Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 14, 2019

...Until now, conservatives have had to rely on anecdotes to make their case. To see whether there is an empirical basis for such claims, I decided to look into the issue of Twitter bias by putting together a database of prominent, politically active users who are known to have been temporarily or permanently suspended from the platform. My results make it difficult to take claims of political neutrality seriously. Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump.

I began my analysis by compiling a list of every prominent individual or political party known to have been banned from Twitter since its founding. As a proxy for prominence, I used the criterion of whether the ban was important enough to warrant coverage in mainstream news sources. With the help of two research assistants, I searched both conservative and liberal media sources.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It is what it is. The guy goes to great length to describe his methodologies and encourages fact-checking and provides a link to his supporting data.

The one Clinton supporter tweeted a phone number (doxed) which is a clear violation of Twitter rules.

#1 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 03:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"Twitter Bias Against Idiots is Real"

FTFY

#2 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2019-02-14 03:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6


That there are more conservatives abusing Twitter's policies does not mean Twitter is biased against conservatives.

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-02-14 04:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lamp,

Did you read the embedded article?

The ratio the author found was 22:1 prominent Trump supporters vs prominent Clinton supporters.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 04:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


@#4

Yes I did read it.

His sampling methodology is flawed.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-02-14 04:48 PM | Reply

Thy Name is SNOWFLAKE

#6 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2019-02-14 05:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Got news for you pal!

Your policies dictate that bias will be manifested against you in a lot of different venues.

You not wanting to be held accountable is standard gop irresponsibility.

#7 | Posted by fresno500 at 2019-02-14 05:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Twitter is getting a bit silly. You can get banned for just posting #Learn2Code.

#8 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2019-02-14 05:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

if twitter was so biased against conservatives, they would moderate or ban trumps account.

he has literally violated the tos more than any human on earth.

#9 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2019-02-14 05:19 PM | Reply

"Conservatives" are such whiny betas.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-02-14 08:51 PM | Reply

What a bunch of snowflakes! Just like their Orange Fuhrer!

#11 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-14 09:00 PM | Reply

His sampling methodology is flawed.

#5 | POSTED BY LAMPLIGHTER

In reading his piece it was obvious that he was agonizing over how to make it as scientific as possible, which is impossible. 22-1 though. Even with a flawed methodology that one is kind of hard to completely shrug off.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 10:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1


@#12 ... In reading his piece it was obvious that he was agonizing over how to make it as scientific as possible ...

Good grief.. that just shows how far off base he is.

Sampling and polling theory is not an abstract area, it is quite deterministic at this point. [the debate of that is an entirely different thread One which I'd enjoy participating in. But it is too far off topic for this one.]

Another part of the cited article that caught my attention was the fact that he was looking for bias in Twitter. He stated that near the beginning of the article. He was looking for bias.

Well, guess what? Surprise, surprise, he found it.

You tend to find what you're lookin' for.

No one in the opinion/market research industry would ever say that they are looking for a certain result, and have [surprise] found it.

No One.

NO ONE.

NO ONE

That article is so bad on so many levels.

It's a hack job.

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-02-14 10:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Lamp,

Are you suggesting he started with a predetermined conclusion and worked the data backwards to achieve a desired result?

It happens. Again though - 22-1. Even with questionable methodology that is difficult to completely explain away.

#14 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-02-14 10:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#14 - It's obvious that's what he did.

Do you know that if you're a born-again Christian that believes the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years you will only see "evidence" that supports that belief and nothing but bias against The Truth - being perpetrated by Satan?

Hint: You can't argue with them, either.

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2019-02-14 11:01 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

(I really should read the article sometime rather than just smacking the low hanging fruit around adding no value and just making a mess...)

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2019-02-14 11:02 PM | Reply

Have normal people heard of any of these 22 "prominent, politically active individuals?"

Are they all Milo clones?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-02-14 11:04 PM | Reply

It doesn't surprise me ...

I never comment on twitter, but I do "like" ...

And I have been locked out .... until I supplied my phone number .. which verifies me ,but no blue check....

#18 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-02-14 11:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Do you know that if you're a born-again Christian that believes the Earth is 6,000-10,000...
#15 | POSTED BY YAV

My Japanese friend used to ---- those idiots by asking them whether or not he existed since his country's verbal history went back way further than 6000 years.

#19 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2019-02-14 11:48 PM | Reply


@#14 ... Are you suggesting he started with a predetermined conclusion and worked the data backwards to achieve a desired result? >>>

I am saying what I said. "Another part of the cited article that caught my attention was the fact that he was looking for bias in Twitter."

To wit, from the cited article:

...I decided to look into the issue of Twitter bias...


He didn't start looking into the issue of whether or not Twitter had bias. He had already concluded that there was a bias presen5.

So that left him with little remaining than to confirm what he was looking for.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-02-15 02:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This analysis proved that conservatives have a bias against Twitter's TOS.

#21 | Posted by bored at 2019-02-15 03:04 AM | Reply

Twitter Bias Against Conservatives is Real

From our resident "reasonable conservative".

LOL!

No, it isn't, Jeffy.

That you can't see the absolute horse manure in this joke of an article is not surprising.

#22 | Posted by Angrydad at 2019-02-15 08:10 AM | Reply

Truth and reality have a bias against conservatives.

#23 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-02-16 05:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I clicked on this thread to post #23.

It's not any sort of bias against conservatism. We all just think you are idiots.

#24 | Posted by MrSilenceDogood at 2019-02-16 08:42 AM | Reply

Neither my wife or I ever had an interest in joining the twits and I find there is more than enough daily strife on the Retort to 'fill my needs'. 😎

#25 | Posted by MSgt at 2019-02-16 05:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort