Official Twitter Ruling: Saying That Dana Loesch's Children Must be Murdered to "Make Her Understand" Does Not Violate Twitter's Rules Apparently this doesn�t violate @TwitterSupport TOS. I know several conservatives who have been suspended for far less. cc @jack pic.twitter.com/xwKVFxtx8x — Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) August 27, 2018



Click on the first image to see what seems to be a call for Dana Loesch's children to be murdered. Click on the second to see Twitter claim this doesn't violate Twitter's standards of behavior. For progressives, that is. Click on the first image to see what seems to be a call for Dana Loesch's children to be murdered. Click on the second to see Twitter claim this doesn't violate Twitter's standards of behavior. For progressives, that is. Jazz Shaw writes about it here. Also apparently not a violation: the "literally hundreds" of progressives, as Twitchy reports, repeatedly calling Dana Loesch Also apparently not a violation: the "literally hundreds" of progressives, as Twitchy reports, repeatedly calling Dana Loesch a "c*nt." Meanwhile, Facebook censored articles by Salena Zito and another conservative writer as Meanwhile, Facebook censored articles by Salena Zito and another conservative writer as "spam." Twitter and FaceBook are publishers, not platforms, and should be legally responsible for anything users say on it, just as every other publisher is. Twitter and FaceBook are publishers, not platforms, and should be legally responsible for anything users say on it, just as every other publisher is. And it's time for Congress and courts to recognize that fact, and let the lawsuits flow. And it's time for Congress and courts to recognize that fact, and let the lawsuits flow. Oh, and Google has set up its "algorithms" -- I put that in quotes because they say "algorithms" as if these are neutral mathematical protocols, when in fact biased human beings tweak them to achieve the results they want -- Oh, and Google has set up its "algorithms" -- I put that in quotes because they say "algorithms" as if these are neutral mathematical protocols, when in fact biased human beings tweak them to achieve the results they want -- to deliver liberal media results nigh-exclusively for searches for "Trump." 96% -- ninety-six percent -- of all searches for Trump return liberal media articles. Conservatives and Trump supporters have for the last several years questioned whether Google was deprioritizing conservative news sites, hiding them from users who utilize their search engine. Google has maintained that all outlets are treated fairly, but nevertheless, conservative sites have reported reduced search traffic and, in the case of Google-owned YouTube, content creators have been banned and demonetized. Google's high-profile firing of conservative James Damore, purportedly over his conservative political views, only reinforces the idea that Google is picking winners and losers. To test the premise, I performed a Google search for "Trump" using the search engine's "News" tab and analyzed the results using Sharyl Attkisson's media bias chart. [Omitted; it just shows media organizations in their expected left-to-right positionings.]

I expected to see some skewing of the results based on my extensive experience with Google, but I was not prepared for the blatant prioritization of left-leaning and anti-Trump media outlets. Looking at the first page of search results, I discovered that CNN was the big winner, scoring two of the first ten results. Other left-leaning sites that appeared on the first page were CBS, The Atlantic, CNBC, The New Yorker, Politico, Reuters, and USA Today (the last two outlets on this list could arguably be considered more centrist than the others). Not a single right-leaning site appeared on the first page of search results. But it got much, much worse when I analyzed the first 100 items that Google returned in a search for news on "Trump." CNN, by a wide margin, appeared most frequently, with nearly twice as many results returned as the second-place finisher, The Washington Post. Other left-leaning outlets also fared well, including NBC, CNBC, The Atlantic, and Politico. The only right-leaning sites to appear in the top 100 were The Wall Street Journal and Fox News with 3 and 2 results respectively. By the way, has anyone tried finding FoxNews in Google searches? I prefer linking conservative outlets for news stories, but I have to specify "site:FoxNews.com" because Google usually does not list FoxNews hits -- or at least not until the second page or so. By the way, has anyone tried finding FoxNews in Google searches? I prefer linking conservative outlets for news stories, but I have to specify "site:FoxNews.com" because Google usually does not list FoxNews hits -- or at least not until the second page or so. In the meantime, "conservative" politicians and "conservative" lobbying groups and think-tanks will continue helping social media giants censor conservatives, because they're paid to do just that, and they do love their money.

In the meantime, "conservative" politicians and "conservative" lobbying groups and think-tanks will continue helping social media giants censor conservatives, because they're paid to do just that, and they do love their money. Posted by: Ace of Spades at 02:56 PM











MuNuvians MeeNuvians Polls! Polls! Polls! Frequently Asked Questions The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick Top Top Tens Greatest Hitjobs News/Chat