with.
    Or something.

    Liked by 38 people

    • BobBoxBody says:

      Twitter is in decline. You have alternatives to them now that are beginning to take off. In time Twitter will be antiquated or it will be gone. Facebook is looking at a similar future, as Zuckerberg sold off a good chunk of his stocks recently.

      Liked by 16 people

    • Niagara Frontier says:

      I think Twitter’s activities to hide negative content should count as a reportable, in-kind contribution to a political campaign.

      Liked by 32 people

    • sundance says:

      They not only admit to it, they actually quantify it.

      Liked by 37 people

      • lumoc1 says:

        Maybe the fact that HRC tweets were not re-tweeted as often as President Trump, could be that more of her followers were not real people or were fake>

        Liked by 24 people

      • dayallaxeded says:

        Yep, looks like 89,460 (25%-4% maybe Rooskie) unique Tweets containing variations of the #PodestaEmails hashtag were round-filed.

        64,400 (48%-2% Rooskie) of unique Tweets containing variations of the #DNCLeaks hashtag were round-filed.

        Not gigantic numbers in the scheme of things, but together with the onesidedness of the whole enterprise, definitely shows Twatter is as much or more of a colluder/meddler/attacker as muh Rooskies have been alleged to be. And unlike muh Rooskies, the progzi tilt of Twatter’s propaganda and censorship is 1000% clear.

        Liked by 6 people

        • Dixie says:

          Plainly stated, Twitter was the entity interfering in the 2016 presidential campaign. Not the Russians.

          I would add the censorship of Facebook and Youtube to that.

          Also, Twitter, like Facebook and Youtube have set themselves up to be dictators of the internet by deciding what we should see and what we shouldn’t see, which imo is discrimination.

          Liked by 3 people

      • glk26 says:

        Sundance, Did you read Pat Buchanans blog? He say’s the Washington Free Beacon which is run by Bill Kristols son in-law was the one who hired Fusion GPS in Oct 2015 with the financing of GOP Billionaire Paul Singer.


      • SharkFL says:

        It is now past time for full gov regulation of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube with public boards that regularly analyze the conduct of these companies and sanction them when blatant 1st Amendment censorship is occurring such as this case.

        These three companies own critical communications platforms, public utilities that are far more influential than a TV channel or a radio station. Of course, TV and radio companies are heavily regulated and controlled for content and censorship, as they should be for using public airwaves.

        With a new day in Washington DC, President Trump and FCC Chairman Pai can make positive progress toward better stewardship of these important public information utilities in the US, and a more critical eye on the censorship happening both domestically and, more egregiously abroad.


        • G. Combs says:

          We do not want the Government involved in regulation the internet.

          CAPITALISM… that is competition is the answer.
          Regulation is the ‘Socialist’ answer to everything and look at the mess we have as a result.

          Liked by 2 people

    • scottmc37 says:

      It sucks, the media wont even report this, the only reason I am on twitter is Trump.

      Liked by 3 people

    • clodfobble says:

      just a good reason not to use their platform.

      Liked by 1 person

    • OverWatch says:

      This lack of action is exactly what SD has been exposing. The hold these investigations, talk, talk, talk so that it appears that they are doing something. Then it evaporates. Next investigation, rinse and repeat. The swamp.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. The Boss says:

    The legal titans of Twitter just admitted to constructively giving in-kind donations to HRC via selective censorship. They also admitted to infringing free speech rights of a class of persons, which arguably is a form of fraud. And they worry about Russia. Gimme a break.

    Liked by 43 people

  3. OmegaManBlue says:

    So they admit to what many of us knew, that they were hiding the trending hashtags. They still doing it along with other tech companies. Can’t remember the stories about FB. Google preventing negative stuff from showing up in auto complete. Reddit kept messing with the algorithms to try and keep Trump (theDonald) from trending.

    Liked by 14 people

    • keeler says:

      The_Donald also believes Reddit purposefully under-counts their subscriber base… there was a major discrepancy between the public number and the internal numbers which need to be legally filed due to advertiser regulations.

      “In March 2017, users of /r/The_Donald accused Reddit of discriminating against them when Reddit’s advertising platform portrayed /r/The_Donald as having 6,000,000 subscribers instead of the 385,000 displayed on the subreddit live counter available to the public.[83] The Reddit Director of Communications stated that the subscriber discrepancy was a simple labeling error wherein the count for “Daily Unique Visitors” was mistakenly labeled “Subscribers” and that the error would be partially fixed by the end of the day.”

      Reddit CEO “spez” has also admitted to editing The_Donald user comments critical of him.

      Liked by 1 person

      • keeler says:

        Ugh. I didn’t know that it was going to post the entire Reddit post.


      • covfefe999 says:

        What does this mean?

        “The community that was formed in support of President-elect Donald Trump organized and grew rapidly, but within it were users that devoted themsevles to antagonising the broader Reddit community.”

        Is he saying that people who were pro-Trump were going into other parts of Reddit, like the HIllary and Bernie sections (if they existed), and harassing commenters there? Or was the alleged bad behavior contained within the Trump section? And is he saying that there were no anti-Trump people antagonizing people in the Trump section?

        Did Hillary really need THAT MUCH help?? And she STILL lost! rofl

        Liked by 5 people

        • Dixie says:

          Excellent question and I’ll watch for an answer from someone who uses the site.

          He seemed very earnest, but he also seemed to be reiterating hillary’s description of Trump supporters as being “deplorables”. I hope I misinterpreted that.


        • OmegaManBlue says:

          I wasn’t a big user over there. Some of what was going on there was this. Some might have been going into other subreddits. That is if they were not blocked for being part of theDonald. Being part of theDonald would prevent you from taking part in other subs sadly.

          What they were really mad about is upvoting going on at theDonald putting all the stuff on front pages. Be it legit stories or ____posts. TheDonald was energized and out working other users. The real solution would have been to just ban all politics from showing up on front page. But they wanted pro-hillary and anti-trump stuff there so they didn’t do that. Also they have a politics sub and I believe it is controlled by libs.


          • I just yesterday signed up at Reddit. The main page is chock full of progressives/leftists. I have no desire to go any further, thank you very much.


          • keeler says:

            I think this is accurate. I don’t use Reddit but do check out T_D from time to time. It has its positives and negatives and unbridled enthusiasm falls into both categories.

            The problem is that other large subs on Reddit behave in similar ways the T_D does, yet only one is held to Reddit’ TOS and painted as toxic. It’s similar to how “Faux News” is somehow comically partisan but MSNBC and CNN are public treasures, and how “white nationalists” get banned from Twitter but “black nationalists” get account verification.


        • snarkybeach says:

          lefty redditters will routinely downvote The Donald posts


    • Your tour guide says:

      Left out You Tube’s insane overcounting of all anti Trump
      late night talk show monologues. ALWAYS over 2 million.
      Nothing from our side ever manages to generate those
      kind of numbers. Mainly because You Tube won’t allow

      Liked by 8 people

      • jmclever says:

        Yes, Tour Guide. There are Conservative YouTubers that have been essentially put out of business due to YouTube’s demonetization of their very popular content and then falsifying the view counts to make it look like no one is watching. Diamond and Silk are one and Alfonzo Rachel (ZoNation). These are also not coincidentally black conservatives. IMHO advertisers should sue YouTube for fraud bc they are being sold ad time based on how popular (view counts) a certain channel is. So the ad buyers are thinking they are advertising during a popular broadcast that in reality has very little interest OR they are not advertising on a certain channel bc it looks like there is no interest when in reality there is HUGE viewership.

        Liked by 3 people


    Liked by 9 people

    • Please read the Guidelines for Comments regarding All Caps.

      Liked by 2 people

      • jonvil says:

        In this case it was quite short and used to emphasize his point…NOT a problem, certainly not worth complaining about.

        It’s paragraphs of all caps that bug me and which I ignore!


        • Mist'ears Mom says:

          Plus Jim Marine 4 happens to be right. The first amendment exists to allow non-agreeable, bad, hateful or offensive speech- all speech. It doesn’t exist to allow only speech that you happen to agree with.
          It is extremely disturbing to me that these outfits are allowed based on their twisted beliefs & logic or agenda what is and isn’t allowed to be said or read on their sites.
          It is censorship and a violation of our Constitution & free speech rights.
          If something is offensive – only you should be able to make the determination whether you want to read or view it, like it or not like it.
          Not the PTB at twitter, facebook etc. or the government.
          It is very wrong – a slippery slope.


  5. James F says:

    Real confirmed collusion amd election interference.

    Liked by 16 people

  6. JustSomeInputFromAz says:

    And the good news is, in spite of all this attempted censorship: WE elected Candidate Trump to be President.

    To me, this “Russia Collusion” meme boils down to the Establishment trying to figure out how they can censor the net more than they do now.

    How many of US watched those Candidate Trump Rally’s here at the Treehouse….that is what “they” want to shut down.


    Liked by 15 people

  7. Guybee says:

    If Twitter has each account acknowledge they know they will be censored and political positions contrary to Twitter’s philosophy will be deleted – then no problem. But they promote themselves as a free speech forum. They should be penalized by the FCC and probably shut down as an unregistered lobbiest.

    Liked by 10 people

    • backwoodsgirl123 says:

      We might just have a larger problem brewing! I’m not sure yet, but I don’t trust anybody these days.

      The EIG (Endurance International Group) owns most of the hosting sites. MOST!

      In fact, it’s so rare to find one that isn’t either a Subsidiary or a Reseller of their hosting that it can take months of searching.

      One of the hosting sites that they own is DreamHost. And they have on one of their pages logos of who they support.

      What is the Closed Black Fist???

      Now, if that’s EIG coming out of the closet, then they could literally shut down over 9/10th’s of the entire web if they chose.

      Look up Endurance International Group on

      They pretty much have a monopoly.

      Liked by 1 person

    • jmclever says:

      excellent idea Guybee

      Liked by 1 person

  8. n1ghtcr4wler says:

    Why are tweets from Russia concerning at all. Arent Russians allowed to voice their opinion about US elections? Many people have relatives in the USA and care about the elections.

    Liked by 19 people

  9. fleporeblog says:

    Just another example of everything being stacked against our President yet he won! I believe to my core that our Lord made sure that our country would be blessed with one of the best President’s ever.

    Liked by 16 people

  10. keebler AC ovfefe says:

    So investigating Russia, we find out there was minimal Russian twitter interference and DNC leaking but a whole lot of Twitter interference by an estimated ratio of 45 to 2.

    Liked by 11 people

    • jmclever says:

      According to the statement, that tiny percentage of tweets were only “possibly” linked to Russia. There is no evidence that even that tiny amount was actually Russia “trolling” the election process. and besides! if Russia were going to attempt to soft coup our government via election process “hacking” they would probably have been more successful at it. Russian gov’t is not inept by any stretch of the imagination.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Archie says:

    Leave Twitter alone. With the massive exception of Trump, tweets are read by people that already agree with what you have to say. If you need more votes you need to reach people on the other side of an issue (or undecideds) so twitter is of no help.

    Trump is the exception since the media covered his tweets like they were news. The tweets immediately went outside of the Twitter universe to TV and the general internet. Twitter was the source media but then was largely irrelevant after that. The media inadvertently helped Trump win the election.

    Google search, on the other hand, has done more damage to civilization by censoring content they don’t agree with. Probably, most of the damage is irreversible.

    Liked by 8 people

  12. mrboxty says:

    Prosecute them for illegal campaign contributions. Put them in jail like the Democrats did to Dinesh D’Souza.

    Make them sign a consent decree not to do it again and force them to pay millions in damages to Wikileaks. Pardon Julian Assange so he can testify before Congress.

    Liked by 12 people

    • scottmc37 says:

      Good point, there is no question that this is a donation that has value, hard to calculate the value, but if it was offered as a service (remove negative tweets) many would gladly pay for that service.

      Liked by 1 person

      • G. Combs says:

        Yes it WAS a donation.

        Nonmonetary Federal Campaign Contribution Rules
        “While any politician, political party, or PAC worth its salt would be more than happy to receive your support in the form of cash or check, monetary gifts aren’t the only donation recognized by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Fundraiser tickets, loans, office supplies, and even t-shirts can be considered campaign contributions. Any goods or services provided to a candidate or political committee goes against your $117,000 biennial contribution cap and is subject to the individual committee limits. If you’re hanging onto your hard-earned cash but still want to find ways to help out your candidate, here are some things to know about other kinds of campaign contributions that will help you keep your support on the straight-and-narrow.

        Donated Items and Services
        Donations of supplies, furniture, business services, or anything else of value is considered an in-kind contribution, and the value of these items counts against the FEC’s contribution limits.
        If, as a business owner, you offer a discount to a candidate or committee, then the amount of that discount will be considered a contribution.[…]”

        Liked by 3 people

  13. chojun says:

    Hillary spews pusillanimous virtue signaling word vomit. Trump drops bombs. After 8 years of the man who irons his jeans and thinks America is an experiment run amok, the public chose the Alpha Male who is proud of the Red, White and Blue & who eats the press for breakfast (with a side of nails).

    That’s pretty much 2016 in a nutshell.

    Liked by 15 people

  14. keeler says:

    I’d bet my life Twitter was doing much, much more than what they admit to here. I distinctly remember that at peak trending #DNCLeaks kept disappearing from the top of Twitter and another hashtag, something like #DNC[Capital I]eaks kept popping up, probably as a splitter.

    And last month Project Veritas caught a YouTube employee admitting they manipulate what’s trending. There’s about a 0% chance Twitter doesn’t do this as well.

    If you really want to go down a rabbit hole and peer into the future of social media censorship, do some research into the Candid controversy.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      Good point. If they admit to 48%, they probably are around 70%, if not 75%. Eric Schmidt of Google was HEAVILY involved in the Klingoon campaign to the point of designing and providing massive analytical databases and methodology. He also provided her with demographics and targeting info (based on their enormous marketing databases).

      The social(ist) media were all-in with Klingoon. And they just got a bunch more money from Satan Soros.

      Thank GOD that Donald Trump won the election despite enormous, and often illegal opposition. And GOD Bless President Trump, Vice-President Pence, their families, the Administration, and all “Les Deplorables”. And GOD BLESS AMERICA!

      Also, be watchful on the 4th, be prepared, and dare I say, have some means of defense with you. And pray, with the Armor of GOD, Ephesians 6:10-18…

      Liked by 3 people

  15. Joe Blow says:

    Funny, this isn’t at all how I heard FakeNews report this. Why, they said this hearing was more ironclad proof of Russian meddling and/or trolling (the new word they’ve attached to this ridiculous fantasy)!

    Amazing how the lies melt away with a little truthful analysis.

    Liked by 6 people

  16. NJF says:

    Oh the irony!

    Liked by 2 people

  17. InAz says:

    To this very day Twitter is punishing those who are not liberal leftist progressive socialist fascist communists.

    Conservatives/ Christians, etc, get suspended for a few hours to days, and many get totally banned for ever

    Liked by 4 people

    • grandmaintexas says:

      Twitter has a big bag of dirty tricks to punish and silence non-leftists.

      Liked by 4 people

    • TwoLaine says:

      facebook does the absolute same thing. Back when I was on, I got shut down numerous times, and their capcha’s are evil. They are all evil jerks.

      Liked by 4 people

    • greenmakescents says:

      Can’t prove it, but Pinterest seems political and will throttle If you don’t walk in step. My boards had a large amount of daily pins,..until I added a President Trump and family board. Everything stopped for about a week and now overall pins are one or two a day.


  18. A2 says:

    Never mind. Zuckerburg (Facebook) and Cook (Apple) were in China taking the knee to President Xi ‘totaltarian’ Dada this past week.I guess they offered up all that data on US persons they have been collating as an offering.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. average Joe says:

    Who’s got that phone and pen, now.Maga.🤔

    Liked by 2 people

  20. Trialdog says:

    How is their action not an illegal in kind campaign contibution?


  21. crandew says:

    Its really amazing how Trump won, given all the decks stacked against him. Shows how much Americans really want a better America.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. TwoLaine says:

    Since they FINALLY admitted they hide negative tweets on ILLary, did anyone ask if they hide/suppress positive tweets on TRUMP’s feed, as well as his on his surrogates feed?

    IF they actually believed in the 1st amendment, there would be no hiding, of anything.

    Did anyone ask if they did all of this SUPPRESSION on their own, or were they TOLD to do it by the ILLary campaign?


  23. georgiafl says:

    ALSO NOTE – Google and other search engines and Media images were also stacked VERY negatively AGAINST Donald Trump.

    Twitter couldn’t and can’t stop Donald Trump’s popularity and influence!

    @realDonaldTrump followers:
    41,678,967 – 7am 11/2/12
    41,234,685 – 10/26 – 1 week ago
    39,823,487 – 10/2 – 1 month ago
    33,117,490 – 7/2 – 5 months ago
    13,310,715- 2am 11/9 – post election
    11,746,838 Monday midnight after Presidential debate 10/3/16 – 1 year ago
    5.95 million – Eve of Iowa Caucus

    This is despite two cuts – 80K on 7/12/17 and 4K on 10/4/17 – either culled by Twitter or Trump Social Media chief Dan Scavino. Whether these were bots or real people, we don’t know.
    Trump followers seem to be real – I’ve seen them increase at different rates and even fall a few to a hundred or so, every now and then.

    Liked by 2 people

    • georgiafl says:

      PDJT – last tweet:

      Absolutely the death penalty, Mr. President!!!

      Deport all his family and everyone who came in through him and any that came in through those.

      Get ’em out – and take their coats!!!

      Liked by 7 people

  24. TwoLaine says:

    “free and open democratic debate”

    I think that says it all. If you are a democRat you are free and open to debate on their platform. Anyone else, DELETE!

    Liked by 3 people

  25. linda7780 says:

    Twitter hiding tweets????? Say it ain’t so!!!!😱 /sarcastic
    Look at youtube. 100+ thousands views and only few comments if they are pro Trump for anything. You also have to dig for the positive because they sure don’t put it in the “what’s hot” section. Even the blind can figure out how much we are being spoon fed.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. trapper says:

    And yet she STILL lost. Perhaps Hillary is just on the wrong side of history? Hah!

    Liked by 3 people

  27. TwoLaine says:

    In “The Circus”, ILLary and Bloomberg’s Showtime election propaganda vehicle, they visit ILLary’s “war room”. The “children” there are asked what they tell their parents and friends about what they do. The most honest answer was, “I cyberbully Donald TRUMP.”


  28. Old Lady says:

    We need a “Sundance Chatter” and put Ad Rem in charge. That’ll show em.


  29. Tom says:

    Of course Twitter would hide nothing negative against Donald Trump. Question is, would Twitter hide content that held Donald Trump in a positive light? Using the same protocol? Magic 8-ball says…. Count on it!

    Liked by 1 person

  30. covfefe999 says:

    This all makes me angry but I remember past times when we did not have the internet communications we have now and relied on information from newspapers and TV channels. Imagine if that’s all we had now. It IS better, very imperfect but definitely better. I’m actually surprised Twitter admitted what it had done.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. Mickturn says:

    Trump vs. Hitlery…the difference between Serious and Slimy.


  32. Kaco says:

    This is the most insulting farce of a Senate investigation based on the assumption that any one of us would have voted for Hillary if not for social media or whatever. Many of us decided on Pres Trump before the primaries, too.

    Why isn’t David Brock being questioned about his troll army who plague us to this day?

    How is anybody who is gullible enough to take any facebook “news” at face value without their own research to back it up any different from those who click on ads to get their “free” Walmart gift card or any click bait? And this is not seeing what they were looking at. It could have been passing along “Clinton Cash”, obviously it was also used to spread the Wikileaks releases. And I know the bulk of it was Redditors, they even wrote a book about it.

    Let’s see, with censoring of Hillary negativity and vilifying of Trump by social media and the MSM, and all the “experts” and former intelligence and cabinet members denouncing Trump, we all still hated her. Do they honestly wonder why the country hates Hillary and why we would love our duly elected President and the policies he stands for?

    They still can’t believe how PT got elected despite all their best efforts to rig it. It must be those Ruskies.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ziiggii says:

      ”Why isn’t David Brock being questioned about his troll army who plague us to this day?”

      That is the big question? Why isn’t Brock under ANY type of scrutiny for his shady work for the Clinton’s & Podesta?

      Liked by 2 people

  33. Ziiggii says:

    This is the reason /pol has been raided this entire past year…. we were the ones creating all those negative #hashtags. Podesta unleashed David Brock and his ShariaBlue army on us. That board has been mostly useless the past 9+ months. But, interestingly enough, the trolls have retreated back to their caves the past couple of days. It’s been weird and nice – we’ve been wondering what they are scheming.

    Liked by 1 person

    • G. Combs says:

      Must likely they knew this Twitter censorship was coming out…


      They are getting ready for the 100th Anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution on 4th of Nov. by repeating it as Soros Purple Revolution.

      Liked by 2 people

  34. TwoLaine says:

    I searched the Twitter doc on Scribed. ZERO results on “Mexico”, and Mexico’s influence on the election. A total farce of a committee and report.


  35. TwoLaine says:

    BTW, this proves 200% WHY we need people like Julian Assange who are willing to shed the light.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Ziiggii says:

    BTW – you are all RussianBots and I am gonna turn you all in to the CIA/NSA for the $10k bounty


  37. BakoCarl says:

    An oldie but a goodie –

    Tweetin’ Donald

    He tweets from his office all day long,
    Tweetin’ and a-greetin’, just goin’ strong.
    All the special interests on “K” Street
    Hate to hear the Donald go tweet, tweet, tweet.

    Tweetin’ Donald, tweet, tweet,
    Tweetin’ Donald.
    Go Tweetin’ Donald,
    He’s really gonna tweet tonight.

    The press don’t like Donald tweetin’ at all
    “We sift all the news. We make that call.”
    Donald likes to talk straight to you and me
    So the press can’t spin and be the emcee.

    All the patriots who love to be free,
    All the Deplorables, you and me,
    Cheerin’ from above and cheerin’ from below,
    Jumpin’ up and down yellin’ “Go, Donald, go.”

    Deplorables love the new Trump brand,
    Tweetin’ to the people, man, it’s so grand.
    “Make America Great,” that’s his goal,
    No stoppin’ him now, he’s on a roll.

    He tweets from his office all day long
    Tweetin’ and a-greetin’, just goin’ strong
    All the special interests on “K” Street
    Hate to hear the Donald go tweet, tweet, tweet.

    Tweetin’ Donald, tweet, tweet,
    Tweetin’ Donald.
    Go Tweetin’ Donald,
    He’s really gonna tweet tonight.

    Liked by 1 person

  38. TwoLaine says:

    Here is the SUPPOSED Intelligence Committee.

    I just called my Senator and asked why they aren’t investigating Mexico’s interference in the 2016 campaign, as well as every other election campaign in recent modern history. They sow dissension in every campaign across the country, and line up their people to vote illegally. The man who took the call played dumb. “What do you mean?” I said, “They shove people into our country illegally, and every election is about illegal immigration and amnesty. Anyone who doesn’t see that must be living on another planet.” He said, “Like they are aliens?” I said, “Could be.”

    Oops he got me. I must be Cray-Cray.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Rob1 says:

    I feel lied to. Sundance, this article lacks the depth and attention to detail that your finance-based articles have.

    You make the claim that Twitter purposely censored tweets that were negative to Hillary. As evidence, you point to their written testimony. But that testimony claims that the negative tweets were removed by their “spam detection systems” and/or their “automation detection systems”. Twitter is actually claiming that their systems detected that these negative tweets were produced by bots, or some other automated means, and that they were properly filtered.

    I don’t know if their claim is true. But you completely ignore it. You don’t say, “they are lying”, or “they shouldn’t be filtering anything, automated or not”, or “their spam detection systems need improvement”. You simply ignored their claim and substituted your own.

    In a post above, Keeler states, “I’d bet my life Twitter was doing much, much more than what they admit to here….” That is an honest statement. He’s not claiming it’s a fact. He is claiming it’s likely and then providing supporting evidence.

    Here’s a conversation I would not like to have:
    Me: Did you hear that Twitter was censoring negative things about Hillary during the campaign?
    Liberal: No, that was their spam and automation detection systems. Most of those negative tweets were from bots. Here’s proof…
    Me: Oh, I guess I shouldn’t trust my news sources any more than I trust your news sources.

    Sorry for the long rant, but this kind of jumping to conclusions and ignoring of counter arguments is something I’d expect from CNN, not the treehouse.


    • Rob says:

      I understand your argument, but think it’s flawed.

      The article pointed out that **no** negative tweets about Trump were censored.

      Since it defies credulity that the **only** “spam” content was anti-Hillary, I believe that fact is ipso-facto proof that Twitter purposely designed their “filters” to screen out anti-Hillary commentary but not anti-Trump commentary.

      Liked by 1 person

      • jmclever says:

        Agree with Rob. Algorithms do what the designers tell them to do. By Rob1’s argument, the truck that was used in the NYC terrorist attack should be held responsible and not its driver. In reality, the truck only did what the driver directed it to do. Substitute any weapon or Swamp tactic for truck and the argument is the same.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rob1 says:

        That is one way of looking at it. Another would be that Hillary’s tweets were targeted by bots and Trump’s were not. In that case, we wouldn’t expect the spam/automation detector to remove any anti-Trump tweets.

        I don’t believe this is the case, but I think this is an argument that a Trump-hater might make. “Look at all the automated messages that were targeted at Hillary! This has Russia’s name written all over it!” In fact, I suspect that’s what Twitter was trying to convey in their testimony, and confirmation bias would lead any Trump-hater to agree.

        But I still stand by my argument. Sundance claimed Twitter was censoring, while Twitter claimed they were doing spam filtering. Sundance is essentially claiming that Twitter has admitted guilt in their testimony, but they have not.


        • G. Combs says:

          ” Another would be that Hillary’s tweets were targeted by bots and Trump’s were not.”

          You have GOT to be kidding. The truth is:
          Trump’s tweets were targeted by bots and Hillary’s were not.

          That goes along with the excessive amount of $$$$ that Hillary spent compared to Trump and Hillary’s KNOWN Dirty Tricks man David Brock and others.

          Liked by 2 people

    • CleanhouseinDC says:

      They were deleting individual tweets, certainly some were from suspected/known bots, but not necessarily all. The question is, were they filtering by content or were they filtering by account? Based on the lawyers answers, we actually don’t know the answer to that. Their systems operate off of algorithms that are flexible and adaptable. They could be programmable for both users and content. Unless they were to publish the rules about how they do this kind of filtering, we cannot be sure. If they have known bots, why not just delete those accounts, rather than try to filter the content they send?


  40. Bert Darrell says:

    I see no comments about sending Twitter to he!! by not having an account with them. Let them talk with themselves. I’m not a “twitterer” and I don’t feel I missed anything during or after the election season. But I had a lot of fun battering trolls on and sticking to TCTH..


  41. Rob says:

    Just as Verizon doesn’t censor what people say over their phone network, Twitter shouldn’t be censoring what people say over their 128-character-message network.

    Twitter, Facebook, etc. etc. are the 21st-century equivalent of the phone system.

    Liked by 3 people

  42. jmclever says:

    Just reading the headline made me laugh so hard tears came to my eyes!

    So if My President works half as hard as the Swamp but gets twice the results, doesn’t that mean that his efforts are 4 times as effective as theirs? No wonder the MAGA is so rampant only 287 days into his administration!

    IMHO that statement should be added to Sundance’s statement on the Trump Doctrine LOL!

    Liked by 1 person

    • keebler AC ovfefe says:

      I’m upvoting this on the Trump Doctrine!!
      Under budget, ahead of schedule and winning!


    • thesitrep says:

      That’s why when detractors complain about his travel cost.
      I just think, hey, its worth it. Trump is the ultimate heavy hitter.

      But it would be safer and cheaper to skype.


  43. thedoc00 says:

    To graphically illustrate the point further, please use photographs that show the following:
    2 x Photos of Trump, in private using social media while in meetings looking his counterpart in the eye and discussing issues.
    2 x photos of Clinton, in private typing away on social media and in key meetings typing away on social media and NOT paying attention to the meeting.
    Those 4 photos speak volumes of the differences, whereby Trump knows when and how and to Clinton it is a look busy hobby as was her cabinet job.


  44. CleanhouseinDC says:

    Sounds to me like a whole other Congressional hearing needs to be hel (they don’t have enough hearings), specifically to dive deeper into twitter, Facebook, and other social media’s manIpulation of user traffic. This time, one would hope that our elected “betters” (most are lawyers, right?) would be prepared to ask them why they were only censoring Trump supporting traffic (or to share their censorship actions for Hillary), how they determined to censor what, and then blow these companies up for their censorship actions.


  45. AJF says:

    Both The Mainstream and Social Media did everything the could to drag that rotting corpse of a candidate across the finish line.


  46. MVW says:

    It looks like Uniparty congress, Uniparty anti Trump propaganda, Uniparty Hillary campaign, Uniparty wars, Uniparty law enforcement, Uniparty race relations improvement, etc are worthless.

    Uniparty must be a bunch of incompetent criminals, easily beat by Truth bombs.


  47. zephyrbreeze says:

    Wow, so they shadow banned #PodestaEmails – that’s just crazy. They should be regulated based on this alone.


    • bandfreak22 says:

      I remember when this was happening. Assange was doing the email dumb and #PodestaEmails was trending like crazy on Twitter. Then all of a sudden it’d be off the trend list. Very crooked.


  48. thesitrep says:

    Trump is an example to all that if you want to win, ya gotta work.
    Hillary just knew she had every cheat angle covered.
    But she got schlonged


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s