[cycomanic]

> The difference is also that, per the data that was linked in the thread, the Democrats had orders of magnitude more requests sent and honored than Republicans, because the former had more contacts at Twitter that were willing to take those requests.

Hold on the second does not follow from the first. They might have send more request because they had a more savy social media team, they might have send more request because much more ToS violating content was posted about Biden.

If there is a massive difference in percentages of honored requests that could _maybe_ indicate bias (but that's still a bi maybe).

[cozos]

You're right, all of those things could be true. 98.47% of Twitter contributions to Dems, nothing to see here, move along.

https://mobile.twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/159882999626439065...

[shagie]

It is important to read that table correctly.

It does not say "98.47% of Twitter donated to Dems".

Rather it says: "Of the $968,749 contributions made by employees of Twitter, 98.47% of those contributions went to Dems."

It says nothing about the number of people making those donations and thus nothing about the percent of the employees that made those contributions.

(edit)

It is also fun to extend that table to 2016 and before:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/twitter/totals?id=D00006711...

    Contributions by Party of Recipient
    Cycle   Total       Democrats    % to Dems  Republicans % to Repubs
    2022    $185,267    $165,969     99.73%     $451            0.27%
    2020    $968,749    $909,431     98.47%     $14,137         1.53%
    2018    $309,394    $295,722     96.38%     $11,100         3.62%
    2016    $858,596    $589,301     69.07%     $263,945        30.93%
    2014    $41,300     $23,300      88.59%     $3,000          11.41%
    2012    $35,529     $34,279      99.28%     $250            0.72%
    2008    $3,000      $3,000       100.00%    $0              0.00%

[cozos]

Uh-uh. 98.47% of $$ went to Dems in 2020. But _obviously_ magnitude of dollars has nothing to do with number of people, influence, or power. Or rather, you're saying, there's no way to know, so we should just move along right?

[shagie]

Hypothetically, if Acme had 100 people and one person donated $100 to a Democrat while another person donated $1 to a Republican would it be correct to say that 99% of Acme donated to Democratic causes?

If not, would you please restate "98.47% of Twitter contributions to Dems" to be more representative of what the numbers say.

[cozos]

"98.47% of Twitter contributions" is a totally valid statement. The percentage of the dollars contributed is 98.47%.

Your argument is totally dishonest. It's infuriating. What are you saying? That because it's possible 14,137 Twitter employees donated $1 each to the republicans and 1 person donated the other 900K, we can ignore this 98.47% figure entirely?

Second of all, the dollar measurement is not a useless one. It is a measure of wealth, influence, and conviction in the cause. Those Republicans donating $1 probably aren't in charge of censorship. The guy who donated $900K though...

Third, this is Twitter we're talking about. They are headquartered in San Francisco, a very blue city in a very blue state. Their employees are young educated techies. I have friends who work there and have visited their office several times.

Point is, you're not fooling anybody but yourself. Enjoy your motivated reasoning.