Project Veritas Exposes Twitter "Shadow Banning", Blocking Opposing Views

In the latest of a series of undercover operations targeting the mainstream media and now Social Media, James O'Keefe of Project Veritas has just dropped a new undercover video which reveals Twitter "shadow banning" and creating algorithms that censor certain ideas. 

The first clip features a former Twitter software engineer who explains how/why Twitter "shadow bans" certain users:

Abhinav Vadrevu"One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don't know they've been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content."

"So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don't know if Twitter does this anymore."

Meanwhile, Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:

“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

In the full video (see below) Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Nora explains that Twitter doesn't have an official written policy that targets conservative speech, but rather they were following "unwritten rules from the top":

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

Meanwhile, Pranay Singh reveals again just how creepy Twitter can be by digging into your profile and conversation history to determine whether or not you're a "redneck" and therefore worthy of being banned:

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”

When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

Twitter has been long accused of shadow banning and manipulating various metrics of user accounts. As Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars reported in August, 2016, Twitter was accused of suppressing tweets from then-candidate Trump in the home stretch of the US election, which some have construed as interfering: 

Twitter is provably censoring Donald Trump in order to prevent him raising money for his presidential campaign.

A tweet sent out by Trump yesterday to promote his #MillionDollarMatch donation drive does not appear on Trump’s profile page nor did it appear on the feed of anyone following him.

You can check for yourself. Here is the tweet sent out by Trump yesterday and here is his main profile page – which doesn’t show the tweet. The tweet has been buried as if it never existed.

 

 

Trump tweet in which he declared that “the establishment and special interests are absolutely killing our country” was also shadow banned by Twitter back in April.

While Twitter is censoring Trump, it has repeatedly been accused of gaming its algorithms in support of Hillary. Back in February, users were irate after the social media giant appeared to censor the anti-Hillary hashtag #WhichHillary after it started trending.

Then in October, 2016, Dilbert creator Scott Adams was "shadowbanned" by  Twitter, which he noted on his blog: 

This weekend I got “shadowbanned” on Twitter. It lasted until my followers noticed and protested. Shadowbanning prevents my followers from seeing my tweets and replies, but in a way that is not obvious until you do some digging.

Why did I get shadowbanned?

Beats me.

But it was probably because I asked people to tweet me examples of Clinton supporters being violent against peaceful Trump supporters in public. I got a lot of them. It was chilling.

Late last week my Twitter feed was invaded by an army of Clinton trolls (it’s a real thing) leaving sarcastic insults and not much else on my feed. There was an obvious similarity to them, meaning it was organized. 

At around the same time, a bottom-feeder at Slate wrote a hit piece on me that had nothing to do with anything. Except obviously it was politically motivated. It was so lame that I retweeted it myself. The timing of the hit piece might be a coincidence, but I stopped believing in coincidences this year.

And in March of 2017, Twitter was caught by Ed Dowd - a politically active former BlackRock money manager who noted in early February that Twitter was both "un-retweeting" several of his politically charged posts. 

In one instance, Dowd made a decidedly subversive tweet pointing out that the NSA and CIA are "wiretapping" the entire country via continuously archived data collection - a story which Wired magazine broke in 2006 and gained tremendous clarity through the acts of whistleblower Edward Snowden.

When Mr. Dowd checked his twitter feed hours after sending the tweet, he saw that it had accumulated 13 Retweets and 38 Likes. Given the subject matter, he decided to take a screenshot. Lo and behold, upon reloading the tweet five minutes later, Dowd discovered that 11 retweets had mysteriously vanished.

as

Another phenomenon Dowd noticed was that while he would gain followers throughout the day, there was a reliable "purge" of followers in the dead of night, all around the same time. He began keeping track, and though it wasn't happening every night, it penciled out to around half a percent of his followers each time it happened, effectively capping his audience. Ed had questions; why was it almost always the same number of people? Who un-follows someone in the middle of the night? Considering most of Dowd's followers are in North America, the un-followers were likely asleep when it was happening. The logical conclusion was that Twitter had been actively pruning Ed's audience to limit his growth on the platform. 

This isn't the first time Twitter has throttled, censored, or banned conservatives who speak their mind. Documentarian, author, and noted Trump supporter Mike Cernovich (@cernovich) tweeted about his own fan base evaporating around the same time as Dowd began experiencing the un-follows:

Of course, only time will tell if Twitter will take steps to ban political targeting in light of these new embarrassing revelations from Project Veritas...we have our doubts.

Comments

NoDebt Government nee… Thu, 01/11/2018 - 10:21 Permalink

There will be no bodies swinging from trees.  What is going to happen is... nothing.

I don't know why anybody would continue to think that proof makes any difference.  Trump's campaign clearly did not collude with the Russians- no proof has been found- yet half the country thinks it's been "proven" than he did.  Now we have proof that Twitter did all the creepy shit we always suspected they did and what's going to happen?  Again, NOTHING.

Worst I could see happening here is a Congressional hearing on this matter.  Some Twitter execs will get grilled with uncomfortable question, promises will be made to never do it again.  When they get back to their offices they'll get right back to doing it again, unphased.

 

In reply to by Government nee…

chunga Joe Davola Thu, 01/11/2018 - 10:48 Permalink

Not one damn thing. How about the weasel drudge, I don't think he had a single link to the Bundy verdict. We had one instance of a group saying NO to uncle sam and a bunch of guys thrown in jail for years released because of prosecutorial misconduct and not a peep.

These fed prosecutions have a success rate ~99% I believe.

In reply to by Joe Davola

Never One Roach chunga Thu, 01/11/2018 - 10:58 Permalink

I used to donate to my college when they asked for money. However, they have taken a different path then me when they removed statues from campus to pander to a small but vociferous violent minority group.

 

Now, I use that donation for Project Veritas and Judicial Watch. It's money well spent imo.

I told the college they can ask BLM, antifa and Soros for donations from now on.

I have not received a response from them.

That's odd.

In reply to by chunga

AAPL Slayer NoDebt Thu, 01/11/2018 - 11:59 Permalink

Already happened and congress critter asked why infowars tweet about imam warning pos ny gov of impending attacks hadn't been removed yet twtr exec said I seen it at lunch and its already been taken down,congress critter asked why it took so long need to be quicker from now on,it was on cspan that's the level of this,whether people like Alex or not shouldn't be happening

In reply to by NoDebt

Laowei Gweilo NoDebt Thu, 01/11/2018 - 13:24 Permalink

HRC trolls were a real thing on Youtube too

I have an YT account I sometimes use to play games on, and it's mostly irrelevant. Lots of super old videos from back in WoW or when the second-to-last GTA game was new, so about 10 years old stuff.

Late in the election, I posted a comment on some random politic video that was kinda (not really much) negative about HRC.

Few days later, I got banned from Youtube for THREE MONTHS for 'sexually suggestive content' for an old GTA video that showed a prostitute (apparently though it never actually shows) doing her job LOL (despite there, to this day, being hundreds of similar videos).

I'm pretty sure HRC trolls just went through my videos flagging everything from 'sexual content.' o.0

Reminds me of that quote from The Social Network, being anti-Liberal on Youtube or Twitter, 'whatever it is that's gonna trip you up, you've done already [...] and if somehow you've managed to live your life like a saint, they'll make shit up.'

In reply to by NoDebt