A Little Shadowban Question

Sharing Options

If you would, please bear with me — I need to begin with a little test. I have some reason to suspect that I may have been shadowbanned by Twitter. If you know not what that is, here is a brief article on it by Milo Yiannopoulos, the self-described “dangerous faggot.”

So first the test. This morning I sent out the following three tweets:

Where’s the harm? they said. It’s just a little reality television, they said. (at 6:19 am)

Kim Kardashian, VPOTUS (at 6:20 am)

Time for Calvinists to prepare for Lesson Three. Jesus is Lord, first of comedy and then of tragedy. But is He the Lord of farce? (at 6:23 am)

If you follow me on Twitter and did not receive any or all of these, could you please say so in the comments below? Thanks mucho. I want to use up what little Spanish I have before Mexico pays for the wall to go up.

I know that some are still getting them because of retweets and such, but something is still funky. I have just over 23,000 followers, and there is some reason to believe that a goodly number of you are not seeing my trenchant witticisms scrolling by in your feed. This being obviously intolerable, I thought that a question should at least be raised.

But were you going to say something helpful?
But were you going to say something helpful?

We all should know by this time that progressive commitment to free political speech is about as deep as a wet spot on the pavement. Now to be fair, if free speech is defined as a performance artist stripping nekkid, dousing herself with two bottles of Hershey’s chocolate syrup and then dumping a bag of glitter over her head, then the commitment of the left to free speech must be considered as absolute. But if you want to use your free speech to, you know, say stuff, then the situation is quite altered.

Now I know this could be paranoia. I know. But as the wise man said, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you. That needs to be considered as well.

So, there it is. Please comment if you have missed me.

232
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
40 Comment threads
192 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
56 Comment authors
Luke PrideSpike Pittardtimothyashvjillybean Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
curtis sheidler
Guest
curtis sheidler

Twitter feed looks fine to me, Doug. It’s how I was made aware of this post, in fact.

Paul
Guest
Paul

Looks fine to me too.

Matthew Hoover
Guest
Matthew Hoover

I can see all three of the referenced tweets on my regular feed. I have to say though that over the weekend I saw the tweet about the clown nose and remarked to myself “I don’t think I’ve seen anything from Doug for a while”. I had the impression that you hadn’t been very active for a few weeks.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

Say what you want about Milo, he does have probably the best idea for the Pope to effect a major global redistribution of wealth — BRING BACK INDULGENCES.

http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2016/02/19/sorry-papa-but-daddy-trump-is-the-one-defending-catholics-from-invaders/

Luke Pride
Guest

If my reading of history is correct, the indulgences tended to feed on the ignorance of the peasants. And even if the wealthy bought more the money lined the pockets of the Vatican and not those in need. As Doug has quoted elsewhere the poor are a goldmine

Daniel Foucachon
Member

I use my Twitter primarily to post vs read, so I don’t usually find articles that way, but when I look you up, all three tweets came in just fine. However, they would probably come up just fine if you are being “Shadowbanned” (new term for me, but not a shock). It would effect your organic reach. Anyone with a small amount of people they follow, or who have you on a list, would still see you, but you’re basically “disfavored” from organic results. I’m less familiar with Twitter algorithms, but on Facebook, organic reach is heavily affected by early… Read more »

Ed
Guest
Ed

I saw all three tweets mentioned, plus the one that brought me here. I do remember thinking you’d been a bit quiet recently tho…

Dave
Guest
Dave

Did not receive but would like to know why I never see my posted comments.

Gabriel Rench
Guest
Gabriel Rench

I just looked at the last 12hrs of my twitter feed on my Ipad twitter app and did not see those tweets.

Tom©
Guest
Tom©

Dias quatro

Jane
Member

No tengo Twitter, but they’re showing up in my Facebook feed.

Coyote287
Guest
Coyote287

I saw the tweet referencing this post.

One assumes that if I search for your name, that all your tweets will show up, because a shadowban should be sneakier than that. And they do.

yom24hrday
Member
yom24hrday

No, all your tweets show up as alerts on my iphone 6

Coyote287
Guest
Coyote287

My issue with Twitter is incessant trump stumping and Ted Cruz bashing lately. And vice versa. Of course it it is a function of who I follow. (I’m OK with the Hillary Bashing). I am tired of all the wild accusations and assurances that Candidate X is the second coming that are flying around and therefore I spend less time on Twitter. Maybe others are doing the same.

David Koenig
Guest
David Koenig

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3032123/social-media/6-things-you-should-know-about-twitters-timeline-change.html

This was a slight change in design, by showing relevant posts rather than every post by everyone you’re subscribed to. Supposedly it’s opt-out, though I haven’t tried yet.

Whether there is trickery in the definition of ‘relevant’ is an exercise for the reader.

Mark Beauchamp
Guest

All three and auto-post with link to this article showing up in the timeline.

insanitybytes22
Member

Not that anyone cares, but it’s hard for me to cough up any empathy for those who may be getting shadow banned, because most of them are quick to censor and ban anyone who expresses differing opinions. How dare anyone silence me! Only I am allowed to silence people…and doxx them, threaten them, harass them.

It’s a bit like the irony of “men supporting rape satire forced to cancel meetings due to fears for their personal safety.” You don’t say?? I wonder if there might be a lesson hidden in there somewhere?

Coyote287
Guest
Coyote287

You’re right, we don’t care.

insanitybytes22
Member

Your lack of caring is what has led to the problem in the first place, so what else can one do but laugh when your own house of cards starts falling on you?

nathantuggy
Member

Yes, Doug has definitely silenced, doxxed, threatened, and harassed people. Oh wait.

More to the point: “I support free speech for anyone who’s decent” just means you don’t support free speech at all.

P.S. All three tweets spotted in my feed, Doug, and I’ve got you on RSS too just in case things go south.

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

Please let us know where you have actually seen this happen, and I will personally call out their hypocrisy on twitter with you.

Otherwise, accusing people of gross behavior without any actual evidence of that behavior just makes you a GIANT a-hole.

insanitybytes22
Member

I have plenty of evidence of gross behavior on the part many manospherians who go about acting like idiots on Twitter, on the internet at large, and they act like wounded little birds when they get bit in the behind by their own tactics. I never accused Doug Wilson of anything, I said this behavior began on the right side of the aisle and to act as if it is an invention of the Left is simply false.

JP Stewart
Member
JP Stewart

The issue is they get banned from Twitter and various other “neutral” social media platforms, while the Left doesn’t…even if when they talk about killing white people and other topics that warm your little ol’ heart.

insanitybytes22
Member

“The issue is they get banned from Twitter and various other “neutral” social media platforms, while the Left doesn’t..”

The issue is actually that they ban everyone from their social media and blogs, than proceed to attack people from behind the safety of their keyboards….. while pointing fingers at the Vast Leftwing Conspiracy allegedly trying to silence them. It’s complete hypocrisy with an extra heaping of cowardice and paranoia.

JP Stewart
Member
JP Stewart

You’re still not getting it. There’s a huge difference between Twitter, FB, etc., selectively banning certain parties–and admittedly partisan blogs banning people. As for the latter, it’s MUCH more common for SJW types.

I’m wondering if you’re trolling or were hacked. Your posts are getting progressively worse.

Benjamin Polge
Guest
Benjamin Polge

once again, please site specific allegations of ‘banning and censorship’ by specific individuals on the right, along with any conclusive evidence you have. Man-boys, from both sides of the aisle, don’t count. They have never invented anything, nor will they ever.

Jane
Member

This would be a reasonable response if Doug fit your category in any way. A quick scan down any one of these threads is evidence that being too quick to ban is hardly his failing.

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

You’re not ME.

Lance Roberts
Guest

Saw them on my feed.

hillbillygeek
Guest

3 for 3 on facebook

Spencer Stewart
Guest
Spencer Stewart

3 for 3

Brian Cotner
Guest
Brian Cotner

I am reading (tweeting) you loud and clear. If you want to be shadow-banned, it appears that you’re going to have to try harder! ;-)

insanitybytes22
Member

“We all should know by this time that progressive commitment to free
political speech is about as deep as a wet spot on the pavement”

True, no doubt about that, but do you know who invented shadow banning, doxxing, assorted forms of bullying, silencing, and abuse? The far right, Doug Wilson. They taught progressives everything they know.

Jane
Member

Okay, I’ve figured it out. This is not the same ME we’ve been hearing from these last few weeks. This is an identity thief troll, and probably one who’s been banned from here before. No wonder he perceives that banning goes on everywhere — he’s probably gotten himself banned everywhere for good reason.

ashv
Guest
ashv

It’s the same account, though.

Jane
Member

Looking at the profile, there’s a pretty dramatic shift about two days ago. All it takes is for someone to hack a password.

katie
Guest
katie

Jane, what is it about ME’s recent comments that seems odd to you?

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I sense a change as well, but sometimes a topic about which we feel really passionate can bring out uncharacteristic expressions of emotion. I have a couple of buttons which, when pressed, produce raw feeling of a combative nature. Even gentle and loving souls like ME can decide one day that this is the hill they are going to die on.

Ian Miller
Member

And to be fair, the alt right is really tragic – if you are a conservative, seeing someone take what you believe and add just a drop of virulent poison can really bother you.

jesuguru
Guest
jesuguru

Can’t be. ME is not herself! It’s not ME anymore! Someone has taken ME over! Who is ME anyway? Serious question.

insanitybytes22
Member

Me is still me, and I am ticked off at Milo, Vox Day, Dalrock, assorted ‘shperians of the alt right who engage in appalling behavior on the internet and then cry like little babies when they get a dose of their own medicine. That little cultian group put out the message that Twitter was shadow banning people to jin up paranoia and controversy.

I hate bullies and liars. If you ever hear me being sweet and tolerant about such hypocritical behavior than you’ll know I’ve been hacked.

Christopher
Member
Christopher

“Me is still me”

Good, there’s one existensial dilemma cleared up.

timothy
Guest
timothy

“Me is still me” …A kiss is still a kiss…the fundamental things apply as time goes by…

bethyada
Member

I understand your impression; but your claim about them receiving their own medicine in unlikely to be the case.

Now Christians can be shrewd but they need to fight using God’s ways which does limit us at times (though limits less than the “nice” claim demands). So I think some of their methods are not permissible.

Nevertheless, there is good evidence that they are responding to attacks against them.

insanitybytes22
Member

“…but your claim about them receiving their own medicine in unlikely to be the case…” Based on what? I have clearly stated that I have read their words, observed their interactions, watched the alt right, doxx, harass, and bully people. So naturally Twitter or whatever authority is appealed to, must respond to people’s concerns. There is cause and effect going on here. Suddenly the tables are turned and they are the ones allegedly being shadow banned and silenced. Also, just because one calls themselves a Christian and claims to be following Christ, does not make one a good representative who… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Based on material going back a decade. They have decided to fight back. Now I think one can fight back, but I think that one cannot automatically use the same tactics as the enemy. Though one can modify them. So Wilson’s Rules for Reformers gets this right. He looks at Alinsky’s ideas and sees how they can be legitimately used against those who use them. Day’s SLWs always Lie doesn’t always get this. So he makes some suggestions on how to respond which are legitimate, some which are not. Though he does get right that we are to to fight… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“This is not too dissimilar from Wilson’s comment about tacit agreement to the propriety of rape.” Well, I can see some very clear and vast distinctions. It concerns me that so many other Christians cannot. Also, rhetorical trickery is no excuse for sin nor for the condition of one’s heart. “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” There’s no strawman about it, people like VD do more to drive people away from conservatism, away from Christ Himself, than all of the Marxists… Read more »

bethyada
Member

ME it is a strawman, because Day has never promoted throwing acid in women’s faces. I drew the analogy because people were claiming that Wilson was saying that women deserve rape, or want rape. They were wrong in what his sentence meant. So here is how I think an honest response to Day might go (I am not saying I think this, but rather what I consider a more honest attempt at refutation). While Day was giving a hypothetical about the a “rational” use of acid on women around the world in response to a question possed by atheist Myers,… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

I’m not going to explain to a grown man, to an alleged mensa member, to somebody professing Christ’s name, that it is wrong to advocate throwing acid in women faces. I don’t care what rhetorical games he was playing or how his opponents might view him. I care about the fact that people like you will not even condemn his nonsense for what it is. Perhaps you’d like to now defend the part where he praised Anders Behring Breivik or called children sold into sex slavery “human trash?” Nevermind. I get it. You’ve chosen ideology and rhetoric over right and… Read more »

bethyada
Member

ME, my point was that he does not advocate throwing acid in women’s faces. There is a common logical technique called reductio ad absurdum. One assumes what he is trying to disprove. The assumption is not what one thinks. The assumption may even be a nasty one. But it is assumed as part of the logical technique in order to disprove it. Now that is not what Day is doing here but it is similar. He is not advocating it. One can’t defend an ally’s poor reasoning because he otherwise agrees with him nor condemn an opponent because he otherwise… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“ME, my point was that he does not advocate throwing acid in women’s faces.” And the serpent never really advocated eating the fruit, either, he simply engaged in a bit of reductio ad absurdum and asked, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’? Ye shall not surely die!” Facts, the logic of your argument, do not matter one bit you do not have charity, if your heart is not in the right place. The Pharisees had many good arguments and even the law on their side and yet they were vipers. The right… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Quite possibly ME.

My point was that you fight with truth, not by reproducing the left’s lies. That is why I put up a sample retort: to show that one can disagree, but one has to disagree using truth. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees by revealing their hypocrisy. Jesus didn’t tell lies about them, or reproduce the Sadducees false accusations.

insanitybytes22
Member

“My point was that you fight with truth, not by reproducing the left’s lies.”

My point is that a lie is a lie and the truth is the truth and one cannot simply declare that if a lie is told that benefits a right leaning ideology than it is a good lie.

bethyada
Member

Still, I do think you are incorrect in seeing the acid comments as an implicit argument for this type of behaviour (Satan intended for Eve to eat the fruit). It may be that the right fails to see some on the right who are false, but then there is no lack of right leaning people complaining about the Trump, and the right is much better at shooting their own than the left. But in terms of the truly diabolical methods of argument—the use of apology as a weapon: calling for apologies then using the apology as an admission of guilt,… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Goodness, who belongs to Mensa? It’s probably just me, but that has always struck me as ridiculous. Imagine having a special club for the tallest men or the prettiest women. Intelligence is lovely, but it is just an accident of birth like everything else.

Ian Miller
Member

To be fair, much as I think you might be right about ME’s account, the alt right is pretty terrible.

Ben Carmack
Guest
Ben Carmack

Concerning the alt right, the admonition at the end of this post is helpful…

http://baylyblog.com/blog/2006/06/out-heart-mouth-speaks

Ian Miller
Member

1) Thanks for the link! I already thought this about the alt right (including the two who post here, Barnabas and ashv), but at least here they attempt to make it sound like they’re being Biblical. That blog does a nice job of pointing out how they talk to each other, where the naked hatred and racial vainglory comes out in full force. 2) Wow, I had no idea that baylyblog was from the son of the man who wrote the Gooly story (and How Silently, How Silently, and many others I love). That’s pretty cool! 3) I have not… Read more »

Jane
Member

I’m not even sure I know who these people are, but from what I’m picking up in this thread, I agree.

Ian Miller
Member

They are the “conservatives” who dip into men’s rights activism, pick-up artist modelling of sexual relationships, cultural supremacy shading into racism, and like to call people who are “less” conservative than they “cuckservatives.”

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

Do they try to blend this with Christianity? I don’t think that’s what Charles Kingsley had in mind when he extolled Muscular Christians.

Ian Miller
Member

Some, like ashv, Barnabas, and Vox Day, claim to. Some do not.

Ben Carmack
Guest
Ben Carmack

Well, they rarely use their real names in debate, preferring the effeminate world of Internet anonymity. Their beliefs are so dear to them that they could never man up and sign their Christian names next to them, as countless other faithful Christians have done through the centuries. But, you see, those of us who do identify ourselves and our positions, we are the wimps, the cucks, the sissies…not the effeminate weirdos obsessed with race…

timothy
Guest
timothy

When St. Peter broke from jail in Acts, he did not turn himself into the authorities; he did not ‘man up’ did he?;

As the blog post on twitter shadowbanning shows, sometimes it is Christian discernment and wisdom to converse under a pseudonym.

Your insistence is not a generally valid principle.

Ben Carmack
Guest
Ben Carmack

Anonymity has its uses, and there are exceptions to my rule that Christian men should sign their names next to what they say. Particularly though, it is helpful to sign your name when criticizing or attacking someone else. Arguments are frequently personal, and it is the better part of manliness and Christian faith today to fly our flag as we shoot our bullets. To that end, it is telling that Alt Right types avoid signing their names. It reveals a certain shame about their beliefs, a shame brought on by a conscience that knows that racism is a sin that… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

A better line of attack than attempting to shame the alt-right over its use of anonymity would serve you well; there are good Christian men and women included in the NRx sphere of influence and their Christian witness is advancing the Gospel and injecting Christianity into some pretty deep analysis on some fundamental issues. The discussion works both ways and it is not immoral for a Christian to consider these ideas and to learn from them. To do so, one must then argue that it is immoral to learn from Aristotle about the rules of logic because Aristotle was a… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member
JP Stewart

I honestly think Alt-Right Stasi is trolling and/or trying to make the alt-right look bad. He’s even worse than ME, who has near-hysterical, estrogenized reactions to everything in the manosphere. Both sound like caricatures.

insanitybytes22
Member

Thank you for the estrogenized compliment. Since I am a girl, I don’t mind at all. I rather enjoy being estrogenized and even near hysterical, when the situation calls for such things. I am not hacked, but you however, may be a complete moron. My gravatar is linked to my blog which is linked to my email, which happens to be my full legal name. It is as if I have left you a trail of glow in the dark breadcrumbs and yet you persist in trying to claim I am a troll or hacked, an attempt to disqualify if… Read more »

JP Stewart
Member
JP Stewart

Well, ME liked your post. I don’t know if it’s the real ME, the hacked ME, the trolling ME or the ME that’s actually the same person as Alt-Right Stasi, but at least you got a like.

Ian Miller
Member

I did get a like – and I also got a like from timothy in my discussion with Alt-Right-Stasi, which greatly confuses me.

bethyada
Member

Why should that confuse you?

Ian Miller
Member

I felt like I was articulating positions which timothy would agree with ARS, not myself.

bethyada
Member

Not at all. Some of us believe that unchecked migration is not a good thing because it changes the demographic too quickly, or because you allow in criminals. And nationalism may be a good thing as it opposes globalism (ie. single ruling group/ Tower of Babel rebellion). However nationalism can be distorted to an intense tribalism (though tribalism is not necessarily wrong and seems quite natural). Yet none of this needs to be connected to genetic race. All men are of one blood. And there is nothing wrong with interracial marriage (even the previous Jewish restrictions were more about being… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

I actually tend to agree with that. While I think that people and countries should be desirous of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, the hungry and naked do not have a “right” to the food or clothing because of that responsibility. I also think that any government attempting to rule the world does tend towards the idolatry of the Tower of Babel – a very good metaphor, thank you! That Hideous Strength, indeed! I don’t think tribalism is wrong – I do think that man’s loyalties must and should be in a hierarchy – to God, to family,… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

My own assumption is that culture matters and culture is downstream from Him. I also think that differences in culture is a good thing and that race influences culture. I also think that differences in race is a good thing. Like all that is good, sin corrupts. Let’s simplify the model and take a look at the limits. In a non-fallen world, race and culture would still be a thing (would it?) created by God for man’s well being and for His glory. We would honor His creation and nurture (?) what He has given us. In a world given… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Race would still exist. I don’t know about culture. I’ll address race first. God divided men because of the tower of Babel. This was early on and I presume that men separated with their wives and children. Thus physical features would have separated. Had they separated before building a tower then physical features may well have separated as well. Most features are due to variation that God gave us: Skin colour, hair colour, hair shape, eye fat, facial shape, lip thickness. Some features may be due to mutation: eye colour, red hair, milk tolerance in adulthood, albinism. It is not… Read more »

bethyada
Member

As to culture, well it depends. Aspects of culture are either moral on amoral. So without a Fall many of the behaviours we see in cultures would not exist. No suttee (India), no honour killings (Middle East), no casual sex (North America). I suspect that we would see similarities to a Western culture (there are many caveats to this statement), or what the West was becoming pre secularisation as I believe that the West developed out of a Christian worldview. That said, it is hard to know what would have developed pre-Fall as would be free of avarice and envy… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

This is a rich vein to explore . Look at some trees. We have ‘tree’ and yet a palm is not a redwood. Both thrive, but in completely different environments. both are beautiful. I think that God wielding that same concept across ‘man’ is a valid idea (although possibly not scriptural, to which I will yield and revise my view if necessary) If it is a valid idea, then it is mandatory that we study the differences and think clearly about them for we want our civic life to honor the divine order. To link this back to the alt-right/NRx… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Can I add that the rest of the world doesn’t always get as uptight as the US about racism. Most countries are tribalist. My foreign friends say that the West is functionally less tribalist than Western countries (at less NZ) than Asia or the Middle East.

And while racism is generally a sin, some minor forms of tribalism would be considered racist by the left yet are probably not sin.

Ian Miller
Member

Very true. Whenever someone in Europe criticizes the US for being racist, I really want to slam them with a “log in your eye” retort.

timothy
Guest
timothy

I encourage free, brave, rigorous discussion of difficult issues. My like is to encourage you to contine and to refine your argument. I frequently upvote both sides of such discussions

See my reply to Jillybean for my take.

Ian Miller
Member

Ah, thank you! I will continue to try to articulate my values and understanding of the Bible, and appreciate your encouragement.

Gianni
Member
Gianni

I testify of it, that of those three tweets that thou sendest, not even one was lost, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, “The tweets were three on this side, and three on that side; they three were of one measure” (Ezekiel chapter 40, verse 10, literal translation from the Hebrew).

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Got em and you still have the blue check. Who’s a guy got to dis to get shadowbanned around here? Alas, you will just have to try harder.

TedR
Guest
TedR

Strange. I don’t see your tweets in my feed (Twitter app on my iPhone) but when I go to my lists and look at the list to which I’ve added you, I see you there.

This exercise has also revealed that I follow way too many people.

David Trounce
Guest

Doug, strangely, I have been thinking of both you and Milo all week. You are in almost total agreement on a good number of cultural issues – except perhaps some minor points of theology. I listened to him defending Christianity the other day in the face of a ballistic atheist. The two of you should get together for a university tour in which neither of you will be welcomed. Twitter is changing its algorithm as we speak and it may very well affect your reach. Start building a Twitter list, I say! Here is some of the guff that Twitter… Read more »

Kyle M. Schmitz
Guest
Kyle M. Schmitz

All three coming through loud and clear.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

Though 23,000 followers is nothing to sneeze at, your suggestion that the managers of Twitter might be purposely hiding your comments because they are progressives that hate your free speech is laughable. It reveals the foolishness of your world view. It puts your paranoid fear that the Commie left might be trying to silence your voice on full display.Believe me, you can say as much “stuff” as you want, Doug, and Twitter will not ban you.

David Trounce
Guest

Spike that’s just silly talk. Where have you been? A simple Google search on the topic proves otherwise.

adad0
Member

Hmmmm, ‘wonder who spikei works for?
;-)

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

Yes. I wonder. Could it be, maybe . . . twitter? Probably, huh?

adad0
Member

Well, I am curios, but did you notice in the piano posts that neither of us are Trump fans? It’s almost like we were on the same page on something!????
Hope that happens more!

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

I did notice that. Made me feel good. And I don’t work for twitter, for the record.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

So I did a simple Google search, like you said. Are you referring to the ONE report by Breitbart that cites ONE twitter insider? Virtually all of the other pages that come up when one searches for “twitter shadowban” are based on that one Breitbart report. There is not a wealth of evidence showing that twitter is banning conservative voices. Can you point me to a bounty of credible evidence that would give Doug reason to believe that twitter is after him?

By the way “silly talk” is saying things like: “just google it” as a counter argument.

David Trounce
Guest

I agree with your last point. That would be a rubbish argument. Speaking of Google, you may need to widen your search. Out of curiosity though, how many examples would you need to believe the possibility exists?

Ian Miller
Member

But if, Spike, someone like you thinks that Doug is “harrassing” someone like, say, Natalie Greenfield, then you might, possibly, report Doug to the Twitter Committee for Truth and Safety, and they very well might shadowban him.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

Uh . . . yes, if someone is being harassed on twitter, then actions should be taken to stop the harassment. Your point? Lots of “if” in your response. There is no reason to believe that twitter is shadowbanning Doug. The only evidence he gives to support that such a thing might be happening is that liberals love to lie.

Ian Miller
Member

Woah, comment necro!

The ifs are meant to convey sarcasm.

I do agree that there is precious little evidence for or against the shadowban or any specific ideological biases – except for the fact that Twitter is (and this part isn’t interpretation, it’s simply what Twitter did) hiring very well known far-left people to investigate the harassment issue. Megan McArdle writes a very good piece on why Twitter is losing whether it pursues its current course or did nothing. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-24/twitter-can-only-lose-when-it-polices-abuse

Lev Bronshtein
Guest

It’s pretty well known that liberals can’t stand truth and try to suppress it at every opportunity.

Spike Pittard
Guest
Spike Pittard

It’s well known by all those that believe it, anyway. But is there evidence for this claim? Liberals can’t stand truth? Do you realize how ridiculous that kind of blanket generalization sounds? Do you know any liberals? Are they all liars?

Andrew Price
Guest
Andrew Price

Loud and clear the other side of the pond (that’s the Atlantic btw not the village pond)

The Canberean
Guest

I follow you and got all 3 tweets.

Ian Miller
Member

I follow you and I don’t see those tweets in my timeline. I can see them if I go to your profile, but they’re not popping up in my other tweets.

Eric Wilson
Guest
Eric Wilson

I can’t see any of them, scrolled back to 13 hours ago, search on page, nothing. But I see them on your page.

gerv
Guest
gerv

I see them all.

Fred
Guest
Fred

Crazy. I don’t recall seeing those tweets either

Lucas Weeks
Guest

I don’t understand how Twitter works, but I did not see those three tweets in my recent timeline. I found them when I searched.

I’m incredulous about tests like this. Asking people to Google something to see what page rank it has, for instance, is never reliable, since Google tailors it’s results to the individual. So there’s often a lot of juju going on in the background that is complicated.

Still, I don’t know how else to test it, so more power to ya.

Susie
Guest
Susie

Hahaha. Paranoid much? Is poor Dougie not getting enough attention lately?

adad0
Member

“Please comment here if you have missed me.” DW
Well Susie, at least DW got some attention from you! ????
That may have been the plan!

krolp
Member

I could see the tweets when I searched for your profile, but I could not see them in my feed (even going back to the time at which you sent them).

Frank_in_Spokane
Guest
Frank_in_Spokane

Shadowbanned?

What does CS Lewis have to do with Twitter?

What’s that? What ….

OOOOooooooh.

Never mind!

timothy
Guest
timothy

Jilly Bean and Jane, (and barnabas and ashv and Pastor Wilson)

Here is a video that does a good job of explaining the NRx take on sexual roles.

http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/5minute_arguments/thoughtcrimes_why_women_d.php

There are maybe 3 severe cusswords in it. It is well worth your time to familiarize yourself with how these folks think. (It isn’t Jane Austen (: )

ashv
Guest
ashv

I’m curious what you think Austen would have disagreed with in that video.

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

I expect it could only be the use of language one did not use in the presence of ladies.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Alas, if all women were ladies the concerns expressed in that video would be much smaller.

timothy
Guest
timothy

heh.

I haven’t read Austen. Jilly and Jane where recently in a long sub-thread on the topic of Austen. They seemed to enjoy it, my eyes glazed over….

J. Frank Norris
Guest
J. Frank Norris

Pretty sure your lack of response is not because you’ve been shadowbanned, but because the tweets were kinda lame.

C Nightingale
Guest
C Nightingale

I saw #2 & 3

Luke Pride
Guest

So no comment on milo ?