[refurb]

I'm not sure what you're arguing. You seem to have gone off on some wild tangent and started it with calling me "naive".

Let me break it down:

- Influence over Twitter policy is mostly through connections with politicians

- At least using donations as a metric, 97%+ of Twitter employees support the Democrats

- Hence, the Democrats overwhelmingly have more influence on Twitter policy

- Thus, when the Biden team expressed concern over a new article, the Twitter team was fast to censor the store on their platform.

Which is kind of the key point of the story?

I mean the banning of Trump while President kind of makes sense. There was nobody (or maybe 3% of employees) who who leaned Republican who could actually argue their point.

[DannyBee]

Oh boy.

Here: "- Hence, the Democrats overwhelmingly have more influence on Twitter policy"

No, this does not follow, even a little. The donations are to politicians, not from politicians.

So you seem to be trying to argue "because some of the employees donate to democrats, all employees therefore accept influence from democrats overwhelmingly". But this is not logical in any way, shape or form.

First, as pointed out numerous times, you don't know who the donations are from, and what population at twitter they represent. For all you know, the entire policy team is republican or whatever and didn't donate at all!

Using the small percent who did donate somewhere as a proxy smear of the entire population of twitter employees is beyond silly.

Second, you have established zero connection between donation and influence of the donatee, because none can exist.

If i donate to say the ACLU, it doesn't mean the ACLU has influence over me. It may (or may not!) mean we share some views, but that's not the same as them being able to influence me at all.

I donated a bunch to toys to toys for tots and the salvation army this season. By your argument, apparently they have a massive amount of influence on me through some unknown, unproven connection!

Yes, I think it is naive to believe otherwise, and that most of your argument is incredibly biased and naive, so i did call you naive for believing so.

Third, using donations of employees as a proxy metric for who has influence on employees is not backed up by any research, which i explicitly gave you, shows exactly the opposite of what you are claiming, and you just ignored.

"- Thus, when the Biden team expressed concern over a new article, the Twitter team was fast to censor the store on their platform."

Except the evidence shows when anyone expressed concern, they were fast to censor it.

It even says that!

So your whole point here, where it's about some twitter = democrat conspiracy, is nonsense.

[fzeroracer]

Given that you seem to be incorrect on the second part, the rest of your statement falls apart. You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of math, 97% of donations went to Democrats. Not 97% of employees donated to Democrats. If you can do basic napkin math, this means if you had one leader, manager or whatever be a particularly prolific donator they could crowd out the entire company in terms of donations. This has zero actual bearing on how much influence the company as a whole has, unless you want to argue that it's illegal for private individuals to ever donate to a political party under fear of biasing their company.

Though given that you've made this mistaken point multiple times now I don't think you actually care and are just pushing a narrative here.

[refurb]

I never said 97% of Twitter employees donated to the Democrats?

You sure it’s me pushing an agenda?

[fzeroracer]

> At least using donations as a metric, 97%+ of Twitter employees support the Democrats

This is a literal quote from the post I was just responding to.

[refurb]

Right, please highlight the statement in that quote that says “97% of Twitter employees donated to the Democrats”.

It doesn’t say that.