[tonguez]

Actually the opposite is true here; if you talk about certain data which is considered "bad", like crime statistics, your post will be shadowbanned because it's considered wrongthink (or as you might put it, "straight up racism"), just like Twitter.

[mrtranscendence]

> if you talk about certain data which is considered "bad", like crime statistics, your post will be shadowbanned

Utter nonsense. Seriously. This is pure claptrap. I've seen so many instances where posters here have brought up "crime statistics" in the context of race or claimed that left-leaning cities are unlivable crime-ridden hellholes, and none where such posts were "shadowbanned".

[zozbot234]

> claimed that left-leaning cities are unlivable crime-ridden hellholes

Now I'm wondering, does SF count as a "left-leaning city"? Sure, it's a single datapoint but still.

[TheCoelacanth]

Arguably, but I think it's the claim that SF is an "unlivable crime-ridden hellhole" that they would take issue with.

[antifa]

In the context of those conversations, there's a lot of implied "therefore you should vote republican", if it's not out right stated.

[rfrey]

I challenge you to show me a case where mere presentation of statistics led to a ban, shadow or otherwise.

More likely the "raising of a statistic" was accompanied by a first-order explanation of the number that, besides being trite and lazy, was also "blatantly racist". But it wasn't the statistic that did the job.