@Wetrix

I'll answer as I've answered to @freemo - marking someone post (filled with bullshit and lies) with a rather delicate suggestion "you can check more on this subject here" is not censorship by any known definition of this word :)

@kravietz @freemo no I agree but it's definitely bias.

@kravietz

Agreed, though I am more than happy that Trump is dumb enough to think it is and react by trying to crack down on censorship and make sure that social media is held accountable.. if they often fact check and say "this is a lie, here is a link explaining why" they should be held accountable for that if it isnt a lie.

@Wetrix

@freemo @kravietz yeah for sure. It's not censorship but the bias left is so blatant it's ridiculous. That's why I left Twitter. It was a bias and censored platform.

@kravietz @freemo they cherry pick who they do it to. Doesn't matter if it's Trump who is a lunatic to be sure but it's still bias.

@Wetrix @freemo

To be honest, they should have annotated Trump's posts like a year ago. His posts were being reported by thousands of people, but he enjoyed immunity.

@kravietz

I agree, I am find with the annotations. I just want to make sure there are legal rules in place ensuring that should there be evidence of unfairness there are reprocussions.

@Wetrix

@freemo @Wetrix

The rules are simple: if a tweet is reported by many people as abusive/fake/inciting violence it should be annotated. Trump, so far, was one of the most hateful posters, yet he enjoyed full immunity.

@kravietz

I dont think annotations should be dictated by the masses.

@Wetrix

@freemo @Wetrix

Any Internet forum had a "report a spammer" button like forever.

@kravietz

Using the community to report offending posts is ok. but those reports should be reviewed and ultimately the decision should be limited to the moderators and not a popular vote.

@Wetrix

@freemo @Wetrix

Who said it's a popular vote on Twitter? They granted him immunity for a few years already anyway.

@kravietz @freemo I don't think the popularity matters, it's the fairness involved.

If you set a precitent you have to be fair and hold everyone to it, not pick and choose like Twitter does.

@Wetrix @freemo

But you surely realize that much less abusive tweets have been not only annotated by actually deleted for like years now? Trump has been enjoying the privilege of being an elected president at the same time and it's actually now when he was treated fairly, like everyone else.

@kravietz @freemo true, but Twitter (and Facebook) have been known for having blatant bias pretty much since day one.

That like you said may have to do with the leftist culture of silicon valley but it still shouldn't happen.

@Wetrix @freemo

Not tagging posts by a psychopatic person that have been periodically reported certainly is a bias, but fortunately that has been fixed recently :)

@kravietz @freemo true, but they won't even be consistent about that lol 😂

Sorry for late replies I'm eating dinner 😎

@Wetrix @freemo

No prob, I'm sleeping after all 😂 Bon apetit 🍽️

@freemo @Wetrix

Trump's posts were reported for years, yet nobody ever dared to touch them because he's "elected president" aka "ultimate wisdom". He's a violent and harmful imbecile and such people should not be protected, they should be isolated, especially if they are presidents.

@Wetrix

There is bias for sure, specifically when it comes to accounts they suspend. I'm not sure it is intentional though. I think it is the result of hiring people who themselves have lean (silicon valley randoms).

@kravietz

@freemo @kravietz intentional or not it shouldn't be happening and it does.

I don't mind discussions but I want to hear both sides equally.

@Wetrix @freemo

First, you're here, not on Twitter, so you wouldn't hear Trump either.

Second, if you were on Twitter, you would still hear him if you were subscribed, just with a side note "you can read more info here" (literally)