I really don’t agree with everything he writes, but compared to some other stuff I see on twitter, I think it’s still…ok’ish.
When I googled “scott adams shadowbanned” I found only very little about it…only people that repeated his claim and a link to a breitbart article which I didn’t want click on.
And so I’m wondering: do people really get shadowbanned if twitter inc. thinks that they are jerks?
and do other social networks do it?
Do you have any insights, thoughts and/or opinions about this topic?
If enough people report someone on Twitter, but it doesn’t merit a suspension or termination, maybe, maybe, they do this “shadowban” thing, but given the source, and the subsequent regurgitation by Breitbart, I’d give it the merit it’s due (very little).
I just saw that Douglas Adams writes here he was contacted by twitter’s Jack Dorsey (who said “no, we don’t shadowban anyone”)
… and they agreed to go to the bottom of the allegation. Adams and his followers are going to screenshot evidence and hand it to twitter and then they’ll see further.
This might be some chem-trail/fake-moon-landing like allegation which could be falsified and so I’m interested in the outcoming…
You mean Scott Adams, I assume, Douglas Adams has been dead since 2004
That said, Scott Adams has a known conservative lean to him, and I think we in the states have seen exactly how paranoid the big-r Right can be about things that there’s no real evidence of.
And this: “I won’t ask you to believe me about Twitter’s backdoor assault on the First Amendment.” Seriously, Scott? I get that you’re a brilliant man, but that simply means you should know this better - a company telling you can’t say something on their platform, which we don’t have any actual evidence of here, isn’t an assault on the First Amendment, because it doesn’t apply to companies. It’s so freakin’ disingenuous to call it an assault on the First Amendment!
Honestly, I don’t see any reason Twitter would do this - he even mentions that it’s “done to seem like a bug or perceptually different”. Truthfully, it could literally just be Twitter giving him lower relevance.
You mean Scott Adams, I assume, Douglas Adams has been dead since 2004
Yes, of course (maybe i swapped the names because i recently watched Dirk Gently’s)
Seriously, Scott? I get that you’re a brilliant man, but that simply means you should know this better
Right…when I read a block post (let’s say once in two weeks), I often wonder if he deliberately chooses not to think it further because it might ruin the whole point and then he would have to start over and come up with a different idea.
Please respect our code of conduct which is simple: don't be a dick.
(maybe i swapped the names because i recently watched