[driverdan]

> Tech monoliths like facebook, google, and twitter are starting to show very obvious political biases.

How is this policy political bias? If one political group makes more calls to violence or for discrimination than another perhaps the problem is with the group, not Twitter.

[creaghpatr]

Because political advocacy groups consult Twitter on what constitutes violations: https://about.twitter.com/en_us/safety/safety-partners.html

[sdinsn]

If not political advocacy groups, who would be a better consultant choice? Isn't the entire purpose of advocacy groups to encourage the safety of certain groups?

[mc32]

I think an apolitical philosophical framework would be better than _biased_ (however good their intentions) groups who have the mostly the well being of their interest group in mind. An advocacy group isn't a group which will take a balanced approach. Naturally, if they are advocates, they would represent their position _fully_ and uncompromised.

An apolitical (not advocating anything outside a framework) would be better and more neutral way to manage these differing opinions.

[sdinsn]

I disagree. Society is highly political, so why should Twitter be "apolitical" with their moderation? (if such a thing is even possible. I doubt the feasibility of apolitical moderation in general)

[anigbrowl]

Unicorn and Chimera, or the pursuit of virtue through sundry remarkable demesnes

[TheHypnotist]

Which specifically do you have a problem with?

[djrogers]

Nobody is saying this policy is political bias. The problem is with who gets to define things like discrimination.

As an example, there are those who believe any form of border security, or any enforcement of existing immigration law is discrimination and immoral. Which side defines the terms used is absolutely a form of bias.