Conservatives Are Being Silenced

Author: Danielle

Posts

Total: 33
Topic's author
#1
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4

“It’s time to stand up against the muzzling of America.” — Senator Josh Hawley in a tweet and  op-ed for the New York Post

"Hi there, thanks for reading this. I’m being censored. That’s why I’m writing a piece in a major publication that you are consuming easily and for free. Because I am being absolutely and completely muzzled.

Also, I just went on a massively-watched TV show to let you know that my voice is being down-right suffocated. I basically can’t talk to anyone. Which is why I’m talking to all of you.

And now I’m here, in this widely-read media outlet, to say that there is a giant piece of tape over my mouth and, more importantly, the mouth of America. I have the eyes and ears of the world on me, and I am just totally and entirely gagged.

There’s no avoiding it: I am being silenced. We’re all being silenced. And it’s all any of us can talk about.

The truth is, you can’t say anything anymore without someone else saying something about what you just said. And that’s censorship. There’s no two ways about it.

I weep for this country, where the media completely cancels anyone with a different point of view, like the one I’m expressing in this highly popular newspaper.

So, what can we do about it? How do we make our voices heard when all we can do is write opinion pieces in major magazines, do interviews on popular TV shows and speak on the floor of the US Senate? Well, as you can see, we’re in a tight, quiet spot.

But I’m not ready to give up — not yet! The media elite can do their best to silence me by letting me write and speak anywhere I want, but I won’t stop saying exactly what I believe to everyone, everywhere, through every means of communication that exists.

And what I believe (the thing nobody will let me tell you) is this: I’m being censored, and you can read, hear, and see me talk more about it in the news, on the radio, and on TV."



#2
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
Did he say the nono words yet?
#3
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle
social media is more powerful than anything in newspapers, social media dictates elections, and that is where the censoring is taking place
Topic's author
#4
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yes the millions and millions  of conservatives (some with massive followings) whining incessantly all over social media are proof they are being censored. 

You can hear all about how they are being censored along with their other views... on their social media accounts. That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. 




#5
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle

this is a calculated attack on conservatives, there is no other way to put it

On Election Day in 2018, the “Go Vote” reminder Google displayed on its homepage gave one political party between 800,000 and 4.6 million more votes than itgave the other party. Those numbers might seem impossible, but I published myanalysis in January 2019 (https://is.gd/WCdslm) (Epstein, 2019a), and it is quiteconservative. Google’s data analysts presumably performed the same calculationsI did before the company decided to post its prompt. In other words, Google’s “GoVote” prompt was not a public service; it was a vote manipulation.3. In the weeks leading up to the 2018 election, bias in Google’s search results mayhave shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes to the candidates of one political party(spread across hundreds of local and regional races). This number is based on datacaptured by my 2018 monitoring system, which preserved more than 47,000election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly400,000 web pages to which the search results linked. Strong political bias towardone party was evident, once again, in Google searches (Epstein & Williams, 2019).4. My recent research demonstrates that Google’s “autocomplete” search suggestionscan turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split without people'sawareness (http://bit.ly/2EcYnYI) (Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, 2018). A growingbody of evidence suggests that Google is manipulating people’s thinking andbehavior from the very first character people type into the search box.5. Google has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of thenational elections worldwide since at least 2015. This is because many races arevery close and because Google’s persuasive technologies are very powerful
from the link

#6
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Danielle
There is an inherent leftist bias with sites such as Twitter. I despise Twitter, not because of their blatant lying, but the Twitter community itself is so shit.
#7
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,303
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Vader
There is an inherent leftist bias with sites such as Twitter. I despise Twitter, not because of their blatant lying, but the Twitter community itself is so shit.
Not mention pretty low iq
#8
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Twitter is dogshit for everything. The anime community on twitter is toxic, the kpop stan community, mcyt stans, memers trying to be edgy, and wokists leftists. Twitter is so toxic and plays into every NEGATIVE stereotype about a community
#9
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
--> @Danielle

this is a calculated attack on conservatives, there is no other way to put it

On Election Day in 2018, the “Go Vote” reminder Google displayed on its homepage gave one political party between 800,000 and 4.6 million more votes than itgave the other party. Those numbers might seem impossible, but I published myanalysis in January 2019 (https://is.gd/WCdslm) (Epstein, 2019a), and it is quiteconservative. Google’s data analysts presumably performed the same calculationsI did before the company decided to post its prompt. In other words, Google’s “GoVote” prompt was not a public service; it was a vote manipulation.3. In the weeks leading up to the 2018 election, bias in Google’s search results mayhave shifted upwards of 78.2 million votes to the candidates of one political party(spread across hundreds of local and regional races). This number is based on datacaptured by my 2018 monitoring system, which preserved more than 47,000election-related searches on Google, Bing, and Yahoo, along with the nearly400,000 web pages to which the search results linked. Strong political bias towardone party was evident, once again, in Google searches (Epstein & Williams, 2019).4. My recent research demonstrates that Google’s “autocomplete” search suggestionscan turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split without people'sawareness (http://bit.ly/2EcYnYI) (Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, 2018). A growingbody of evidence suggests that Google is manipulating people’s thinking andbehavior from the very first character people type into the search box.5. Google has likely been determining the outcomes of upwards of 25 percent of thenational elections worldwide since at least 2015. This is because many races arevery close and because Google’s persuasive technologies are very powerful
from the link


Fact-Checking Trump’s Claim That Google ‘Manipulated’ Millions of Votes for Clinton

This lacks evidence.

Mr. Trump lost the popular vote by almost 2.9 million in the 2016 election and has long attributed this loss to baseless claims of voter fraud. Now Mr. Trump suggests that he would have lost the popular vote by a much smaller margin, or even won it, were it not for Google’s machinations.

He appears to be referring to a disputed estimate given by Robert Epstein, a psychologist and former editor in chief at Psychology Today who says he supported and voted for Hillary Clinton.

In a 2017 white paper, Mr. Epstein examined how Google Search might have influenced undecided voters in the 2016 election by providing more positive results for one candidate than the other. He estimated that the search results may have swayed “at least 2.6 million votes to Clinton.” When he testified to Congress this summer, Mr. Epstein added that the estimate was a “rock bottom minimum” and that up to 10.4 million votes could have been shifted to Mrs. Clinton.

In an interview, Mr. Epstein took issue with Mr. Trump’s characterization of his work.

“I’ve never said Google manipulated the 2016 elections,” he said. “The range of numbers he listed in the tweet is also incorrect.”

Panagiotis Metaxas, a computer science professor at Wellesley College, emphasized that the white paper showed a possibility — “what such an influence could have been if Google was manipulating its electoral search results” — not a conclusive fact.

“I and other researchers who have been auditing search results for years know that this did not happen,” Mr. Metaxas said. “I think that, in his congressional hearing, Dr. Epstein is misrepresenting the situation.”

He noted that Google does “sanitize” its search results, prioritizing more trusted sources while devaluing low-quality information sources.

Here’s a more detailed explanation of how Google Search works.)

The white paper also came with huge caveats. First, it was not peer-reviewed or rigorously evaluated by other researchers.

It was based on the daily online searches of just 95 participants, 21 of whom were self-described undecided voters — a small sample size to extrapolate to millions of voters, experts said. (Mr. Epstein says that the statistical significance of his findings was high.)

Their election-related search results were then given to another group of people who evaluated whether the results were biased toward Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton, and concluded that most favored Mrs. Clinton. Searches conducted on other websites like Yahoo and Bing did not display the same bias, according to the paper.

Then, Mr. Epstein applied his previous research demonstrating that biased search results could shift voting preferences by 20 percent or more to reach his baseline estimate of 2.6 million people affected.

But it takes “a leap of faith” to connect Mr. Epstein’s experimental results to actual election outcomes, said Nicholas Diakopoulos, an assistant professor in communication studies at Northwestern University.

(Mr. Diakopoulos’s own research does show that Google Search results favor Democrats.)

“There’s a substantial shift in context, and a difference in asking someone in an experiment about likely voting behavior and how they might actually act during an election,” Mr. Diakopoulos said.

A more meticulous scientific analysis measuring the impact of Google Search on election outcomes could, for example, take into account voter history or other sources of election information.

Given the difficulties in disaggregating the impact of Google and the paper’s lack of methodological detail, Mr. Diakopoulos said, “I am skeptical of the validity of the estimates.”



Topic's author
#10
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Vader
Twitter is toxic - it sucks - and that's why I can't shut the fuck up about how it's unfair that I can't use it!

I can't stop bitching on twitter about how I'm being silenced on twitter. It's insane. Please send help. 
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Vader

--> @Danielle
There is an inherent leftist bias with sites such as Twitter. I despise Twitter, not because of their blatant lying, but the Twitter community itself is so shit.
The Left has more influence on Twitter than the Right but that bias is not "inherent."  After all, Trump's entire political career was built upon the keystone of Twitter. 

No, the fact is that the set of [people who are convinced to buy something because they saw it on Twitter] trends overwhelmingly female and strongly minority.  Twitter makes more money from the Left than from the RIght.  If the Right wants Twitter to do a better job of reflecting their values, then they have to buy their bullets and bear sprays from advertisers on Twitter rather than simply using it to coordinate the assassination of vice presidents, which profits Twitter not at all.
#12
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
(i heart McSweeney's)
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Not mention pretty low iq

You should get that Fact-Checked, preferably by a licensed Marxist.
#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Let me do an instant replay on the fakery...

“It’s time to stand up against the muzzling of America.” — Senator Josh Hawley in a tweet and  op-ed for the New York Post

Danielle's first comment -  I’m being censored.
Danielle's second comment - *I am being absolutely and completely muzzled.
See the slick morph?

So now all she has to do is show Senator on ONE news show to "prove" he isn't being "absolutely and completely muzzled". Though being "absolutely and completely muzzled" is her own lie hoisted onto Senator Hawley. Slick no?

But ask yourselves, if Danielle's argument is true, why the need for dishonest trickery?

*Fact-Checked by a licensed Marxist.
#15
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Danielle
Wokists are flooding over the platform, so they are going to pamper to the left. Simple Economics that I have no issue with. People can be fucking stupid and companies will milk that (eg: Banning Trump). But to imply Twitter is not a biased site is simply illogical. Their small manuerism with censorship of DJT, but refusal to take down criminal tweets besides a fuzzy definition of DJT's in herently showing a bias. If Twitter were to censor people complain, there would be a lawsuit
#16
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@oromagi
You've admitted that left is ultimately dominant, but doesn't that mean the corporation will cater to those people more, thus causing an inherent bias to occur

I also think Conservatives need to use social media more to boost their platform, one thing about Trump is that he used Twitter effectively
#17
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
America is the only nation on the entire planet, in the history of nations and societies that ever did exist, where it is considered an 'inherent right' to speak and communicate the highest degree of vitriol and bullshit. Many Americans would go so far as to say that the most important right is the right to spread lies and incite hatred within the people, that very inevitably but technically indirectly leads to violence via hate crimes and other things such as stampeding into the White House and breaking Nancy Pelosi's name-board out of a combination of sexism (notice how they hate all female politicians) and sheer hypocritical arrogance (if the left wing did that to a right-wing politician's name-board, they'd be up in literal arms). 

In all nations other than America, the right to chat shit and spread abusive messages is never held above the safety of the people and serenity of national peace/harmony. The US is the only nation that has this utter nonsense engraved in its constitution as an irrevokable and unbreakable 'right' ranked above the safety and serenity of the people. 
#18
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
America is the only nation on the entire planet, in the history of nations and societies that ever did exist, where it is considered an 'inherent right' to speak and communicate the highest degree of vitriol and bullshit. Many Americans would go so far as to say that the most important right is the right to spread lies and incite hatred within the people, that very inevitably but technically indirectly leads to violence via hate crimes and other things such as stampeding into the White House and breaking Nancy Pelosi's name-board out of a combination of sexism (notice how they hate all female politicians) and sheer hypocritical arrogance (if the left wing did that to a right-wing politician's name-board, they'd be up in literal arms). 

In all nations other than America, the right to chat shit and spread abusive messages is never held above the safety of the people and serenity of national peace/harmony. The US is the only nation that has this utter nonsense engraved in its constitution as an irrevokable and unbreakable 'right' ranked above the safety and serenity of the people. 
   :  )
#19
Conway
Conway's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 278
1
2
5
Conway's avatar
Conway
1
2
5
-->
@RationalMadman

1st Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The only right expressly mentioned in the first amendment is the natural right to peaceably assemble, and stemming from that a legal guarantee for those with the means to petition government.  It does not allude to the idea that all speech is in accordance with truth. 
#20
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Conway
or abridging the freedom of speech
this is a standalone point that is left vague and is indeed what most far-right interpret to be their freedom to spread hatred.
Topic's author
#21
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Vader

Your point doesn't make any sense because twitter makes a fuck ton of money off conservatives and their participation on the site. It is not in their monetary interest to alienate people but rather to keep as many people engaged on the site for as long as possible, and that is exactly what their algorithms are designed to do. Trump was one of THE most popular people on the site and there are still conservatives with huge followings all over the site. How many times do people have to disprove your point before you will concede? 

Liberals aren't screaming at twitter to kick conservatives off the site (and if they are, they would be ignored). They are yelling to take down threats of violence or outright lies and conspiracy theories that are permeating society and causing people to have meltdowns over falsehoods that have proven to be threatening democracy. People do not believe the results of the election are valid and are willing to violently react to that widespread conspiracy being shared on social sites. That's what's getting taken down  - the conspiracy theories and threats of violence - not conservative positions of lower taxes, pro guns, Jesus nonsense, removal of social programs, etc. None of that conservative stuff is being taken down en masse (i.e. not a one off mistake). Imagine that. 

I have been penalized on Instagram and Facebook for insults; my account has been suspended. The bias and double standard you speak of is minimal. You have no response to the OP which laughably obliterates Josh Hawley's embarrassingly stupid position about being "muzzled." It is beyond asinine and pathetic for conservatives to whine incessantly about how "muzzled" they are all over social media. Stop amplifying this monumentally idiotic position. You can't defend it beyond repeating the points everyone keeps dismantling. You should have debated warren about it so he could have defeated them in real time. I'm only pushing you on it because I like you as a person and don't want you to come off dim or be manipulated by low information and gullible right wingers who like to scream about how oppressed they are (more irony). 
#22
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@oromagi
I'm sorry, I don't understand anything about that fact check. It says it lacks evidence but then says at the end that the search engine favors google

This is the problem with the "fact-checkers", they take a claim that is true and spin it into something else that makes it false or "lacking evidence"

its all a claculated effort
#23
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle
are you saying that tech companies dont discriminate against conservatives, that is the biggest lie out there
Topic's author
#24
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you have evidence of conservatives being discriminated against,  please show me or don't bother tagging me. 
#25
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5

This guy got demonetized for this video LOL!
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle

Feel free to ignore this evidence from a fellow skeptic from an unequal State since you are probably overloaded on all that natural curiosity.
#27
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle
I already gave evidence
Topic's author
#28
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Okay, please link me to it then. 
#29
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,698
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Danielle
nah
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,255
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Vader
How do you feel about Gina Carano being cancelled for complaining about people being cancelled?