Is Twitter Communist?

[Stevicus]

Twitter engineer says 'Commie' staff 'censors the right' (nypost.com)

I wasn't quite sure what to make of this. It seems clear that Twitter is capitalist, not communist, yet this guy is railing on about how "communist" it is. When it's capitalist vs. capitalist, then it's right-wing vs. right-wing.

A senior Twitter engineer has been secretly recorded admitting that the social media giant is “censoring the right” — and that he and his co-workers are “Commie as f–k.”

“Twitter does not believe in free speech,” Siru Murugesan said in a series of hidden-camera clips released late Monday by Project Veritas.

“Elon [Musk] believes in free speech,” added Murugesan, who claimed that many of his colleagues “hate” what might happen if the Tesla founder’s on-hold $44 billion takeover goes through.

“Some of my colleagues are like super left, left, left, left, left,” said the engineer, adding that many have threatened to quit if Musk takes over and enforces his free-speech model.

“Our jobs are at stake — he’s a capitalist, and we weren’t really operating as capitalists, more like very socialist,” Murugesan said. “We’re all like Commie as f–k.”

“‘I think it’s just like the environment, like you’re there and you become like this Commie — they call it ‘Commifornia,'” he said of staffers’ nickname for woke California.

"Commifornia"?

Murugesan was also filmed admitting that the company’s left-wing slant directly affects content on the site.

“I don’t know [if] the two parties can truly co-exist on one platform,” he suggested.

According to Murugesan, right-wingers are more likely to tolerate abusive messages while those on the left will simply refuse and quit the site.

“We’re actually censoring the right, and not the left,” the engineer was recorded saying, later adding: “It’s true. There is bias. It is what it is today.”

Murugesan went on to say that while conservative voices were returning to the site en masse in light of Musk’s intended takeover, staffers have been “stress eating” and “worried for our jobs” after a prolonged period where “essentially everyone gets to do whatever they want.”

“If you’re not feeling it, you can take a few days off,” he was recorded saying. “People have taken months off.”

“I basically went to work like four hours a week last quarter,” he added. “And it’s just how it works in our company.”

Twitter did not immediately respond to messages from The Post requesting comment on Tuesday. Project Veritas also said the site had yet to respond to its requests for comment.

Thoughts?

 

[Estro Felino]

As far as I know, Twitter tends to censor all the messages and tweets on the basis of very arbitrary criteria.
Meaning, that if I say "illegal immigration is wrong", it can be considered "hate speech", even if the word "illegal" by definition is something that is against the law, and I guess Twitter should side with the law.

 

[Father Heathen]

Twitter is a capitalist corporation whose goals are profit.

Usually whenever the term "communist" or "socialist" is tossed around, it's usually by imbeciles who have no real understanding of the actual definitions and simply use the terms to refer to anything conservatives don't like or understand.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As far as I know, Twitter tends to censor all the messages and tweets on the basis of very arbitrary criteria.
Meaning, that if I say "illegal immigration is wrong", it can be considered "hate speech", even if the word "illegal" by definition is something that is against the law, and I guess Twitter should side with the law.

Free speech doesn't apply on Twitter. It is privately owned.

 

[Father Heathen]

As far as I know, Twitter tends to censor all the messages and tweets on the basis of very arbitrary criteria.
Meaning, that if I say "illegal immigration is wrong", it can be considered "hate speech", even if the word "illegal" by definition is something that is against the law, and I guess Twitter should side with the law.

Any actual examples of this?

 

[Father Heathen]

Free speech doesn't apply on Twitter. It is privately owned.

I wonder if conservatives would support Twitter's censorship if tweets were printed onto cakes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Any actual examples of this?

It doesn't matter. Twitter is not free speech as such. They can have any arbitrary standard with the law as long as they can make money with it.

 

[Estro Felino]

Any actual examples of this?

Well...there have been examples, of course. Of Italian journalists on Twitter.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well...there have been examples, of course. Of Italian journalists on Twitter.

Then boycott it. That is how the free market works.

 

[Revoltingest]

T
Thoughts?

We should recognize a distinction between "commie"
& "communist". The former is informal, often jocular.
It can refer to things more in the spirit of communism,
eg, censoring opposition, authoritarianism, & genreal
liberal lunacy.

 

[Father Heathen]

It doesn't matter. Twitter is not free speech as such. They can have any arbitrary standard with the law as long as they can make money with it.

Of course.They're a business, not the government. They're not obligated to provide an unrestricted platform. They're well within reason to inact and enforce user policies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We should recognize a distinction between "commie"
& "communist". The former is informal, often jocular.
It can refer to things more in the spirit of communism,
eg, censoring opposition, authoritarianism, & genreal
liberal lunacy.

But that is not the case here since it is a private company, where there is no free speech. It is a capitalistic case of control, not socialistic.

 

[Stevicus]

It doesn't matter. Twitter is not free speech as such. They can have any arbitrary standard with the law as long as they can make money with it.

Perhaps, although one might wonder how much money they could save if they didn't employ so many people to moderate content. If it's all about profit, then it seems they're cutting into their own profit margin for political reasons.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps, although one might wonder how much money they could save if they didn't employ so many people to moderate content. If it's all about profit, then it seems they're cutting into their own profit margin for political reasons.

No, most people want as safe space and that involves "suppressing" some speech. As long as you let the majority go free, it can pay to "censor".

 

[Stevicus]

We should recognize a distinction between "commie"
& "communist". The former is informal, often jocular.
It can refer to things more in the spirit of communism,
eg, censoring opposition, authoritarianism, & genreal
liberal lunacy.

In that case, then "monarchist" might be the more appropriate term to use. "Commie" is generally used as a way of pejoratively labeling left-wing dissidents who are outside of the power structure. Twitter is a part of the power structure, so they can't possibly be considered "communist" or even "commie."

No self-respecting commie would embrace liberal bourgeois politics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I appreciate honesty.
The guy of the video is very honest. He acknowledged that
1) the rightists will tolerate leftists' tweets
2) the leftists won't tolerate leftist' tweets
3) in his opinion, leftist tweets and rightist tweets cannot coexist on the same platform

I appreciate honest people.

He is acknowledging rightists are the tolerant ones.

Well, some rightists. Other are authoritarian scumbags. But you can also find that elsewhere and not even in a standard political sense for just right or left.

 

[Father Heathen]

We should recognize a distinction between "commie"
& "communist". The former is informal, often jocular.
It can refer to things more in the spirit of communism,
eg, censoring opposition, authoritarianism, & genreal
liberal lunacy.

Let's say you owned a business and had an employee who was screaming racial and homophobic slurs at your customers. Would you fire him or keep employing him out of respect for free speech?

 

[Father Heathen]

I appreciate honesty.
The guy of the video is very honest. He acknowledged that
1) the rightists will tolerate leftists' tweets
2) the leftists won't tolerate leftist' tweets
3) in his opinion, leftist tweets and rightist tweets cannot coexist on the same platform

I appreciate honest people.

He is acknowledging rightists are the tolerant ones.

What about gay marriage cakes?

 

[Stevicus]

No, most people want as safe space and that involves "suppressing" some speech. As long as you let the majority go free, it can pay to "censor".

Most people want a safe space? There may be a few, but I don't think it's really that many overall. People gotta toughen up and grow some skin and realize that there is no safe space.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well, some rightists. Other are authoritarian scumbags. But you can also find that elsewhere and not even in a standard political sense for just right or left.

In Europe I have never heard of rightist politicians wanting to censor social media. Have you?