re: Has Twitter always done this? Allowing authors to hide replies.

quote:

---

why do you clown's think twitter has this big conspiracy to silence certain ppl and boost up others? it's weird af

---

Uh. Because they do.

They shadowbanned 3 republican congressmen. We saw the admin GUI when they got hacked so we know it happens. It’s not some secret.

is that what you read in Qanon dude?

no need because I know you're lying

jack the ceo testified to the house that the service is impartial to political ideology

quote:

---

why do you clown's think twitter has this big conspiracy to silence certain ppl and boost up others?

---

Because that's exactly what they do?

quote:

---

jack the ceo testified to the house that the service is impartial to political ideology

---

quote:

---

no need because I know you're lying

---

Thanks for the laugh. Didn’t know you became a troll.

Just in case



The shadowbanning

you're still lying. that doesn't prove they did it because of politics

quote:

---

Clearly a way to control narratives. Twitter used to be a place where you could expect challenging responses.

Nearly every “hidden reply” on a political post is simply conservatives being filtered out.

---

Yep, liberal way of censorship of common sense rebuttal. It's keeping the sheep more in line so they can't recognize common sense.

quote:

---

Clearly a way to control narratives. Twitter used to be a place where you could expect challenging responses.

---

Ostensibly it could be used to help control trolling, but I share your fear on this issue.

The internet as a whole could be a place where ideas are exchanged and we all converge after good faith conversations.

There is already an enormous problem with people seeking confirmation bias and putting themselves into echo chambers. Functions like this only make that problem infinitely worse and make the goal of convergence pretty hopeless.

Most of the time it's a pretty good rule of thumb that if your argument essentially requires censorship to hold true, that's a red flag that your argument needs work.

quote:

---

you're still lying. that doesn't prove they did it because of politics

---

Where did I say it had to do with politics?

My points are: They manipulate the spread of content based on an algorithm that is not based on user preferences. What that is exactly, we don’t know for sure. The assumption can be to limit the power of bots. But it seems to have had other implications based on tone/narrative/specific words. They DO shadowban.