Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Testifies to Congress About Social Media Platform Controls, Filters and Manipulation…

These “executives” are nuts; simply bananas.  For some reason the corporate management and ownership of Twitter (CEO Jack Dorsey) and Facebook (COO Sheryl Sandberg) refuse to admit that people, employees of their companies, actually make the content decisions.

To defend the platform from critics who point out the ideological filtration, both Dorsey and Sandberg present a bizarro proposition that some created omnipotent, nebulous and invisible force has the decision-making power to determine content; and does so without consideration of view.  It’s just plain weird.  But that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

.

These people would have a lot more credibility if they were just intellectually honest. The hearing continues below:

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Stupid Government, Cultural Marxism, media bias, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

185 Responses to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Testifies to Congress About Social Media Platform Controls, Filters and Manipulation…

  1. sundance says:

    Liked by 32 people

    • Gil says:

      What did you think about Sandberg stating they fight fake news with “alternative facts?” Quite the admission even if it was really a slip up!

      Liked by 24 people

      • Jack Dorsey is probably. employing the same wizardry that allowed Comey to read 700000
        over the weekend
        That and the Evelyn Wood speed reading class that Strzok took.

        Liked by 2 people

        • SwampRatTerrier says:

          How many Lies did Jack tell.

          Any one keep count?

          Like

          • Jedi9 says:

            Who knows. I will say this, as I watched this interview in its entirety and there are several take aways that I have gotten from this.

            Jack Dorsey is a well spoken individual who is no doubt is a very intelligent person. In fact there are some aspects of him that makes you want to like him such as his appearance of sincerity and his willingness to appear to answer questions before the committee, and his opening statement. He also made it apparent that yes there is legitimate concern in regards to the public square in cyber space that needs to be legitimately discussed, as well as addressing the issues of algorithms targeting a select group of people who don’t agree with the ideologues working at Twitter. He stated that the company is working or has corrected the problem by openly admitting that Twitter made a mistake, and that is a good first step.

            I think Twitter out of all the tech Giants is rather unique, due to the fact they don’t appear, not that my research indicates that they have any connection to China, and are systematically looking to implement or be part of the social credit system that the CHICOM’s are looking to import to other countries by way of Google, Apple, and Facebook. (This issue alone is one the most important for me) However that being said, I still have concerns about data collection, and other nefarious practices of surveillance that Dorsey is not being transparent about. While I don’t agree with his extreme political views, if he does provide follow-ups with this committee as was his responses to some members he would do, then at least I may be wiling to give him the benefit of the doubt on a very short lease to at least see where this is going to go in the future. My sense is I think he knows he is on thin ice due to recent developments with the DOJ and the recent filing of the ANTI-Trust lawsuit filed by Freedom watch against his company and the other tech Giants, so I think his testimony may be a calculated move on his part to at least appear to be transparent on the issue and get ahead of it before it threatens his survival. Whether he is or not, I am not sure, but certainly will read other’s comments here to gain more insight into this issue in regards to Twitter and its uses.

            https://pjmedia.com/trending/former-reagan-anti-trust-lawyer-sues-apple-facebook-google-twitter-for-1b/

            Second, Democrats are really insufferable, at every opportunity they seek to attack Trump, and his supporters at any chance they can get. They are not capable of intellectual honesty and can’t bring themselves ever to at least appear of trying to be non partisan in their questioning when trying to work on finding solutions, and this much is apparent. Of course I am not espousing anything new here, therefor I digress, but it just gets tiring after awhile listening to these virtue signing toast burners of donkey flinging poo poo to go on about how their so self sanctimonious righteousness remains above the counter parts while trying to diminish their opponents views and outright attempting to invalidate them altogether, then you arrive at the conclusion as Ted Cruz outlined yesterday that they are still trying to litigate against the results of the 2016 election. It really is astounding and disgusting at times to watch this trash in real time and never come away in any sense of that respect for these people is even possible. Case in point, Ms Castor from Florida, and Pollen From New Jersey as just an example. I am sure there are others I can list here, but I yield, as too much energy has already been expended talking about these asshat clowns that has made DC one huge circus act soon to be like Barnum and Bailey extinct!

            Back to my peaceful and calm place, as Sylvia suggests, listen to Mozart and drink some Chamomile tea to forget what it was I was mad about!

            Liked by 2 people

        • atthispoint- HYSTERICAL. Laughed so hard I nearly choked.

          Like

      • woohoowee says:

        If Kellyanne can’t have legitimate alternative facts, Sandberg certainly can’t have fake alternative facts.

        Liked by 1 person

    • USTerminator says:

      Let do like China does. We demand to see Google, Facebook, Twitter to provide the source code to verify that they do what they say they do. If they can not document it, it never happened. Let hang the antitrust in their necks to make it happen. I want to use regulation to our advantage for once

      Liked by 11 people

      • Sugarhillhardrock says:

        US,
        I’m with you all the way. Prove 0 bias or face break up and massive penalties.
        Reveal the algorithm and monitor the lying scum, if they censor, over.
        When I first learned of face crook and twater, my instincts told me danger. I have been proven correct.

        Liked by 2 people

        • The algorithm is simple Trump bad stays ,Trump good goes.
          They are working on the glitch that sometimes picks up Bump, Hump ,Rump and Sump.

          Like

        • Dutchman says:

          AmericanThinker has good article, lays it out.
          EITHER the company is a PLATFORM, not responsible for user content, and ONLY controlling things that are illegal.
          OR, the company is a PUBLISHER, like a newspaper, which DOES control content, cause they can be sued for libel/slander.

          These tech companies want to have it BOTH ways; they want to say they are a platform, so can’t be sued for comtent, AND YET, they want to control content.

          “Its a candy mint, …it’s a breath mint,….
          It’s 2, 2, 2 mints in 1!”

          They want to contr content, to edit out of shadowban conservatives, FINE!
          Then they are a publisher, and their billions are available to settle lawsuits for libel/slander, and there are, guaranteed many ‘better call saul’s’ out there, that would just LOVE to go after that deep pocket.

          If they don’t want that, QUIT blaming HAL 2000, for the shadowbanning,..And quit doing it, as well.

          Anti-trust is a while nother ball game, and there is a lot of red meat to go after on that front.

          Too much power, in too few hands, with inadequate transperency AND accoutability. Recipe for disaster.

          Liked by 7 people

      • USTerminator says:

        https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-examine-whether-social-media-companies-intentionally-stifling-ideas

        “The attorney general has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms,” said the statement.

        It smells like antitrust investigation to me

        Liked by 1 person

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      Sundance, did you see the article Zuckerberg wrote in WaPo today? Read between the lines here. He is practically bragging about the war they are waging against conservative voices. He even calls the propaganda war they are waging an “arms race”! Needless to say, conservative voices are “Russian” or any other boogeyman moniker they choose to use.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-protecting-democracy-is-an-arms-race-heres-how-facebook-can-help-win-it/2018/09/04/53b3c8ee-b083-11e8-9a6a-565d92a3585d_story.html

      PROTECTING DEMOCRACY IS AN ARMS RACE. HERE’S HOW FACEBOOK CAN HELP

      Quote:

      “As we’ve seen from previous elections, misinformation is a real challenge. A big part of the solution is getting rid of fake accounts. But it’s also about attacking the spammers’ economic incentives to create false news in the first place. And where posts are flagged as potentially false, we pass them to independent fact-checkers — such as the Associated Press and the Weekly Standard — to review, and we demote posts rated as false, which means they lose 80 percent of future traffic.

      One of the biggest changes we’ve made over the past year is not to wait for reports of suspicious activity. Instead, we look proactively for potentially harmful election-related content, such as pages registered to a foreign entity that post divisive content to sow mistrust and drive people apart. When we find them, our security team manually reviews the accounts to see whether they violate our policies. If they do, we quickly remove them. For example, we recently took down a network of accounts in Brazil that was hiding its identity and spreading misinformation ahead of the country’s presidential elections in October.

      For the U.S. midterm elections, we’re also using a new tool we tested in the Alabama Senate special election last year to identify political interference more quickly. This enabled us to find and remove foreign political spammers who’d previously flown under the radar. And last month, we took down hundreds of pages, groups and accounts for creating networks that were deliberately misleading people about their identities and intentions.”

      ———————

      Here it is…..the liberal techies worldview for all to see. Self-appointed guardians of free-speech and “democracy”as they see it.

      Liked by 8 people

      • ForGodandCountry says:

        Liked by 7 people

      • Flubber says:

        The tool they’ll rely on is “hate speech”

        Of course they get to decide what is hate speech. Right now it seems to be any conservative position:

        Trans-women aren’t women or
        We should control immigration or
        The police should prosecute criminals or
        ICE should deport illegals or
        Taxes should go down

        etc etc…

        Liked by 1 person

      • singular says:

        FGAC, someone needs to tell him the United States is a constitutional republic.

        Liked by 1 person

      • III% says:

        The part of that statement that really concerns me is “tested in the Alabama Senate special election last year”. I don’t use Facebook or Twitter, but I can promise you that there was an unreal amount of negative ads for Moore and positive for the dim bulb that was elected. I saw more ads for that race than I did the 2016 election. What sense does that make? A random special senate race vs a presidential election should be no contest, but literally everywhere I went on the internet, there were ads and links about one or the other. If that is their idea of testing and mitigating “false information” then we have an extremely serious problem.

        Liked by 2 people

        • NotALiberal says:

          Sad thing is, it worked for them perfectly. Facebook “newsies” fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

          Liked by 2 people

        • cdquarles says:

          Seconded, since I can confirm this. That special election was one of, if not the most slimy election in Alabama that I can remember. Also remember that they just barely won, so it was just effective enough. Of course, Sen Jones has proved to be a reliable D vote, to date. Thanks, Mitch. ;(.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Maquis says:

        Enemies of the People, plain and simple.
        If ever I’ve seen a face that screams “punch me, please”, it’s Zuckerberg. What a twit. Master of the Universe my ass.

        Liked by 1 person

    • ForGodandCountry says:

      Btw, what’s the odds it was simply coincidence that Zuckerberg wrote a WaPo Op-Ed the day Dorsey testifies??

      Nah……no coordination there, right?

      *SPIT*

      Liked by 10 people

    • fleporeblog says:

      The reason Google didn’t attend had to do with the agreement they are making with China 🇨🇳. They are going to allow the Chinese Government to censor their site. They didn’t want to answer those questions.

      Liked by 9 people

      • fleporeblog says:

        Senator Cotton was the one that was pushing that line of questioning!

        Liked by 8 people

        • Jedi9 says:

          I am glad Cotton raised the specter of Google in bed with the Chinese. Google is no longer an American company, but a multi-national one and they need to looked at as a national security threat to American interests. If such company’s want to pander to our adversaries then they should also be made liable to face consequences for doing so.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Mike says:

      It think part of the fundamental problems are several:
      freedom of speech for people on a (corporately owned, creature of state, not a real person) public platform;
      freedom of association of the foreign and domestic owners of corp the platform.

      Once you say the platform has a public nature, Twit corp is interfering with other people’s freedom of speech, rather than the corp saying it is their freedom of expression infringed. As a creature of state, the private property right is modified by regulatory/license issues, if you don’t fully worship the “corporate = natural personage” argument..

      Liked by 1 person

    • bulwarker says:

      Sad, government intervention is not the answer and it will backfire on us in the long run. What needs to happen is people using alternatives (competition, what our free market is built on). Trump needs to switch to GAB asap, that would be a death blow to Twitter.

      Liked by 3 people

      • singular says:

        Bulwarker, you are right. I really think they want to goad us into demanding regulation or government takeover. This would not be good at all. We need to find our own solutions. Good to make the general public aware of the biases, though.

        Liked by 1 person

      • rashomon says:

        C.O.M.P.E.T.I.T.I.O.N. That’s what it’s all about! BOOM!

        Like

      • Jedi9 says:

        I agree! That being said, I do believe a cyber space bill of rights for users needs to be established. I think Nigel Farage was brilliantly correct when he first suggested the idea, and I for one think it would be great to operate freely with out fear of recourse or being spied upon that we are protected by such violations. WIN WIN!

        Like

      • bulwarker- you are 100% correct about the dangers of Big Swamp Government getting involved. They will f***** up ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING they touch.

        Here’s a great idea from Rich Logis at American Thinker. In a nutshell, he says that our President Trump should START HIS OWN ONLINE EMPIRE.

        “Trump Valley. Trumpbook. Trumpitter. TrumpTube. Trumpterest. Trumpagram. Hell, create a new search engine, free of manipulation: Trumpoogle. Name me one Trump-supporter you know who wouldn’t utilize the full suite of the Trump Valley platform; you can’t.”

        Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/09/how_trump_can_save_free_speech_from_big_tech.html#ixzz5QKlhk3qR

        Liked by 1 person

  2. sundance says:

    You gotta watch this….. Absolutely hilarious 😀 😀 😀

    “I yield back”….

    Oh, I can’t stop laughing. Well Done Billy Long.

    Liked by 37 people

  3. tav says:

    I guess it must be evil spirits that are doing the genocide of free speech.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. Gary says:

    Ghost in the Machine

    Liked by 7 people

  5. tav says:

    Who would have thought adults in the year 2018 would still believe in evil spirits.

    Liked by 2 people

    • NewfTea says:

      They exist. If you’re not careful, you’ll fall prey to them.

      Liked by 11 people

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      Read Ephesians 6:10-18.

      There are forces out there more powereful than you can possible imagine.
      And GOD is more powerful than each and every one of them (and us).

      “18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”

      Liked by 4 people

    • Elizabeth Carter says:

      Perhaps you should look into it more. In 2018, the tech guys definitely believe in daemons aka demons
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(computing)

      Liked by 2 people

      • Cuppa Covfefe says:

        Kernigan and Ritchie were versed in the dark arts (was in in interview years ago; has been “scrubbed”, of course). Screen handler UI is called curses and default file permissions are rw-rw-rw- . No accident, that… Look at the percentage of Wiccans and Satanists in the Silly-Cone Valley (along with the flakes and Esalen types)…

        Liked by 2 people

        • wolfmoon1776 says:

          Did not know that. Interesting.

          Like

        • MarcusZ1967 says:

          Curses was more of a descriptive name than they knew. Thats what I did everytime I tried working with that cursive dang thing…. rw- is actually read-write permissions, rwx would be read-write-execute (execute = run). The rw-rw-rw- just means that the file “owner”, the users “group” and all “users” could read and write to the file (like a text file).

          rw- rw- rw-
          user group all

          I’ve been running linux since the early 90’s. Open source doncha know… 😎 That way I can get down into the actual code (C or CC+) and see what it does.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Cuppa Covfefe says:

            Read the numbers, I know what they mean, I’ve been doing system internals since the late 1960s. And I’ve done open and proprietary for many of the majors out there. At the machine code level (including rebuilding a locked start image on a running box with thousands of users on it: not recommended for rookies or the faint of heart)…

            R = 4, W = 2, X = 1. Do the math… More of a masque than a mask… evil bits.

            Like

      • wolfmoon1776 says:

        There is so much potential here, it’s absolutely mind-boggling. Suffice it to say that there are people who know, and have walled off the knowledge.

        Liked by 2 people

        • jrapdx says:

          That’s a main argument for open-source software. The idea is that proprietary, closed-source code can do anything including evil stuff, but there’s essentially no way for anyone outside the inner circle to audit what’s going on. Most of the time the big concern is the presence of bugs that cause program crashes and the like. But security is another huge problem where lack of access to source code makes resolving vulnerabilities much harder.

          The unwillingness to expose the algorithms use to “filter” content on discussion sites obviously is a barrier to assessing fairness of how they are applied. I’ve suspected the various “platforms” use shared algorithms, and if so that would surely be a form of anti-competitive collusion in violation of antitrust laws. It’s no wonder the “platforms” stoutly refuse to give details.

          That should be a heads up for investigating the practices of the social media companies. Government agencies have the power to forcibly gain access to code to examine it for evidence that antitrust laws were violated. This is an instance where the intrusion of government is warranted and indeed necessary.

          Liked by 2 people

          • MarcusZ1967 says:

            Naw, not “Government agencies”, send it out to the open source community.

            Liked by 1 person

            • jrapdx says:

              It would be really great for the code (and data “rules”) to be made publicly available for examination by programmers at large. Wouldn’t we all like to get a gander at it!

              However, that probably can’t happen. When the code/data are submitted to investigators it’s almost certainly under an NDA, the legal systems have to respect proprietary rights of creators. (Remember the antitrust case against Microsoft back in the 90’s…)

              Likely enough none of this will come to pass, I think the hope is that all the talk and legislative interest in the conduct of the “platforms” will shake ’em up and they’ll back off on their “censorship”. But if that doesn’t happen the heavier hand will then have to be invoked, and I don’t doubt PT will assure that hand is set in motion.

              Like

          • singular says:

            Well, although I am against gov takeover, violation of the antitrust laws needs to be addressed and stopped.

            Liked by 1 person

            • jrapdx says:

              To be sure, no one here advocates a government takeover of social media platforms, but I fully agree with you about investigating—and stopping—the anti-competitive practices.

              Liked by 1 person

  6. Kaiser Derden says:

    all algo’s are just pattern recognition and humans decide the patterns … and thus the patterns are biased …

    Liked by 8 people

    • Kaiser Derden says:

      remember many on the left think having conservative opinions is a sign of mental disease … of course their program would filter out mental deviants … all right thinking people would agree that is a good thing …

      Liked by 3 people

    • formerdem says:

      Some algorithm. They keep recommending Hillary Clinton’s twitter account to me. Why? I only get onto Twitter to like the latest dozen Trump tweets, and read up on Bongino and OḰeefe. And I follow the Polish bishops because they pray for all their followers. How is that a Hillary admirer?

      Like

  7. Sammy Hains says:

    Twitter suspended my account for being a Russian bot.
    At first I could have unlocked it if I gave them a phone number so they could dox me, but after a week my account was permanently locked and had 0 followers.

    Twitter is is shithole anyways.

    Liked by 9 people

  8. Sedanka says:

    Jeff Sessions’ Department of “Justice” (in quotes as Trump likes to tweet it) isn’t going to do anything to Twitter, Facebook or Google. So these hearings are just for show. We’ll get some laughs, some “gotcha” moments, like we did when Zuckerberg testified. Then they’ll go back to censoring conservatives, and Sessions will go back to sleep.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. yy4u says:

    For the life of me I can’t understand why anyone chooses to make an ass of him or herself in this manner — either side of the political spectrum. Facebook and Twitter are part of the Deep State, Liberal Left Marxist takeover, but what does making a fool of yourself do to change that?

    Liked by 4 people

    • yy4u says:

      I’ll add that I have personal knowledge of how Facebook and Twitter censor the Internet. I have an excellent memory. I remember stories/articles I’ve read and where I read them. A case in point is the NY Times headline on Inaug. Day. It reported the wire taps on Trump tower (then it was a positive thing for Dems). Then POTUS tweeted about being wiretapped and Whoosh it disappeared. (Luckily some smart conservatives captured the screen shot so I had a link to those). Try any kind of search you want using any words you want and you will not find that headline on any of the first three Google search pages. I’m sure it’s there, on page 400 or something. This is only one example. Plenty of other examples of articles I read years ago and now in light of what is happening in DC would like to revisit. GONE. But that’s how it is. We have to deal with the reality we have not the reality we’d like to have. We were asleep at the wheel and the car nearly ran off the cliff. Our front wheels are on the edge. Can we back up? Who knows?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Teagan says:

      LOL, yy4u…did you catch the photo of the guy dressed like a pink condom outside the hearings? Making an ass of himself, indeed…wonder how much he was paid because no one would do that voluntarily…would they??

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Meatzilla says:

    And, you know, the thing about a shark… they’ve got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll’s eyes. When they come at ya’, doesn’t seem to be livin’! …..until it bites ya’, and them black eyes roll over n’ show some white.

    Liked by 10 people

  11. kenji says:

    Social media is the platform of social misfits

    Liked by 2 people

  12. talker2u says:

    Was that that Loomer woman?

    Like

  13. Call it the Adam Smith invisible left hand of Antifa.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. InAz says:

    The woman who was being vocal was complaining about conservative voices being shut down and the commies swaying elections in favor of the commie democrats.

    Would have been nice if the Republicans shut down the paid commie protestors at the Kavanaugh hearing.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. Deplorable_Infidel says:

    “But that’s their story and they’re sticking to it.”

    Probably on the advice of legal counsel. Of course, the legal teams would not participate in any collusion to get the stories straight on Capital Hill. Just like. “I do not recall, Senator” repeated ad nauseum since the days of the Whitewater Hearings chaired by Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY).

    I think I was laid up at the time with some broken bone, so I was not working. Those people testifying had such poor memories that I wondered how they graduated from college.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. 4sure says:

    I am not in favor of the federal gov’t. regulating this industry or most industry or businesses. Twitter, Facebook, and all the other social media sites do not force anyone at gunpoint to use their sites. In fact, they are more free from coercion than Obamacare. As long as using their sites are voluntary, I think they are free to censor anyone at anytime for any reason as long as they don’t discriminate based on the federal guidelines for discrimination. SD can censor or ban anyone on CTH that he wants. And should have that right since it is his site.

    Let’s not be too eager to have Big Brother regulating things. Competition in the market place is a better solution, so I am in favor of looking closely at these businesses as being monopolies. And that goes triple for Amazon and Google. Some one on the business channel said this a.m. that the biggest threat to facebook and twitter is if foreign gov’ts. don’t want to take the chance that the sites can be used to influence elections, and just decide to ban them. That would destroy them as a business.

    Liked by 3 people

    • DanO64 says:

      When a group of billionaires get together it ain’t about free speech it’s money.

      Liked by 10 people

    • Deplorable_Infidel says:

      “the federal gov’t. regulating this industry ”

      They would welcome it – because then the cost of “regulation” would prevent start-up challengers. Example #1 is Dodd-Frank wiping out the small banks in this country.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Kaiser Derden says:

      just like a christian baker is allowed to refuse service ? like that ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Kaiser Derden says:

      they why won’t they admit they ban as they are legally allowed to do ? why do they do the hand waving and smoke and mirrors dance every time someone asks them why they ban something ?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Michael says:

      I agree about gvt reg HOWEVER these companies have become so successful and so intrusive you almost cannot run a business without using them. Furthermore if you do start a business that shows promise they will swoop down and destroy you.
      Bill Gates wasn’t such a great computer maven but he was/is a hell of a predator.

      They have effectively become a “public” venue except they get to decide what is and is not free speech. Google has become a verb just as Xerox.

      Competition? How’s that working out?

      Not being a lawyer and all but it seems to me Marsh v. Alabama could be applied.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Arrest Soros says:

      @4Sure Yeah that’s all fine and dandy mate except the fact that these companies are classed as “CARRIERS” which means they are not liable for the content posted on their sites (just like a phone company is not liable for what is said on their network).
      The problem with that is these soc-med tech giants DO EDIT, just like newspapers or TV networks, so they SHOULD BE held liable.
      The tech giants want their cake and eat it too. Govt forcing them to choose between being a carrier or being a publisher will stop ALL censorship.

      Liked by 2 people

  17. kenji says:

    Dorsey’s … ironic … SF hipster homeless beard, conceals a heart of darkness. One that believes in CONTROLLED and MANAGED speech. Not FREE speech. NOT the US Constitution.

    The man is starting to look like the Rasputin of social media … yeah … cultivating the look of a mystic

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Meatzilla says:

    Despicable scoundrels don’t know what they actually have – until they actually do.

    Then they go all carpe infinitum on ya.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. BoDeen says:

    Remember Tay? Last year Microsoft launched an AI chatbot that was supposed to learn by conversing with people on Twitter but they shut it down after only 16 hours because it was telling racist jokes. But I’m sure the algorithms Twitter uses are so much better. GIGO still applies.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. CriticalThought says:

    If an algorithm decides an African American is more likely to commit a crime, it is wrong, and the programmer was racist. If an algorithm determines that a speaker is using Hate Speech, because it expresses a conservative viewpoint, it is -=SCIENCE=- and cannot be questioned.

    Liked by 10 people

  21. Meatzilla says:

    I guess The Zuck is still recovering from the previous hearing, huh? *criminy*… You’d think someone lit off an EMP under his chair or something.

    Get well soon, Mark Zuckerberg.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Kenji says:

      THAT!! image needs to get a thousand million retweets … I laughed so hard it made my eyes water … then, I just got cold chills … really cold chills.

      We were told the antiChrist will come like a thief in the night … stealing our thoughts and freedoms … by faceless algorithmic automatons

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Sassy says:

    A personally designed “moment” list of tweets for conservative Rep. Long from MO included 84 tweets from rabid progressive “journalists” at places like CNN and New York Times and only two from conservatives (1 being anti-Trump Bill Kristol) and the other from FOX’s Britt Hume. Rep. Long said the entire list of selected tweets, designed just for him, consisted of Trump bashing. No bias there! They claim to use Long’s interests (conservatism, obviously) to design a list of what he would be interested in; but it sounds more as if it’s designed to give liberals what they’re interested in and conservatives what liberals believe conservatives SHOULD BE interested in, in order to “educate” them so they learn to think right.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. Paul B. says:

    Dorsey the Delusional. Few do narcissistic virtue signalling as well as he. Just don’t criticize him by name regarding his banning of legitimate conservatives, or you’ll end up shadowbanned like I am, starting two years ago. Shadowbanning, btw, is the ultimate in social network cowardice, because it’s done on the QT. The only thing worse is denying you do it, as Dorsey does.

    Liked by 3 people

  24. Concerned says:

    Unable to find the off button on those servers? Well, I think we could find 180,000 Americans who would be delighted to help.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Heika says:

    Okay so they are really working together on this. Jack’s bulldust is reeking from that despicable beard (could this trend PLEASE STOP – ask women what they think about these messy things). Jack, your beard does not make you look more grown up. You are the petulant child, na na na behind the publics back.

    Now the NYT – puts this out a few mins ago. This is flat out TREASON. What can we do about this? Please read it. My stomach turned. ‘we dont usually do this’…. they start the ‘anonymous’ insider letter with – should tell you everything with that book of lies released yesterday full of it, they needed to do something quick. The NYT is looking very very stupid. They all are. Its so clear.
    They have lost their minds. They say they ‘know this insider’.
    This person (which is a lie), would be subverting the US president.
    That would be treason. NYT is involved in aiding and abetting this person.
    PLEASE, someone do something … https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

    Liked by 2 people

    • railer says:

      Just call it a lie, which the NYT does often.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cuppa Covfefe says:

      There was a Soy Boy with a beard,
      Who said, “It is just as I feared!
      Two Owls and a Hen, four Larks and a Wren,
      Have all built their nests in my beard.”

      (Apologies to Edward Lear)

      Like

    • andrew1979 says:

      probably the letter if from the “anonymous” employee that was dreamed up over the last couple weeks to counter the “QAnon” phenomenon. the left now has their insider cult hero for their daily kos and huffpost users to salivate over and tell them the hidden truth so when the “truth” comes out everyone will know it’s “a trump lie and a silencing of democracy”.

      Like

  26. DanO64 says:

    I’d almost bet a quadrillion donuts a group of active senior military officers visited Trump Towers before Our VSG took that historic escalators ride. It wasn’t to try out the famous Trump Taco Bowl if you get my drift. Just say N.

    Liked by 2 people

  27. Boris Dabot says:

    Hackers are hacking FB and Twit accounts all the time. Sooner , or later an Anon will bust in and expose them.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Donna in Oregon says:

    I thought that excuse of “computer glitches” to explain away human error stopped being used after the 90’s.

    Wow, high-tech kids need to get a new shtick. To coin a phrase “the nineties called and they want their excuses back”. snicker

    Q. Who is dumber than these azzhats?

    A. Congress and their staff members.
    B. Media hacks.
    C. Paid Globalist “experts”
    D. All of the above.

    Liked by 1 person

    • mr.piddles says:

      “I thought that excuse of “computer glitches” to explain away human error stopped being used after the 90’s.”

      Well, the United States Department of Justice used that very excuse less than one calendar year ago as an “explanation” for why six critical months of text messages went missing. Poof. Gone. Just like that. Bug must’ve crawled into that system. Which, BTW, was where that term came from. A moth, IIRC.

      DOJ: liars
      Silicon Valley: dangerous liars

      Like

  29. trapper says:

    I will say again: they can’t censor content, and then immediately turn around and claim no liability for content because they are a mere vehicle and don’t control content. If they want to be like the phone company, then they can’t listen in on everyone’s conversations and disconnect their phone service when they don’t approve of what they hear. They must allow prank calls, lying phone solicitors, and bad words to go through. On the other hand, if they insist on controlling content, then every time a riot or demonstration or shooting occurs that was organized on their platform they must be liable for all damage to property and injury to persons that results.

    Regulate them. Take control of their companies away from them. Make them closely regulated utilities with severe penalties for censorship of speech. They have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the forces they have developed.

    Liked by 3 people

  30. AngelOnejudicial says:

    Doesn’t that leftist Saudi Prince who was overthrown own almost half of Twitter stock? He’s a Clinton foundation guy….

    Liked by 1 person

  31. gnadfly says:

    They can’t be allowed to say “it’s the algorithm”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Maquis says:

      It’s THEIR Algorithm. They created it, taught it, and set it loose on us, endlessly regarding us through its eyes, using it to hide things from us, hide us from others, steal from us, manipulate us, lie to us, ad infinitum. It’s anything but a natural neutral benevolent entity.

      The shrugs of unaccountability of their creators are self-servingly disingenuous and pathetic, and contemptible.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Piggy says:

    Some anti-trust violations might do the trick.

    Maybe just end their patents so competition can arise and not go broke in court. Alternate competitive platforms for social media is the solution. I’m not fully sure why we call them social media though. Fakebook is an advertising/marketing business model with users volunteering info. To bad Twitter ran by insane leftists.

    Regulation is sketchy. Further entrenched government.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ristvan says:

      Piggy, see my comment just posted below.
      Antitrust breakup is NOT the solution, since these platforms increase in value because of the unusual economics of increasing marginal returns to scale. An example. POTUS tweets because he reachs so many people so simply. Break up,twitter into 10 pieces, he has to do ten tweets to reach the same audience.
      Worse, those fragments will self sort into echo chambers. And those ten still do not solve the fake news manipulation problem within those echo chambers, whether Alex Jones conspiracies on the right or Russian meddling on the left.

      Now dunno exactly what the right mix of policies and actions is to this general social media problem. Got plenty of ideas to toss into the arena for debate. But am sure complex problems never have simple solutions. Regards.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Justin says:

      Regulation isn’t the answer as it just gives government more leverage to abuse its power. There are free market solutions aplenty:

      1) The obvious is to stop using these platforms. Facebook “user hours” and new user growth has stagnated, a financial issue it’s board of directors has noted.
      2) Class action lawsuits. Everyone of us here with a 401(k) that is not invested strictly in fixed incomes is probably an owner of Facebook or Twitter or both. It seems clear that the censoring and shadow-banning practices have killed off a large volume of pageviews. Page views are directly related to income. Furthermore, these companies have expended company resources to implement these algorithms and content control. Both of these mean that they have deliberately sacrificed revenue and wasted resources for nothing more than their political biases. Should be class-action worthy. One disastrous class action would send the appropriate message.

      Like

  33. Ristvan says:

    I was a very senior executive at a then ‘famous’ Fortune 50 that helped initiate the mobile ‘revolution’. We foresaw these issues eventually emerging way back in the late 1990’s. Foreshadowing them to the ABA Appellate Judiciary section was how I earned my gold SCOTUS cufflinks from the hands of Justice Clarence Thomas in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court (a story told here previously in a now ancient comment to the Rosenstein cufflinks post).

    IMO panic over stuff like Twitter shadowbanning congressmen Meadows and Jordan is not warranted. Outrage, yes, panic no. The social media influence problems have been identified 2016-18, the biases proven 2018. These are now elevated to public and Congressional awareness. Dorsey in the hearing acknowledges only part of the problem, showing his own bias—meaning via this hearing Twitter alone cannot be allowed to institute solutions, as hemis suggesting in his testimony. Muh Russia has nothing to do with shadow banning Jordan.

    Social media is a ‘newish’ tech phenomenon. It will take a few years to find workable solutions to the fake news/bias conundrum. But the sunlight now shined on it means it will eventually happen. Patience. Neither Rome nor internet enabled platforms were built in a day.
    We live in very interesting times, all created by election of twittering PDJT.

    Liked by 3 people

    • andrew1979 says:

      good post – and the underlying problem also seems to be that a HUGE portion of civilization was so enamored and swept in and addicted to all this stuff so fast – and now they cannot even force themselves to give up social media even though they know what it is.

      someone earlier mentioned “you can’t have a business these days without a social media presence.” think about that. a very scary thought.

      sometimes i can’t even believe that it’s only been now 11 years since the INTRODUCTION of the iphone and then soon after android, that brought all of this into our lives and so conveniently. 11 years and society has become something almost unimaginable if you told a regular person the story even at the turn of the century.

      Liked by 2 people

      • NotALiberal says:

        I agree with this wholeheartedly. I deleted my Facebook account nearly 3 years ago, and it took some time, as I could only find “deactivate account” rather than “delete account.” Finally, I found the instructions to delete my account, and I let all “friends” know that I would be deleting my account. So many times I got the question, “How will we be able to contact you?” I responded, “Those I want to hear from have my phone number and personal email. How about a phone call?” Shocking, really, that anyone really had to ask that question.

        Liked by 1 person

  34. ForGodandCountry says:

    There is simply nothing more Americana than this…..livestock auctioneering….from the heartland of fly-over, deplorable country….

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Justin says:

    Well, not much ever comes from being caught lying to Congress. So, these executives have no fear of being caught lying. Besides, they’re liberals, so they lie.

    Like

  36. If I am understanding all this correctly, the basic point is whether these social media companies are carriers (conduits for public discourse) or publishers (Hearst Publishing).
    I would think they should be considered “carriers” and allow all that the bandwidth will carry. Those that pay the bills through buying ads will determine which “groups” get the most bandwidth. But that would be a “capitalist” approach vice the “socialist” approach they appear to be employing.

    Does anyone remember the Windows95 days and the “bulletin boards”?? Perhaps what is old will become new again.
    PS
    Would really be a hoot if anyone here at the Tree House remembers Deep Thoughts on MSN. Or knows who Smoke Wade is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cdquarles says:

      Bulletin boards? Oh yes, I do remember those. I was a sysop for a time, from the late 80s to the mid 90s. (Yes, during the DOS era.) I also remember the rise of Apple Online, The Source and Compuserve. It was the commercial internet that ‘buggy whipped’ them.
      Oh, there used to be literal wooden bulletin boards, too; and I think those still exist.

      Liked by 1 person

  37. Mike Hutchinson says:

    it’s obvious to me that Twitter’s Jack Dorsey is not more than a front man and mouthpiece for authorities higher than him who wish to stay out of the limelight

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Philip Floyd Faustman V says:

    In their arrogant minds they are saving us from ourselves. They are doing us a favor by censoring conservative thought and ideology. The same way this DOJ, FBI, Establishment politicians, National Media, Hollywood and Academia does. The elites want to rule over us and silence us while taking away our rights and freedoms. All for the betterment of society of course. “Give me your guns. Big Government will protect you.” Said every tyrant in modern history!

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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