[otterley]

Twitter itself is open to conservative views. It’s just not open to outright lies about factual matters of critical importance, or to incitements to violence or the overthrow of the state. Surely one can express conservative opinions without resorting to such things—and most do.

[masterphilo]

I agree, but conservatives have been complaining about the phenomenon of shadow-banning on the platform for years, and this was pretty much confirmed after the Twitter hack last year. To allow conservative views but reduce their visibility is just a more subtle form of censorship, reflecting a left-leaning bias. I don't think Twitter or Facebook would even bother denying any of this at this point.

[otterley]

> shadow-banning ... this was pretty much confirmed after the Twitter hack last year

Citation? Also, Twitter says otherwise: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...

To have the technological capability to do something does not necessarily imply that it is being used for the wrong reasons. Without proof, all there is is speculation.

> To allow conservative views but reduce their visibility is just a more subtle form of censorship

You're moving the goalposts. I was referring to allowing speech - you're talking about amplifying it. There is a huge difference between tolerance and amplification, and nobody should expect Twitter or any other media you don't own to amplify what you say for free. If you want people to follow you, say interesting things and influence people (but don't cross the line of inciting violence or calling on people to overthrow the government).

How the hell did we get from "this platform should allow me to post what I want" to "this platform should broadcast what [person X] says with equal volumetric distribution to non-subscribers as it does [person Y]?"