[Consultant32452]

I'm okay with imperfect moderation. What I'm not okay with is backdoor untracked political contributions under the guise of imperfect moderation. It feels, to me, that Twitter and Google have given Billions of dollars worth of political censorship/promotion/search bias. Let's get the FEC involved so we can measure and track this political spending.

[thomaslord]

I'm curious... What dollar value would you place on Twitter contribution to the Trump campaign? They have long failed to enforce their terms of use against Trump's account despite him posting tweets that violate them, despite other accounts that posted the same text verbatim having the tweets removed and/or being banned from the platform.

I can't think of any high-profile liberal politicians who have such a blatant disregard for the rules of the platform, so that must be what you're referring to, right? Or is your contention that rules like "don't use our platform call for violence" are themselves political censorship targeted at conservatives?

[Consultant32452]

You might be interested in research by Robert Epstein which calculates how Google search rankings impact votes. He measured how many votes this changed and put some economic value on it.

Here's a quick interview between him and Larry King. His Congressional testimony is also really great, but it's over an hour long. You can find it on Youtube if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xS3uETvzZZ0

To put it simply, Google decides who wins every close election. If that's the future you want, where tech oligarchs and/or a rogue lower level employee controls entire elections across the globe, then that's the world you have today.

Trump's tweets are a red herring. I'm not a Trump supporter.

[kthxbye123]

This is absolute incoherent nonsense. Are TV networks that air press conferences giving 'untracked political contributions'? Is a network that chooses not to air a particular speech or event giving an 'untracked contribution' in the form of 'political censorship'?