Trump signs executive order targeting protections for social media companies

User count? Great, while the user count is It doesn't work! If it could work, please, anyone who reads this comment: Many of us are programmers here, propose a rule that doesn't fall apart.

The second interpretation is at least consistent, even if it does protect corporations.

If Twitter is the devil just leave Twitter, no one has to use it. Gab exists. We have no legal right to access the people who are on Twitter.

Here's an example:

I have 2 accounts, one that I use for politics and news, conservative leaning, WSJ, Thomas Sowell, Peter Robinson (Uncommon Knowledge), Kimberley Strassel... that brand of conservatism, not talking about the crazy alt-right shit here which I don't follow, and a second account that I use for my work with only software dev stuffs and mainstream/more neutral media, Reuters etc, nothing that could brand me as conservative.

On my political & news account I'm always getting recommendations for CNN and other left-leaning commentators and media (no recommendation for other conservative outlets) at the top of my recommendation list, or some kind of outrageous claim that a right leaning person would have done, for example, right now got:

"Kellyanne Conway compares voting in person to waiting in line for cupcakes".

Another one: "Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud"

I also got "Don Lemon" on "Trending".

That's the kind of recommendation I'm not getting on my work account, where it's mixed between news (without any outrageous/divise claims unless there's really something crazy that happened that day) and other subjects targeted to my interests.

Is it a scientific proof, no, but once you spend enough time comparing with multiple accounts like that you can see a pretty clear pattern on how they try to influence, and it's not subtle even.

The whole point was the editing of comments. You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion.

> these are different categories of speech

Maybe to the government, not to whether a website is a publisher or a platform. Protected political speech and criticism of the government has nothing to do with the topic at hand, no matter how many times you keep trying to inject it.

I think you are making a poor argument. Somebody could take your exact argument and say that you cannot have anti-discrimination laws for hiring or renting.

We would also handle abuses / accusations of abuses in the same way as anti discrimination laws.

I think what conservatives tend to see are a few examples where there appears to be bias. Liberals say something that violates the TOC and it doesn't get censored or when it does it takes longer for it to be censored. When a conservative says the same thing it get censored much faster.

For example an Asian who is liberal saying "white people are bs" is perfectly acceptable but a black conservative person saying "Jewish people are bs" with explicit notice that it is a parody of the first is not acceptable.

There are many examples where this happens but most publicly know cases appears to be against conservative.

This is of course possibly anecdotal but its understandable to come to the conclusion when Jack Dorsey admitted that most of the moderators are liberal.

Its hard to know if there is actual bias since people who don't have a large following don't make the news when they are censored.

I think a way to solve this would be:

1. Have more people with a variety of views on the moderation team.

2. Require multiple people to accept that something should be censored. Ideally people with different views.

3. Have a moderation log that allows watch groups review if they want.

I am not sure if Twitter could ask for political views prior to hiring a moderator so that could be an issue.